[mandaladon]

I have a feeling that in the end, all this is going to help Trump and backfire on his enemies...

[rstrahan]

President Trump woke up this morning, resulting in calls for his impeachment from Rep. Maxine Waters.

[1Old Pro]

could spark calls for impeachment hearings

Been there done that, has anyone heard of Maxine Waters?

[Alberta's Child]

And now the backpedaling begins. LOL.

[gattaca]

If Trump farted sideways that would be “grounds for impeachment.” They have cried wolf too many times.

[snarkytart]

it’s not as if he paid someone who he raped or assault. a consensual bj? it’s not as if people don’t know Trump and his past with women. He’s been in the public eye for decades.

[StoneRainbow68]

-—could spark calls for impeachment hearings-—

From who? Chuck Schumer?

I’m “sparking calls” for myself to win the Powerball. Since we’re doing stuff like that.

Never change, WaPo....

[NewJerseyJoe]

I found Cohen's choice of words very interesting. He didn't name Trump -- he said he did things "at the direction of a candidate for federal office."

If he (A) actually has something on Trump and (B) is out to "get" Trump ... why wouldn't he just name him?

I suspect there is something deeper going on here, some other actors who have not been named. There were lots of candidates running for various federal offices .... just sayin'...

[2ndDivisionVet]

Go ahead, poke that bear. Notice he’s not in a cage anymore?

[tennmountainman]

It’s not a campaign violation.
So why would this lead to impeachment?

[jeffc]

...he was directed by Trump to coordinate payments to two women designed to prevent them from disclosing alleged affairs with the real estate mogul before the presidential election, in violation of campaign finance law.

How is that against campaign finance law? Why didn't Cohen refuse, or at least inform Trump that it could be illegal (even though it isn't.)

If paying money for information, whether to be kept secret or used, is against the law, what about Clinton and the dossier?

[Ancesthntr]

“Michael Cohen...told a judge Tuesday that he was directed by Trump to coordinate payments to two women designed to prevent them from disclosing alleged affairs with the real estate mogul before the presidential election, in violation of campaign finance law.”

---

Uh, excuse me, but how is paying off someone to prevent a lawsuit or adverse publicity - when NO campaign funds were used in said payoff - a “violation of campaign finance law?” The answer is that it is NOT a violation of campaign finance law. If Trump had directed Cohen (who, BTW, was NOT even on the campaign staff) to use campaign funds, then we’d have a different situation. But Cohen paid for it out of his own funds, and Trump PERSONALLY (or through one of his corporations) paid Cohen back (plus, one would assume, a fee - unless he was simply on a retainer. IOW, no campaign funds were used.

So how does this violate any laws? Because it somehow benefited the campaign? That’s a bunch of garbage. Going out in public with a nice suit, nice shoes, a nice haircut and a smile will also benefit any campaign, even if paid for with the candidate’s own funds...and SO FREAKING WHAT! Everything could potentially benefit (or, on the flip side, hurt) a campaign - that fact doesn’t mean that any laws were violated. Oh, BTW, there is a HUGE loophole in the campaign finance laws which allows a candidate to spend any amount of his/her money on the campaign. So even IF this was deemed to be a campaign contribution, if Trump reimbursed Cohen (and no one is saying differently), then he paid for this campaign activity.

This is a lot of nothing...but, of course, most of the media has the vapors about the impending ‘Peach fohti-fi” action in Congress. My prediction: it’ll never happen, because the Demonrats will never capture the House while Trump is POTUS.

[JohnyBoy]

The point of the plea was to legitimatize an endless investigation into Trump and it worked.

[Leep]

Spend your, likely ill gotten, money on useless pursuits lefties.

[Lazamataz]

Such an explosive assertion against anyone but the president would suggest that a criminal case could be in the offing, but under long-standing legal interpretations by the Justice Department, the president cannot be charged with a crime.

Right conclusion; wrong reason.

The real reason is that payoffs to women to silence them and/or settle lawsuits (thus influencing elections), appears to be a longstanding tradition in America.

On Thursday, the Office of Compliance released additional information indicating that it has paid victims more than $17 million since its creation in the 1990s. That includes all settlements, not just related to sexual harassment, but also discrimination and other cases.

And further, in the case of Congress, they didn't even use their own money to silence these broads.

[goldstategop]

The hatred of Trump is over the top.

I hope his enemies keep it up.

[knighthawk]

Yeah since they are calling impeachment over just about everything, from 2 scoops of icecream to this so what else is new?

[God luvs America]

the new liberal narrative talking point...

[dead]

the Constitution does not allow for the criminal indictment of a sitting president.

This is the first time WaPo readers have heard this news. Bless their little hearts - another day of elation leads to a rough hangover the next day.

There will be no impeachment either over this.

Can you imagine the fun that Team Trump could have with Dems in the house trying to pretend that paying some whore to shut up is a crime? Those jackasses have been doing it for years with OUR money!

It's sleazy and seedy, by both Trump and by the dozens of congressmen who do it, but obviously it's not illegal. Congressmen write the laws.

[grania]

Cohen can't be believed. He got caught with very shady financial situations. We learned how despicable he is when we learned about him taping meetings with Trump! I get it that legally he can (as one party of the conversation....how dumb is that), but ethically you'd think he would've let Trump know that their discussions were taped.

How can anyone believe anything Cohen says or that he didn't give Trump advice to set him up in the future if he needed to? Cohen has shown us just what a low-life scum bag he is.

[DesertRhino]

It was not a campaign activity. It did not involve campaign money. And the whores started their grifting claims years before the campaign.

Good luck.