Posted on 12/08/2018 1:47:09 PM PST by jazusamo
Michael Avenatti, the attorney suing President Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen on behalf of adult film actress Stormy Daniels, pushed Saturday for federal prosecutors to break precedent by filing criminal charges against the president over related campaign finance law violations.
“.realDonaldTrump should be indicted for committing the two felonies designed to get him elected. Now. No court has ever ruled that the POTUS cannot be indicted and there is nothing in the constitution that states as much,” Mr. Avenatti wrote on Twitter.
Mr. Avenatti suggestion came on the heels of prosecutors in the Southern District of New York filing court documents Friday in the government’s case against Mr. Cohen, 52, implicating Mr. Trump in his former lawyer’s admitted campaign finance law violations.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
What fraud.
He came right out and stated what he was going to do.
He made no secret about it.
I honestly believe you’re correct, he ain’t playing with a full deck.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Worst case of Trump Derangement Syndrome ever.
There is nothing in the Constitution about “Presidential elections”, and there is no authority granted to Congress to regulate the ways State Legislatures choose to appoint electors.
It is legal to contribute an unlimited amount to your own campaign, as long as it is disclosed. (See examples like Sen. Elect Rick Scott, or Gov. Elect Pritzker in IL.) What you can’t do is contribute $ or services (in kind contributions) that are not disclosed. And if you are an individual contributor who is not the candidate, you have modest annual limits on how much you can contribute. If you are a corporation or a non-US citizen, you cannot contribute anything to a candidate’s campaign. in other words - shouldn’t Stormy Daniels have to report a contribution to Hillary ‘16?
I’m not sure how I feel about Trump’s possible culpability here. If and when necessary he can pattern a defense off the John Edwards prosecution. It worked for him.
What does bother me is the unequal application of the law. If, say there was a woman who had some affair with Trump 10 years earlier and never pursued a cause of action (for harassment, for defamation, etc.) stemming from the past behavior, and only chooses to raise the threat of doing so when he becomes a candidate - isn’t that threat in effect a contribution in-kind to the Clinton campaign? I mean, that is what they are leveraging, their ability to do damage to Trump, which is in a practical zero-sum game like the race between the two major party candidates, effectively a contribution to Clinton.
The article says he is suing Donald Trump. That lawsuit was denied by a judge and now Avenatti and Story have been ordered to pay Trumps legal fees.
I pine for the days when journalists would publish real honest news
As a lawyer you’d think he would know that just because you don’t like someone doesn’t mean you can get them arrested. Although as a self-aggrandizing attention whore I’m sure he realizes the value of sensational if baseless accusations...
These people are all pulling rabbits out of their hats trying to find the right narrative that they hope the American people will believe about Trump “stealing” the 2016 election.
Dont you mean why are reporters still listening to him?
Avanetti is breaking new legal ground here...
Paying off porn stars with your own money is now a felony....
Who knew...?
Avanetti is breaking new legal ground here...
Paying off porn stars with your own money is now a felony....
Who knew...?
Avanetti is breaking new legal ground here...
Paying off porn stars with your own money is now a felony....
Who knew...?
says the man who actually committed felonies about the guy who did nothing wrong
Coke makes you that way.
It is a giant stretch of the law to presume that money paid to keep an alleged affair from the public (and maybe one's spouse) is automatically a campaign expenditure. Campaign or not people pay money to keep other people quiet.
As one example, I'll bet that most if not all of the settlements that Congressmen and Senators made regarding allegations of sexual harassment include a confidentiality clause. And it seems highly likely that public disclosure of a Congressman or Senators sexual escapades would influence their next election under Mueller's theory. So when do all those Reps and Senators get indicted? They didn't use their own money, they used the taxpayers money on what Mueller and the media now insist is a campaign expense. Since when would that be legal?
If Trump's expenditure to keep Stormy Daniela silent was a campaign expenditure, then so were all the payments made by the government to settle claims of sexual harassment against Reps. and Senators.
Actually yes, what you said
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.