Bizarre, Congress, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Lawyering, Media, Politics

Painter: Trump Cannot Do Fundraisers For Senators Without Committing “Felony Bribery”

I have previously disagreed with the overextended and unsupported claims of critics on allegedly clear criminal violations by President Donald Trump, including past statements by Richard Painter, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush and is a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. I am no fan of President Trump and have repeatedly criticized him for his language and actions in office. However, legal analysis continues to erode as analysts assure viewers that well-established crimes have been committed. The latest such example by Painter is that Trump continues to fundraise for Senators, a common practice of all presidents in election years. Painter insists that any such fundraising can constitute “felony bribery” since these senators will likely sit in judgment in any impeachment trial.

Painter declared “This is a bribe. Any other American who offered cash to the jury before a trial would go to prison for felony bribery. But he can get away with it?”

I like Painter personally and respect his past public service. However, this position is utterly meritless. Just because a president may face a Senate trial, he is not required to stop political activities. Indeed, if that were the case, an opposing party in control of the House could shutdown the political activities of a president by moving to impeach him. Moreover, Painter’s unlimited view of the bribery statute would also prevent campaign activities deemed supportive of members of either house. That view would not only extend bribery definitions beyond recognition but it would contravene core protections for free speech and associations.

The unquestioning attention given to Painter’s extreme view shows how detached coverage has become from reality. There are serious questions raised in the Ukraine controversy. It deserves serious analysis.

154 thoughts on “Painter: Trump Cannot Do Fundraisers For Senators Without Committing “Felony Bribery””

  2. I generally turn away when Painter appears which is far too often. I think he does overreach and even when he makes valid points they’re sometimes tainted by all the others. I put the late Ed Schultz in that category. If I only wanted to hear a view heavily slanted by partisan politics, I’d just watch the Fox opinion shows which is rapidly becoming all their shows) whose mission lately is to present alternate facts.

    1. do yourself a favor and quit wasting time watching tv. it’s pretty close to garbage from one channel to the next.

  3. This is an excellent article on this subject:
    Alexis de Tocqueville observed in 1835: “A decline of public morals in the United States will probably be marked by the abuse of the power of impeachment as a means of crushing political adversaries or ejecting them from office.” What House Democrats are doing is not only unfair to Mr. Trump and a threat to all his successors. It is an attempt to overrule the constitutional process for selecting the president and thus subvert American democracy itself. For the sake of the Constitution, it must be decisively rejected. If Mr. Trump’s policies are unpopular or offensive, the remedy is up to the people, not Congress.
    https://justourfreedom.wordpress.com/2019/10/26/1562/?fbclid=IwAR2AnSSnIHxXxjeY423QdONvgahv9TXMr9dXCPH2Bx2vbYQmUufnY6WiN-s

    1. Gee, thanks for another crackpot opinion piece from marginal blogs. You and TIA throwthese up as if they arm you from discussing the clear evidence of wrong doing by the President, a situation fully anticipated in the constitution and remedied constitutionally by impeachment.

      1. 🙂 You are so welcome Shill Jr. Anything I can do to expand that myopic mind of yours. Speaking of clear evidence, Barr, Horrowitz and Durham will show you what clear and evidence actually looks like.

        Tick, tick, tick.

  4. Fine, the dear leader is above the law, and the republican house just swore loyalty to trump and NOT to their oath of office or country. Now what?

  5. the best example of that practice is Comrade Benita Pelosillyni selling commitee membership and leadership roles. Another example of mirror her mirror image description attributing every one of her criminal activities to someone else and calling tit an indictment probe or was that an impeachment probe. .

  6. That statement is a very far reach even for the socialist party. Exuse me. The stupid party.

  7. Trump might be guilty of some of the stuff that’s being presented here. But so was every other president. This all depends on who’s ox is being gored…

  8. Yes, other Presidents have campaigned for Senators running for re-election, but not under the shadow of impeachment. Also, he cherry-picked those Senators who are most-vulnerable. They will sit in judgment and vote on whether he should be impeached. THAT is the grounds for Painter’s comment, which is very strong, but the sentiment he expressed is not wrong. Under what other circumstances could this scenario possibly be acceptable? In a world in which patriotism prevails over politics, none of these Senatorial candidates would even consider meeting with him before the Senate vote, much less accept his endorsement, but that’s not what we have here. These Senators were photographed lunching with him at the White House the other day, eating food we taxpayers paid for. Again, how is this OK? Why isn’t the stench of this obvious, even to the Trumpsters?

    1. Why isn’t the stench of this obvious, even to the Trumpsters?

      You misunderstand, we get the stench originating from you and your ilk.

    2. So basically, Natch, this is just another added benefit to the made-up impeachment crap – the Dems can stop Trump from campaigning and fundraising for the GOP.

      1. It’s dirty politics. They didn’t get their way so they are using other means.

        The impeachment inquiry will provide opposition research at taxpayer expense and using classified information. Now they have prevented him fundraising for Republicans.

        The Left is dictatorial in nature.

        2. How didn’t “THEY get their way”. Who is “they”? Most Americans: 1. did not vote for Trump; 2. Disapprove of him, in historic numbers and for an historic length of time (since he began stinking up the White House) and 3. Want him removed from office. That’s why it is so absurd to hear Republicans talk about what “the American people” want.

          Congress cannot ignore Russia helping to elect a president by using insider polling information provided by a candidate’s campaign, which was used to spread lies about his opponent, deference to a Russian dictator, trying to leverage military aid to an ally in exchange for help in a political campaign and obstructing justice. Congress is relying on the Constitution for its power of oversight to prevent Trump’s abuse of power. That is not dictatorial. Trump is dictatorial. His lawyers actually argued in court yesterday that he cannot be arrested, much less prosecuted, even if he did shoot someone in cold blood, nor for any other crime. The judge said they were wrong. In fact, Trump loses case after case that goes to court. Court after court has said he is wrong, but he has no respect for the law.

          1. Attn people who spent 2+ years insisting on a Trump-Russia conspiracy & interpreting every detail to validate that belief: yes, you could keep doing that. OR, consider that you might not have as much info & investigative authority as the Mueller team, which found no conspiracy.🧐 -Aaron Mate

          2. BTW, in same “Russian asset” interview, HRC said that “the Russians” helped “convince blacks not to vote in Michigan.” The racist condescension here is disgusting. Does HRC think a single black voter in Michigan didn’t vote over some dumb Facebook ads (that 1,000 people saw)! -Aaron Mate

          3. which was used to spread lies about his opponent,

            he needed the ruskies to point out hilary lied, even though she didn’t? lol

            the american people elected trump. sorry you don’t like it.

            court after court refused equal rights for blacks

            how do you know he wanted dirt on biden? maybe he wanted to vette him

          4. She won’t answer this, obviously, but the question burns in the hearts of patriots and deserves an answer. Did you know that Clinton broke the law when he turned his back on the Rwandan Holocaust?

  9. Would it also be that any person running for political office does not grant one immunity from investigation as the WH call transcript lays out?

  10. Excuse my ignorance for the following questions and based what little is known publicly:
    1. Has Trump committed any law beyond a reasonable doubt?
    2. Was the withholding of military aid already in effect when Trump asked about investigation/sharing?
    3. Is it criminal to suggest a possible action, harmful or not, but not carry it out?

    1. 1. The “beyond a reasonable doubt” does not apply to impeachment proceedings. The standard is “high crimes and misdemeanors”, which has not been defined. However, even if “beyond a reasonable doubt” were the standard, Trump is guilty by his own admissions, including those of Mulvaney; 2. Trump ordered the military aid withheld while he tried to shakedown the Ukrainian President by asking for “a favor”. Multiple witnesses have verified the facts set forth in the whistleblower complaint; 3. Yes, mere solicitation of assistance for a political campaign is a crime.

      1. Yes, mere solicitation of assistance for a political campaign is a crime.

        Excellent! Now that you’ve cemented yourself into the foundation, let’s see you get out of it once the Durham report drops.

          1. Good one Olly, if you can prove the DNC paid for her Ukrainian efforts, we’ll trade Chalupa for Trump.

            1. Hmmm.Interesting. You agree about Chalupa’s and the DNC’s efforts to involve a foreign nation, Ukraine, in the election against Trump. You only want a copy of the check

              1. I don;t deny facts, those this one is not established – I wrote “if you can prove the DNC paid for her Ukrainian efforts,”. Even Olly’s link admits that.

                1. There is a lot of evidence out there that the DNC dealt with Ukraine and that so did she. All of this is highly irregular but that is the way Hillary and the DNC function along with their operatives. The Democratic Party of today is sick.

                  1. I predict there will not be a democrat party in 3 years. What they have failed to achieve is remarkable. Worse than that, as Trump continues to breeze through their best efforts to destroy him, they will lose what credibility they have.
                    And, I’m not a Trump fan.

                    1. There isn’t a democrat party now. Perhaps you’re thinking of the Democratic Party which swept the most recent midterms and has won 6 of the last 7 presidential votes.

                      That’s much better than the Republicanista party is doing.

                    2. What existed of the former Democratic Party has all but disappeared. It is now a party that has moved into the socialist camp though only partly and could be renamed the hate America party. It seems abusive people like Anon are attracted to that party along with the ignorant which includes Anon as well. I don’t think the party will disappear despite the Party’s actions. I think come 2020 they will be less relevant.

              2. You only want a copy of the check

                More damning than that; he’ll trade our duly elected president with a criminal conspirator.

                1. It’s your idea Olly. By the way, the EC can kiss my a.s. The people did not elect the scum bag in chief.

                  1. By the way, the EC can kiss my a.s. The people did not elect the scum bag in chief.

                    Brilliant! You can dig a hole and step on a rake at the same time.

                  2. Anon1,
                    The people most certainly did. More people of PA, OH, IN, MI, WI, IA, WV, KY, NC, SC, TN, FL, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, AR, MO, KS, OK, NE, ND, SD, MT, ID, WY, UT, AZ, an AK voted for him, allowing him to win these states in the Electoral College. Only two were faithless Republicans who tried to change their vote. Five faithless Democrats tried to ditch Clinton.

                    https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president

                2. As I said Olly the Democratic Party is sick. Just listen to Anon’s response. No regard for the Constitution.

            3. TIA is completely ignorant of the facts. He prefers his right wing comfort news and is still puking out 2 month old talking points.

          2. You too!? Ah, excellent! Now that you’ve cemented yourself into the foundation, let’s see you get out of it once the Durham report drops.

                1. Some people seem to be questioning whether soliciting foreign aid is illegal.

                  This is absurd wrote, “That never happened except in your imagination.” Unless he doubting what Trump himself, Mulvaney, and multiple witnesses under oath are saying?

                  1. TIA is completely ignorant of all facts on the impeachment. If you wonder why, look at the crackpot links he digs up. He doesn’t know anything about the evidence and obviously likes it that way.

                    1. TIA is completely ignorant of all facts on the impeachment.

                      Have you seen, read or heard all of the facts on the impeachment inquiry?

                    2. TIA is completely ignorant of all facts on the impeachment.

                      What you’ve got is pantomime for public relations. It’s hard to tell if you take it seriously or you’re perfectly aware it’s humbug. I’m not sure which is worse, from a civic perspective.

                      Your response to the last pantomime was an exercise in childishness. When Andrew Weissman couldn’t give you what you wanted, you stamped your feet and pretended he had.

                  2. Is it within the powers of the executive branch to solicit foreign aid to investigate corrupt practices allegedly committed by U.S. citizens?

                    Does it matter whether the alleged corruption happens to be a candidate of a political opponent?

                    Does the President and/or his designated representatives have the authority to withhold foreign aid if there is concern that aid may not be used for the intended purposes?

                    1. Olly, if you really think Trump would want information on Biden because he cares about corruption, you are brain damaged. You and I both know that’s not what he was doing.

                    2. I ask straightforward questions that you can’t answer. Instead you go all shifty-Schiff on me and fabricate a narrative that is nowhere in the record. Did Shill hack your ID?

                    5. It’s not a straightforward question, it’s an alibi too ridiculous for you try to present straight up.

                      Given the evidence, justifying his behavior will be all he will have left, which is what you are running with. The trial then – given that the facts are agreed to – will be establishing motive and any indication from his past that Trump GAFF about corruption and especially in other countries – he loves Russia, SA, and until recently Turkey, all moral s..tholes. Then, did any of the approaches he took with the Ukraine indicate a real concern with corruption or other goals.

                      Good luck.

                    6. Nope. They are legitimate questions that when answered objectively completely undermine your argument.

                      Thanks for playing Shill Jr.

                    7. So you’re not saying he didn’t break the law, just that he has really, really, good reasons? BEst guess, where would you think Ukraine ranks as having the best investigative teams in the world? Trump controls arguably the top two and didn’t ask them (hint: because it would be illegal).
                      Has Trump ever been concerned about corruption anywhere that didn’t involve a political opponent? If he was that concerned he’d look at his own family, and cabinet. How far would he have to go to find corruption with Wilbur Ross, Rick Perry, Rudy Guiliani, not no mention those that have already been ousted and/or jailed?

                      And no, the President can’t arbitrarily withhold funds designated by Congress, without telling Congress, while trying to extort another nation to help him with his campaign.

                    8. Nope. Take Care clause, so not arbitrary. No worries though, I’m sure your impeachment boondoggle won’t contribute at all to a landslide 2020 victory for Trump.

                    9. Even Republican Senators are starting to concede there may have been a quid pro quo, that’s still a long ways from 20 Republicn votes but the needle is still moving.
                      What I would be concerned about if I was a Trump loyalist that simply didn’t care whether Trump was guilty of anything is the concern that the current Ukraine scandal was Trump’s second bite of the apple. There’s a story breaking that Trump pressured the previous Ukranian President to drop the investigations into Manafort before receiving missles and getting a meeting with the President. Rudy Guiliani was in the Ukraine when Trump reversed policy, right after the Manafort investigation was dropped and Ukraine ceased cooperating with the FBI. I thought at the time it was Russian pressure or Ukranian pressure that caused them to ignore Manafort. Who knew it was Trump? Even the people that don’t get the quid pro quo will understand forcing a country to aid in a cover-up. We’ll see in the next couple days if that gets any traction.

                    10. So, the question remains: did President Trump commit impeachable offenses when he spoke on the phone to the president of Ukraine and/or when he directed members of the Executive Branch to refuse to cooperate, absent a court order, with congressional Democrats who are seeking his impeachment?

                      The answers are plainly no and no. There is a constitutionally significant difference between a political “sin,” on the one hand, and a crime or impeachable offenses, on the other.

                      Even taking the worst-case scenario regarding Ukraine — a quid pro quo exchange of foreign aid for a political favor — that might be a political sin, but not a crime or impeachable offense.

                      Many presidents have used their foreign policy power for political or personal advantage. Most recently, President Barack Obama misused his power in order to take personal revenge against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the last days of his second term, Obama engineered a one-sided UN Security Council resolution declaring that Israel’s control over the Western Wall — Judaism’s holiest site — constitutes a “flagrant violation of international law.” Nearly every member of Congress and many in his own administration opposed this unilateral change in our policy, but Obama was determined to take revenge against Netanyahu, whom he despised. Obama committed a political sin by placing his personal pique over our national interest, but he did not commit an impeachable offense.

                      Nor did President George H. W. Bush commit an impeachable offense when he pardoned Caspar Weinberger and others on the eve of their trials in order to prevent them from pointing the finger at him.

                      Dershowitz

                      https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15069/impeachers-new-crimes

                    11. Fortunately, an impeachable offense isn’t what you say it is. It’s what Congress says it is. The problem those who put country first have is limiting the number of the counts of impeachment to something that won’t lose Fox News viewers. You’re makingnprogress though, now you admit the quid pro quo, soon you’ll acknowledge extortion, obstruction of justice, misuse of power, but you’ll probably never see those as impeachable offenses either. Besides not getting to pose and frame the questions, you don’y get a vote either.

                    12. “Fortunately, an impeachable offense isn’t what you say it is. It’s what Congress says it is.”

                      Enigma, I agree absolutely (that what I say isn’t the determining factor) but that interpretation was provided by the left wing Harvard Professor of Law Alan Dershowitz. He bases his opinion on the Constitution and the history behind it. That demonstrates that the Democratic Congress does not respect the Constitution. The address for the article was at the bottom. I suggest you read the whole thing.

                      “You’re makingnprogress though, now you admit the quid pro quo, soon you’ll acknowledge extortion, obstruction of justice, misuse of power, “

                      I didn’t admit or deny a quid pro quo because all Presidents that are making deals with foreign nations are doing the same and that is done many times during every Presidency. When you speak of a quid pro quo you have to define your terms or all Presidents would have been impeached multiple times when they made deals with foreign nations. THINK, what was the Louisiana Purchase?

                      Extortion: It never occurred under Trump who has followed the law quite closely. Was Obama using a form of extortion with his statement ‘I have a pen and telephone’?

                      Obstruction of Justice: Once again it becomes a matter of definition which based on what appears to be your definition (not a very good one) all Presidents have done multiple times. However, we can see instances where Obstruction of Justice was performed by the Obama administration or Obama himself . Look at the weaponization of our intelligence services, the IRS and several other instances. We might yet find criminal involvement with prosecution in at least one of these instances.

                      Misuse of Power: That is a vague accusation. If the President uses the powers he is granted there is no misuse of power.

                      Your problem is that you refuse to list the crime stating the statute, and proof of the crime. Your hate and bias causes you to twist facts into such a pretzel that it is impossible for you to see straight.

                    13. The Louisiana Purchase was Napoleon becoming very afraid of a territory with all those unruly black people in it after Toussant L’overture led a rebellion in Saint-Domingue (now Haiti). He basically dumped Louisiana to get out, u;timately selling at something like 3 cents per acre. The US was only trying to buy New Orleans but France wanted out of the whole continent and made an offer the US couldn’t refuse.
                      The US was also afraid of slave revolts back home and turned around and aided France for 10 years in a futile attempt to reclaim Haiti (they wanted to set an example). France was unable to gain control but the expense of 10 years of war pretty much screwed Haiti.

                    14. “The Louisiana Purchase was Napoleon becoming very afraid of a territory with all those unruly black people ”

                      Enigma, no matter what we are talking about race seems to always enter the discussion when you are involved. We weren’t discussing Napoleon and his problems we were discussing a quid pro quo. I gave an example of a quid pro quo. Immediately you change the discussion to “black people? Then we get your history of Haiti and fears of slave revolts. No wonder your comments don’t make sense. Your mind can’t stay on topic.

                      Definition of quid pro quo: something given or received for something else

                      We gave France money and they gave us the Louisiana purchase. Lighten up.

                    15. “We weren’t discussing Napoleon and his problems we were discussing a quid pro quo. ”
                      “WE” weren’t talking about anything. “I” was responding to the person who used the Louisiana Purchase as an example. “YOU” should stay out of other people’s conversations if you can’t keep up.

                    16. ““WE” weren’t talking about anything. “I” was responding to the person who used the Louisiana Purchase as an example. “YOU” should stay out of other people’s conversations if you can’t keep up.”

                      Enigma, as I said in my last post stop lying. The discussion was about quid pro quo acts and the Louisiana purchase was an example. You have a twisted form of logic that depends on racism’s existence. That is a horrible way to have to live but I will always be here to help you with your logic and facts.

                    18. That is correct Enigma, you were lying. The discussion had to do with the meaning of quid pro quo and how it is being interpreted and used. Examples are examples, in this case to illustrate how the term was being used, could be used and how wrong you have been. You don’t like to have to question your ideas so you change the subject.

                    20. “I brought up the Louisiana Purchase? No, I explained it.”

                      The discussion was quid pro quo and I brought up the Lousiana Purchase as an example. You then added race and slavery to the discussion as well as Haiti. You never did deal with the discussion at hand, quid pro quo. That is par for the course with you because rather than accepting the fact that you were wrong you lie in an attempt to prove yourself right.

                      For your edification I will bring up the entire posting where the Lousiana Purchase was first mentioned by mementioned. You also didn’t respond to my corrections of four other statements you wrote that didn’t make any sense. Instead you switched the discussion to the Lousiana Purchase and Haiti.
                      —

                      Enigma writes: “Fortunately, an impeachable offense isn’t what you say it is. It’s what Congress says it is.”

                      Enigma, I agree absolutely (that what I say isn’t the determining factor) but that interpretation was provided by the left wing Harvard Professor of Law Alan Dershowitz. He bases his opinion on the Constitution and the history behind it. That demonstrates that the Democratic Congress does not respect the Constitution. The address for the article was at the bottom. I suggest you read the whole thing.

                      Enigma writes: “You’re makingnprogress though, now you admit the quid pro quo, soon you’ll acknowledge extortion, obstruction of justice, misuse of power, “

                      I didn’t admit or deny a quid pro quo because all Presidents that are making deals with foreign nations are doing the same and that is done many times during every Presidency. When you speak of a quid pro quo you have to define your terms or all Presidents would have been impeached multiple times when they made deals with foreign nations. THINK, what was the Louisiana Purchase?

                      Extortion: It never occurred under Trump who has followed the law quite closely. Was Obama using a form of extortion with his statement ‘I have a pen and telephone’?

                      Obstruction of Justice: Once again it becomes a matter of definition which based on what appears to be your definition (not a very good one) all Presidents have done multiple times. However, we can see instances where Obstruction of Justice was performed by the Obama administration or Obama himself . Look at the weaponization of our intelligence services, the IRS and several other instances. We might yet find criminal involvement with prosecution in at least one of these instances.

                      Misuse of Power: That is a vague accusation. If the President uses the powers he is granted there is no misuse of power.

                      Your problem is that you refuse to list the crime stating the statute, and proof of the crime. Your hate and bias causes you to twist facts into such a pretzel that it is impossible for you to see straight.

                    21. Funny thing about discussions, bring something up and people are liable to discuss it.
                      You need to label me to make yourself feel better. Have fun by yourself (which you likely do regularly).

                    22. Enigma, no problem with discussing the other topics but you strayed entirely away from the topic at hand your in context misuse of the terms under discussion,quid pro quo, extortion, obstuction of Justice, and Misuse of Power. I could even tolerate your incesant injection of race and slavery into the discussion. Your lies, however, aren’t an appealing aspect of my discussions with you.

                    23. You don’t get to dictate to me what aspect of a conversation I choose to respond to. If it’s in the conversation, it’s on topic! I didn’t stray from the topic I expanded on it. Wasn’t me that brought it up.

                    24. “You don’t get to dictate to me what aspect of a conversation I choose to respond to. If it’s in the conversation, it’s on topic! I didn’t stray from the topic I expanded on it. Wasn’t me that brought it up.”

                      Enigma, I agree. You can say whatever you wish and I can do the same. You can stray from the discussion but it doesn’t shine a good light on you when you use that new topic to run away from the topic at hand where your erroneous positions were corrected. You can provide us a history lesson whenever you wish even when your history lesson is questionable.

                    25. Fortunately, an impeachable offense isn’t what you say it is. It’s what Congress says it is.

                      Spoken like a party tool. Yeah, go with that. Then in November 2020, the voters will have an opportunity to tell Congress what they believe an impeachable offense is.

                    28. “I didn’t make it up Olly, that’s how the Constitution reads, certainly not Allan’s version.”

                      Don’t lie Enigma. I agreed with a tiny portion of what you said. You said: “Fortunately, an impeachable offense isn’t what you say it is. It’s what Congress says it is.” and I replied: “Enigma, I agree absolutely (that what I say isn’t the determining factor) but that interpretation I gave was provided by the left wing Harvard Professor of Law”. Don’t lie. You must think you are the editor of the Washington Post and have a right to lie.

                    29. Olly lacks the brains or balls to follow his own defense argument to it’s logical conclusion. Probably both.

                    31. The Louisiana Purchase was Napoleon becoming very afraid of a territory with all those unruly black people in it after Toussant L’overture led a rebellion in Saint-Domingue (now Haiti). He basically dumped Louisiana to get out,

                      No clue where you got this idea. There were about 25,000 slaves in Louisiana in 1810. There were about 90,000 each in Guadeloupe and Martinique, territories the French were pleased to retain.

                      BTW, French and Spanish settlement north of Baton Rouge consisted of little trading posts, nothing more.

                  3. Unfortunately what those multiple witnesses were providing is hearsay. The transcript says otherwise as do some of the others that actually heard the conversation.

                    These witnesses that you talk about are such lousy witnesses that the Democrats won’t let them be properly cross examined and the democrats feed leaks rather than produce the actual interview.

                    The Democratic Party is sick and transmitting its illness to its members.

          3. “Solicitation of foreign assistance in a Presidential election is a crime.”

            That is why Hillary belongs in jail.

          4. Enigma:

            You said, “Solicitation of foreign assistance in a Presidential election is a crime.”

            Time and again, the Democrats are guilty of what they accuse Republicans of doing. There seems to be some sort of mental disconnect among their voters.

            During the 2016 Presidnetial Election, Hillary Clinton paid a British spy to pay Russian intelligence for a fake dossier in order to defraud voters.

            By your own logic, that would be a crime.

            In actuality, sourcing op ed research from a foreign nation is not illegal. Otherwise, it would be illegal to find out, for example, about the Clinton Foundation donors getting grants to build “hurrican proof” housing in Haiti that turned out to be moldy, leaking, falling down trailers. You would need to source that information from Haiti.

            The Democrats would have us all believe that it is illegal to investigate Biden for bragging that he got the Ukrainian prosecutor who was looking into his son’s employer, fired. He openly bragged about holding American aid hostage, and said he would leave within 6 hours unless the guy was fired. It was done.

            This clearly warrants an investigation, which would require the cooperation of the Ukrainian government. Conservatives have complained bitterly for years about the utter lawlessness of well connected Democrats. Look at the lengths the Democrats will go to in order to prevent an investigation into Biden. And their voters just seem to go right along with it, ignoring all the evidence.

            All Democratic candidates are above the law, or else investigating them would be perceived as election meddling. Meanwhile, Obama used his authority to spy upon candidate Donald Trump, and then lied about it. The Democrats are trying to become the Untouchables, and I don’t mean a caste.

            1. You clearly don’t know the law (which I’ve posted twice) or you wouldn’t be claiming what Trump did isn’t a crime. You say Hillary paid for a “fake” dossier. It was never presented as anything more than what it was which was some information collected and not verified. How exactly did Hillary use the dossier against Trump? By never releasing it before the election. You might not see the distinction but the DNC and a law firm paid for the research. I’ve never seen any indication Hillary knew that dossier existed until Buzzfeed released it. Hillary didn’t for example, doctor the dossier and release a knowingly incomplete copy as proof of her innocence. Trump is guilty of extorting Ukraine not once but twice under two different Presidents. That’s just the tip of the iceberg and I have no doubt every Republican that actually keeps up with the news you won’t hear on Fox also knows he’s a crook, they just don’t care. Trump Uber Alles!

            2. Karen, it is not illegal to use campaign funds to pay foreigners for services or those Chinese made flags would be a crime. It is illegal to receive foreign help without paying for it which would constitute a foreign contribution.

  11. Painter may be a homosexual who was cruelly traumatized by such an outspoken and clearly Orange man. We should all message him and show our support for his prompt recovery.

  12. You continue to state you are “no fan” of President Trump. What I can’t figure out is how you can still support a Democrat party that created an absurd conspiracy theory, used illegal means to entrap innocent people, lied for 2 years about their fake theory, and continues to push forward with vitriol, hatred and lies. President Trump has his issues but the Left and the Democrats are corrupt and using political power to live out their animus.

    1. A person can be a non-fan of Trump and also not believe in the Democrats’ platform. Why would the two be mutually exclusive?

  13. Impeachment Raises Many Issues

    ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS HEARD YESTERDAY

    A federal judge on Thursday fired skeptical questions at lawyers for the Trump administration who argued that current and former senior White House aides have “absolute immunity” from being questioned by House impeachment investigators.

    The hearing, before U.S. District Judge Ketanji Jackson in Washington, was the first time Trump lawyers tested in open court their attempt to block White House aides from cooperating with the impeachment inquiry into the president.

    Jackson at times struggled with the Trump administration’s argument that former White House counsel Don McGahn does not have to comply with a subpoena filed by House Democrats for him to sit for testimony related to conversations he was party to that could implicate Trump in possible articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice.

    “So what does the separation of powers mean to you then?” Jackson asked Trump administration lawyers. “How can the legislature actively exert its oversight power unless it has the ability to exercise its investigative powers?”

    James Burnham, a lawyer with the Justice Department, responded that applying “absolute immunity” to current and former aides close to the Oval Office is “not an exotic thing that we just cooked up.” Burnham said it has been the legal position of the White House for decades so that information covered by executive privilege will not be exposed.

    Jackson sounded incredulous at this line of argument, noting the difficulty in enforcing it given the number of White House aides who have cycled through the Trump administration. The judge said Trump does not invoke that concern when former White House staff appear on cable news.

    Even now, though, with the impeachment inquiry focused on a July 25 call between Trump and the president of Ukraine, House leadership say findings in the Mueller report, including McGahn’s possible testimony of Trump obstruction, could cause additional articles of impeachment.

    Another former top White House aide, Charles Kupperman, had a hearing on Thursday centered on a nearly identical issue just down the hall from the courtroom drama in the McGahn case.

    Kupperman, once the deputy to former National Security Advisor John Bolton, is also being summoned by House impeachment investigators but has not appeared. Lawyers for Kupperman filed a lawsuit seeking to clarify whether he must show up for questioning.

    U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon set Dec. 10 as the date for oral arguments in the Kupperman case. He rejected a request from the Justice Department to allow more time to prepare, mentioning that the issues involved are urgent and need to be resolved quickly.

    “Roll your sleeves up,” Leon told the Justice Department lawyers. “And get the job done.”

    Edited from: “Judge Pushes Back On Trump Lawyers Trying To Block Possible Impeachment Witnesses”

    NPR, 10/31/19

    1. anti Trump Republicans are traitorous dogs who deserve a kick in the rump as they’re thrown outdoors with no dinner and to sleep outside all winter.

  15. This is just a political coup by those who will not accept the outcome of a lawful election.

    They are trying to create a single party state. They will abuse all power to harass Republicans who take the Oval Office.

    What Democrats claim Trump has done, they are guilty of, themselves. They claim that they fight tyranny, but that is the motivation behind Republican opposition to the Left. We are trying to prevent tyranny and dystopia.

    1. Yes, Karen, that is exactly what Hannity says. The election was not lawful. Read the Mueller Report. The only one abusing power is Trump–trying to shakedown the Ukrainians by withholding military aid, trying to coerce people not to respond to subpoenas for testimony and documents before Congressional committees, diverting Pentagon funds to try to fulfill a campaign lie about Mexico building a wall, trying to force the G-7 to let Russia back in, caging migrants, the list goes on. Yes, we know Hannity claims that it’s really those bad Democrats who are wrong here. Did the Democrats try to obstruct the Benghazi investigation, which was also held behind closed doors? Nope.

      So, up to now, all the Republicans had to respond to the clear evidence that Trump was leveraging military aid in exchange for a fake investigation of the Bidens was their whining about the process not being fair–behind closed doors, Trump can’t have his lawyers there, (although Republican committee members were there and given equal time), etc., so Pelosi and the Democrats come up with a bill giving them what they want– but do the Republicans support it? Nope, because they lied about the reason for their opposition to the process. Their real agenda is try to stop Congress from investigating Trump and his crimes, which the Constitution requires them to do. What truth are the Republicans afraid of? The founders gave the House the power to investigate and impeach, if necessary, an executive who abuses power. The Republicans’ ploy is not going to work. Congress simply cannot ignore a POTUS trying to leverage taxpayer funds to aid his political campaign. The evidence is strong and clear that he did this and the witnesses have unassailable credentials. Trump has a history of obstructing justice–Read the Mueller Report.

      One other tactic—continuing to bitch about the whistleblower. There have been about a dozen witnesses who have backed up the facts reported by the whistleblower, most with first-hand knowledge, so why do the Republicans keep harping about the whistleblower? A diversionary tactic to take away attention from the truth about Trump’s crimes, but also a scare tactic: to try to intimidate anyone else from coming forward to report misconduct or to testify to the truth.

      What’s really sad is that there is this cadre of people like you who believe whatever you hear on Fox News. This isn’t a battle over “Republican opposition to the Left”, because there isn’t any “Left” here. Most Americans are fed up with Trump and want him removed from office. The only question is whether there are any patriots left in the Republican party who’ll put their country and its values ahead of fealty to Trump.

      1. Is it an abuse of power for Democrats to call for impeachment and endless closed door investigations of their political opponent in order to drive down public approval numbers for Trump in the lead up to a presidential election?

        Was it a quid pro quo for President Barack Obama to say to Russia’s Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility after his re-election”? And for Medvedev to say, “I understand. I will transmit your message to Vladimir.” And for the media to ignore this?

        Is it a quid pro Joe for VP Biden to be on tape threatening to withhold money from Ukraine unless they do what he asks, to fire the investigator looking into the corrupt company where his son was sitting on the board?

        Is it wrong for the media to protect Joe Biden and his son from justified scrutiny of their family pay for play schemes to instead focus on smearing and slandering Trump and Fox News and Rudy Guiliani instead of probing into what Joe Biden and his son and his brother were up to all these decades? What was Ukraine’s role in 2016 election interference? Why is the media uninterested in asking questions of Joe Biden?

        The answer to all of these questions is: Yes.

      2. Natacha said: “The other tactic is to bitch about the whistleblower.”

        Consider this —-> The democratically elected president sets the US foreign policy, not the bureaucrats in the deep state. Their job is to advance the president’s agenda, not their own.

        “The so-called “whistleblower” is NOT a whistleblower under the law, as I first explained in a column 6 weeks ago. Hence, he is NOT entitled to identity protection —he doesn’t qualify. He’s an undercover informant and Dem operative who was spying on Trump and working with Schiff.

        Schiff has been hiding his identity and obstructing all questions about him in order to conceal the evidence of how this informant colluded with Schiff and his staff to invent a pretext to impeach the President. This is the “malignant force” I write about in my book Witch Hunt.” -Gregg Jarrett

  16. The deep state has provided a powerful nest for such people lie Painter and they are threatened any time the status quo is challenged.

  17. Why do we give these partisan hacks any publicity?

    Mr. Painter was apparently a serious lawyer at one time, but TDS has warped his intellect and judgement.

    One of the lesser benefits of Pres. Trump is that his winning has revealed the huge numbers of intellectually and emotionally challenged people living (and thriving) in DC.

    1. “We” dont, The likes of the WAPO owned by Jeff Bezos does.

      I’ll tell you why big business especially silicon valley hates Trump. oh the investment bankers too, for sure,…..

      They want more consumers and more laborers, flat out.

      a. More consumers in the US means more sales,.
      b. More labor means less paid per laborer per hour.
      Both help them make more billions.

      The want POPULATION GROWTH.

      We don’t have that the old fashioned way which is women having a lot of kids, now they just have one or two. Why, because feminism, abortion, etc.; which was part of the design of the very same big business oligarches to get the women into the workforce. to swell the workforce with female labor thus to drive down wages, and also increase purchasing power in the women workers themselves. See points a and b above,.

      SO because they won’t change the policies on women, where will the new labor and consumer population growth come from?

      IMMIGRATION

      who is the standard bearer of restricting it? Big Don.

      That’s why they hate him in a nutshell.

      1. Yes, that’s why the right voted for Trump. The left should get it’s act together and vote for Bernie or Tulsi. The establishment is corrupt.

      2. How many decades behind the times are you? Of course they are and the name for those on the GOP side is Republicans In Name Only the right wing agents of the left. Not only that the false name of Democrats has it’s left wing agents of the left known as DiNOs or Democrats in Name Only. The original name was based on their embedding in what’s commonlhy referred to as the Fourth Branch of government.

        But you can only whack out one at a time in sequence therefore we went from Clinton to DiNOs to RINOs in 2016 and now are going after DiNOs to RINOs.

        Thats why it s counter Revoilution against the entire left.

    2. DSS, that aid convicted of illegal doxxing of a Republican Senator isn’t much different from the whistleblower.

    3. It would make more sense if you use their correct name. National Socialist, International Socialist, or Regressive Socialist since that party you named is very very far from being democratic aka before the socialists took it over in 1909 when they were better known as the Slave Party.

  20. Painter’s a case study in the rot you in the Republican establishment. The Bush crew managed to hire (for a confidential position) someone who was at best a careerist and at worst an infiltrator who had it in for them. #fredocons.

    And, of course, the rot you find in law faculties. Are you part of the problem or are you helping to fix it?

    2. Require a test in Constitutional law. The left will automatically fail.

Comments are closed.