Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

[Ziggurat]

But the thing is, they can only plead guilty after being charged with a crime. They aren't pleading guilty to things that aren't illegal. They are pleading guilty to things that have made a judge and grand jury say "yup, those are crimes and there's enough evidence to go forward with a trial."

You know what they say about grand juries and ham sandwiches, right? And judges almost never throw out cases where the defense doesn’t move for a dismissal, let alone ones where the defendant pleads guilty.

 

[Emily's Cat]

They are pleading guilty to things that have made a judge and grand jury say "yup, those are crimes and there's enough evidence to go forward with a trial."

I am under the impression that this isn't exactly true. Yes, the things they're being charged with are crimes... but no judge or jury is looking at how much evidence there is for it. And there's not necessarily a case - the person may not have actually committed the crime with which they're being charged.

 

[WilliamSeger]

It's relevant to the argument put forth that Cohen's plea proves paying Stormy was an illegal campaign expenditure.

Do you see any distinction between pleading guilty to something he didn't do and pleading guilty to something he actually did? I'm talking about the act itself, not your interpretation of the law.

Anyway, in the eyes of the law now, he is guilty, which seems to mean that lover boy is guilty of directing him to commit a crime. Do you think your arguments will save him?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Had he declared it to the FEC as a campaign expenditure, then Trump would be in trouble for personal use of campaign funds.

That's only if you buy the lie paying off the women to keep silent had nothing to do with the campaign. Which is absurd. When were these two affairs? A decade ago yet somehow there was a need to keep them silent just before the election?

But if that's not enough for you, Cohen recorded his conversation about the expenses with Trump where they conspired to avoid FEC regulations.

As for use of campaign funds, the money came from the Trump Foundation, so charity fraud even if there were no FEC violations.

Here's the thing more than a few people keep missing even though it has been spelled out:

There was no legal offense in using campaign money to pay the women off if it had been reported, which it wasn't. So if it was a campaign expense, they failed to report it.

The offense was in the fact the money was an undeclared campaign donation. If the money came from Cohen, it was a campaign loan, needed to be declared.

If the money came from Trump, there are limits in personal donations to one's campaign as well and it needed to be reported. And the fact Trump ordered his kids to use the Trump Foundation money to pay Cohen back, that's also a crime.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No. That isn't how the personal use prohibition works. It isn't enough to say that the expense is useful for the campaign. You have to be able to say that you wouldn't have incurred the expense but for the campaign. An expense you would have incurred anyways, even if it's useful to the campaign, cannot be paid for by the campaign...

Here you go again asserting some legal opinion that is waay over your pay-grade.

 

[Minoosh]

As for use of campaign funds, the money came from the Trump Foundation, so charity fraud even if there were no FEC violations.

Do we know this for a fact?

I ask because state-level investigations could be worse for Trump than federal charges. He doesn't have as much scope to meddle in state affairs.

I saw the link upthread, will take a look.

 

[smartcooky]

Oh dear....

I'll take that as "you can't prove what you said"

Situation normal

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I see we're back on the "this lawyer is a scumbag" tack. That's proven fruitful before. I'm sure that will make all this go away.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you see any distinction between pleading guilty to something he didn't do and pleading guilty to something he actually did? I'm talking about the act itself, not your interpretation of the law.

Anyway, in the eyes of the law now, he is guilty, which seems to mean that lover boy is guilty of directing him to commit a crime. Do you think your arguments will save him?

No. It doesn’t work that way. Cohen’s guilty plea does nothing legally to establish Trump’s guilt. That must be established separately.

 

[The Big Dog]

Do we know this for a fact?

I ask because state-level investigations could be worse for Trump than federal charges. He doesn't have as much scope to meddle in state affairs.

I saw the link upthread, will take a look.

In fact we know it is a lie. The information said that the money came from the real estate company.

 

[WilliamSeger]

No. It doesn’t work that way. Cohen’s guilty plea does nothing legally to establish Trump’s guilt. That must be established separately.

You didn't answer my question. Do you see any distinction between pleading guilty to something he didn't do and pleading guilty to something he actually did?

 

[Ziggurat]

Here you go again asserting some legal opinion that is waay over your pay-grade.

I note you have no counter-argument.

 

[Ziggurat]

You didn't answer my question. Do you see any distinction between pleading guilty to something he didn't do and pleading guilty to something he actually did?

In regards to what? His sentence will be just as legally binding in either case, if that’s what you mean. This was never in dispute.

 

[WilliamSeger]

In regards to what? His sentence will be just as legally binding in either case, if that’s what you mean. This was never in dispute.

Seems to me, statistics about people pleading guilty of acts they hadn't actually committed aren't at all relevant to this case.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Both Ziggurat and The Big Dog seem to be arguing that he's pleaded guilty to something that's not a crime and which he didn't do anyway, because prosecutors have asked him to.

If you could harness the amount of spin that certain posters are putting out in their arguments, it would power the Eastern Seaboard for years.

 

[carlitos]

But the thing is, they can only plead guilty after being charged with a crime. They aren't pleading guilty to things that aren't illegal. They are pleading guilty to things that have made a judge and grand jury say "yup, those are crimes and there's enough evidence to go forward with a trial."

You know what they say about grand juries and ham sandwiches, right? And judges almost never throw out cases where the defense doesn’t move for a dismissal, let alone ones where the defendant pleads guilty.

That's another dodge. Maybe you can open up a dealership.

Do you agree that he pled guilty to a crime, or are you still saying that he somehow pled guilty to a not-crime? I'm asking for clarity, because I have not seen you be specific on this yet.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'll take that as "you can't prove what you said"

Situation normal

Can.

 

[The Big Dog]

That's another dodge. Maybe you can open up a dealership.

Do you agree that he pled guilty to a crime, or are you still saying that he somehow pled guilty to a not-crime? I'm asking for clarity, because I have not seen you be specific on this yet.

Just to clarify, you are cool with the obvious lies that the charges were reviewed by a grand jury and a judge?

 

[dudalb]

I have images of some of the posters here trying their legal theories in law school, and seeing what the professor does to them........

 

[The Big Dog]

I have images of some of the posters here trying their legal theories in law school, and seeing what the professor does to them........

So do I! Zig is killing it, and the image you should have is the professor taking him aside after class and telling him that he should be an editor on the law review.