American Leftist Cartoons

Why Trump critics are now switching from impeachment to indictment

Two decades ago, liberals argued that Bill Clinton should not be impeached for his tawdry affair with Monica Lewinsky because, well, his lies were just about sex.
Today, some liberals are arguing that Donald Trump should be impeached because of Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal because, well, it's not the sex, it's the hush money.
For well over a year, Trump's critics have been banking on Robert Mueller to come up with evidence of Russian collusion, and there have been only disconnected fragments. So now —never mind! — it's about women and money.
The old argument from the left: Trump has committed crimes and should be impeached!
The new argument from the left: Trump has committed crimes and should be indicted!
I'm in no way excusing what went on with the two women from his past. But here's some perspective.
To be sure, Mueller's sentencing memos last week provided some leads on the Russia matter. Michael Cohen, for instance, admitted lying to Congress about the time period that the president's company was pursuing a real estate deal in Moscow, and the memo says Cohen discussed his testimony with people in the White House.
But in the blink of an eye, the media focus seems to be switching to the Stormy narrative — the case being pursued not by Mueller but by the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan.
Here's a key difference between Trump and Clinton. The 42nd president had his dalliance with Lewinsky while he was in office, in the White House itself, with a subordinate who was a lowly intern. Trump's alleged affairs with a porn star and a Playboy model took place 12 years ago when he was a celebrity businessman.
That's why most people don't care about what Trump did as a private citizen, and I get it. I got a lot of flak when I started reporting on the Stormy case — first broken by the Wall Street Journal days before the election — and always stressed that it was the financial paper trail that might come back to haunt the president.
And that's why the Southern District's probe of Cohen — who was reimbursed for making the $130,000 payment to Daniels and brokered the National Enquirer's $150,000 payment to McDougal — is troublesome for Cohen's former boss.
Yes, it's a campaign finance violation, and yes, those are usually punished by fines or even a slap of the wrist.
But the argument that prosecutors could make is that it was an attempt to subvert the election.
National Review contributor Andrew McCarthy, who worked in the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office and is a sharp critic of the Mueller probe, doesn't mince words in a piece for Fox:
"The president is very likely to be indicted on a charge of violating federal campaign finance laws."
McCarthy's argument is that when Cohen pleaded guilty in August, "prosecutors induced him to make an extraordinary statement in open court: the payments to the women were made 'in coordination with and at the direction of' the candidate for federal office – Donald Trump.
"Prosecutors would not have done this if the president was not on their radar screen. Indeed, if the president was not implicated, I suspect they would not have prosecuted Cohen for campaign finance violations at all. Those charges had a negligible impact on the jail time Cohen faces, which is driven by the more serious offenses of tax and financial institution fraud, involving millions of dollars."
There is, of course, the not-insignificant matter of the Justice Department practice that a sitting president can't be indicted. That's why Democrats like Adam Schiff are now saying Trump could face jail time after he leaves office (if he's not reelected). And MSNBC's Joe Scarborough says the Supreme Court will have to decide whether the president can be indicted for a crime "which helped him get elected."
Trump — proving that no one proofreads his tweets — said: "Democrats can't find a Smocking Gun tying the Trump campaign to Russia." So now, he says, "the Dems go to a simple private transaction, wrongly call it a campaign contribution which it was not (but even if it was, it is only a CIVIL CASE, like Obama's - but it was done correctly by a lawyer and there would not even be a fine. Lawyer's liability if he made a mistake, not me). Cohen just trying to get his sentence reduced. WITCH HUNT!"
All Michael Cohen's fault, according to the president.
I don't minimize the importance of the payments to Daniels and McDougal to suppress their stories before the election. If a Democrat had done that, the right would be up in arms.
But I still think it's a stretch that it leads to indictment or impeachment, especially if the much-ballyhooed Russian collusion probe comes up dry.
And the reason is that the underlying offense (if there is one) was to keep embarrassing sexual disclosures from coming out. The point was to win an election, of course — and the president's pal at the Enquirer's parent company rolled over for him — but also spare Trump pain in his marriage.
My assumption is that much of the public won't see that as sufficient grounds to overturn an election or imprison a president — just as they didn't when Bill Clinton repeatedly lied about a similar subject.

Comey’s credibility under fire

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 11:49 AM PT — Monday, Dec. 10, 2018

Former FBI Director James Comey speaks to reporters after testifying under subpoena behind closed doors before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Dec. 7, 2018. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Fired FBI Director James Comey’s testimony is calling into question his credibility and decision making.
Republican lawmakers have been highlighting the big takeaways from last week’s questioning.
Congressman Jim Jordan outlined how Comey said “I don’t recall” eight times, “I don’t remember” 71 times, and “I don’t know” 166 times.
This comes as Comey is now accused of using a dubious Russian document to influence his decision in the Clinton email case.
According to a report last year, Comey used that information to announce last July that the Clinton email probe was over. However, the report suggested many close to the matter believed that information was bad intelligence and possibly even fake.
Comey is scheduled to return to Capitol Hill later this month for more questioning.

Rep. Beto O’Rourke speaks to Al Sharpton amid speculation of presidential bid in 2020

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 12:13 PM PT — Monday, Dec. 10, 2018

A recent reported meeting is sparking more speculation Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke is set to launch a presidential bid.
Buzz Feed News is reported Monday that O’Rourke and Reverend Al Sharpton had a sit down last week. While details are limited, a spokesperson for Sharpton told the outlet the two had a great conversation and set up a future meeting.
This comes as O’Rourke has flip-flopped on his stance of running for president.

FILE – In this Nov. 6, 2018, file photo, Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, the 2018 Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas, made his concession speech at his election night party in El Paso, Texas. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)

When asked during his failed senatorial campaign if he would run in 2020, he responded with:
“I don’t want to do it, I will not do it –Amy and I are raising an 11-year-old, a 10-year-old, and a seven-year-old and we spent the better part of the last two-years not with each other, missing birthdays and anniversaries and time together, and our family could not survive more of that.”
However, O’Rourke has since said he made the decision not to rule anything out.

China threatens consequences if Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou is not released

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 1:45 PM PT — Monday, Dec. 10, 2018

China is threatening to take aggressive action against Canada if the country fails to release Huawei’s CFO from custody and obeys a U.S. extradition request.

“For Canada, if they do not correctly handle this matter there will be serious consequences. You asked, what kind of serious consequences would these be? I can tell you in one sentence – it is totally up to Canada.” — Lu Kang, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman

China’s foreign ministry also said, according to an agreement between China and Canada, the Canadian government should have told the Chinese consulates and embassies Meng was going to be arrested. However, that didn’t happen.
China’s foreign ministry also cited human rights concerns surrounding Meng’s detention.
“During Ms. Meng Wanzhou’s detention, certain measures, including inhumane measures used against her, the provision of medical treatment necessary for her and measures for her basic well-being, were not in place at all,” stated Kang. “We think this is inhumane and has breached her human rights.”

People hold a sign at a Vancouver, British Columbia courthouse prior to the bail hearing for Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s chief financial officer on Monday, December 10, 2018. Meng Wanzhou was detained at the request of the U.S. during a layover at the Vancouver airport on Dec. 1, 2018. (Jonathan Hayward/The Canadian Press via AP)

Attorneys for Meng cited health concerns during a bail hearing Friday. They said she was taken to a hospital for hypertension treatment after being detained.
46-year-old Meng, the daughter of Huawei’s founder, remains in custody in Vancouver over U.S. allegations she misled multi-nation banks about Huawei’s control of a company operating in Iran. This put the banks at risk of violating U.S. sanctions and incurring the associated penalties.
Recent reports have already detailed two financial institutions, British-based Standard Chartered and HSBC, as allegedly among the banks misled by Huawei.
Huawei reportedly used a third party intermediary, the Hong Kong-based firm Skycom, to channel payments between the tech giant and Iran.
Both banks have faced past scrutiny from global regulators for past money laundering violations and have had federal monitors in place to watch for these types of transactions. Neither bank has been accused of wrongdoing at this time.
In the meantime, while China has denounced the arrest, it hasn’t linked it to trade talks with the U.S. as experts say it doesn’t want to undermine the prospects for a trade deal.
On Sunday, White House officials said Meng’s arrest and extradition request was “solely a law enforcement matter, “and would not derail the talks with China.
While China’s foreign ministry has been vocal on the arrest, the Commerce Ministry, who is engaged in the trade talks, has yet to comment on the situation.