Now THIS is what I have been hoping and waiting for:
Note here that the focus is more on the SDNY prosecutors than Special Counsel Robert Mueller. I have excerpted fairly. It is DOJ authority that no prosecutor can indict a sitting president. Trump will not be indicted now. What SDNY and SC are working on is the only tool they have: impeachment. Defrauding the American public to obtain the presidency is not a crime but is a ground for impeachment. SDNY has done a brilliant end round on Trump. He has been focused on what he insists on calling Mueller’s investigation into “collusion,” i.e. conspiracy, with the Russians. He insists that no “collusion” has been found. I excerpt the reporters’ view that no conspiracy has been tipped Mueller if he has it. But the importance of the Michael Cohen sentencing memoranda is clearer now for both sets of prosecutors accuse Cohen of defrauding the American voting public. Still, it is an IMPEACHMENT close-out that Mueller is finalizing, it always has been, it is not a brief for criminal indictment, it never has been. Congressman Jerrold Nadler is quoted by the Times and excerpted by me to acknowledge this brilliant end around that SDNY has effected which has completely caught Trump’s legal team headed by Mistress Rudolphina Boom-Boom Giuliani, off guard. And I excerpt Nadler fairly. He does not know if defrauding the American public is “serious enough” for the House to impeach and I excerpt the Times fairly that even if they did conviction in the Senate and removal of the Orange Orangutan from office would require 20 Russo-Republicans to vote with every Democrat. And that t’ain’t gonna happen. So I bet you’d like to read the article after all of that. All right then. Link at bottom. Oh! One more thing, sorry. The fraud theory of prosecution? You have read that nowhere else, just here.
WASHINGTON — The latest revelations by prosecutors investigating President Trump and his team draw a portrait of a candidate who personally directed an illegal scheme to manipulate the 2016 election...
...
The prosecutors made clear in their memo that they viewed efforts by Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, to squelch the stories as nothing less than a perversion of a democratic election — and by extension they effectively accused the president of defrauding voters, questioning the legitimacy of his victory.
...
...prosecutors from the Southern District of New York depicted Mr. Trump, identified only as “Individual-1,” as an accomplice in the hush payments.
...
“While many Americans who desired a particular outcome to the election knocked on doors, toiled at phone banks or found any number of other legal ways to make their voices heard, Cohen sought to influence the election from the shadows,” the prosecutors wrote.
“He did so by orchestrating secret and illegal payments to silence two women who otherwise would have made public their alleged extramarital affairs with Individual-1,” they continued. “In the process, Cohen deceived the voting public by hiding alleged facts that he believed would have had a substantial effect on the election.”
The exposure on campaign finance laws poses a challenge to Mr. Trump’s legal team, which before now has focused mainly on rebutting allegations of collusion and obstruction while trying to call into question Mr. Mueller’s credibility.
“Until now, you had two different charges, allegations, whatever you want to call them,” Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the incoming Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said...One was collusion with the Russians. One was obstruction of justice and
all that entails. And now you have a third — that the president was at the center of a massive fraud against the American people.”
all that entails. And now you have a third — that the president was at the center of a massive fraud against the American people.”
...
But [Nadler] added that did not necessarily mean that the committee should vote to impeach Mr. Trump. “Is it serious enough to justify impeachment?” he asked. “That is another question.”
...
.... The framers of the Constitution specifically envisioned impeachment as a remedy for removing a president who obtained office through corrupt means, and legal scholars have long concluded that the threshold of “high crimes and misdemeanors” does not necessarily require a statutory crime.
...
In his own court memo, Mr. Mueller said that Mr. Cohen’s false account that the deal had collapsed in January 2016 was designed “in hopes of limiting the investigations into possible Russian influence on the 2016 U.S. presidential election — an issue of heightened national interest.”
...
If prosecutors have conclusive evidence of conspiracy, they have not shown their hand. But the filings in recent days made clear that while Mr. Trump repeatedly insisted he had no business dealings in Russia, it was not without trying.
...
But while the House can impeach a president on a majority vote, conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds vote, meaning that unless at least 20 Republican senators abandon Mr. Trump, he is safe from removal. Despite the losses in the House last month, Republicans, if anything, have moved closer to the president.