Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

[Ziggurat]

It's a ******* campaign contribution!

It was made within 2 weeks of the election.

It was done for the purpose of influencing the election.

That doesn't suffice to get past the personal use exception. And large fonts don't make your claim more convincing.

Had this been a declared campaign expense, you would be using the personal use exception to go after Trump for embezzling from the campaign.

 

[The Big Dog]

That doesn't suffice to get past the personal use exception. And large fonts don't make your claim more convincing. Had this been a declared campaign expense, you would be using the personal use exception to go after Trump for embezzling from the campaign.

Now here I gotta disagree with you: large fonts are the key to well argued points.

 

[Ziggurat]

Now here I gotta disagree with you: large fonts are the key to well argued points.

OK, I'm about to blow your mind with a paradox:

Large fonts don't convince people.

Let's see you get out of that one.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

TBD, it doesn't matter whether or not Trump wanted to keep the affair a secret for private reasons only. Stormy Daniels certainly wanted to talk about it because of the national, not the private Trump family interest. If she had not been silenced, she would have made the talk-show rounds prior to the election with the aim of influencing the vote.
So suppressing her testimony was a direct benefit to the campaign.
Get over it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Remember to donate to heroes of the Resistance!

Andy McCabe: sat on evidence, repeatedly lied under oath, fired by FBI.
Peter Strzok: serial philanderer, used FBI equipment to hide affairs, fired by FBI;
Michael Cohen: 5 time convicted tax cheat.

All with go fund me accounts for the convenience of the Rubes.

It's good to know that you think that lying under oath, interfering with justice being carried out, having affairs, the use of official equipment for improper purposes, and tax fraud are all things that are worthy of condemnation. I hope you apply these standards even-handedly and with no partisanship.

 

[jimbob]

They're not supposed to convince someone, as much as point out the obvious flaw in your argument.

The prosecution argued that it was a campaign contribution
The defence agreed that it was a campaign contribution
The judge accepted that it was a campaign contribution

It kept an embarrassing story out of the news just before the vote.

It was a campaign contribution.

 

[Lurch]

Remember to donate to heroes of the Resistance!

Andy McCabe: sat on evidence, repeatedly lied under oath, fired by FBI.
Peter Strzok: serial philanderer, used FBI equipment to hide affairs, fired by FBI;
Michael Cohen: 5 time convicted tax cheat.

All with go fund me accounts for the convenience of the Rubes.

Folks who donate might see this as their contributing to a kind of "Innocence project". The President, using the power of his bully pulpit, politically meddled with the aim of churlishly exacting revenge on those who threatened and spoke out against him. Trump in a way 'convicted' these guys in the political arena, without full and proper legal procedures having had a chance to play out.

 

[The Big Dog]

TBD, it doesn't matter whether or not Trump wanted to keep the affair a secret for private reasons only. Stormy Daniels certainly wanted to talk about it because of the national, not the private Trump family interest. If she had not been silenced, she would have made the talk-show rounds prior to the election with the aim of influencing the vote.
So suppressing her testimony was a direct benefit to the campaign.
Get over it.

You don't really believe that people should get convicted because of transferred intent of extortionists, do you?

"if she had not been silenced." gaze upon it, folks, Stormy was FORCED to take that 130k.

Spectacularly specious and ridiculous argument.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's good to know that you think that lying under oath, interfering with justice being carried out, having affairs, the use of official equipment for improper purposes, and tax fraud are all things that are worthy of condemnation. I hope you apply these standards even-handedly and with no partisanship.

I was just pointing out to the "resistance" those things are genuine boon!

Donate today!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I was just pointing out to the "resistance" those things are genuine boon!

Donate today!

It's good to know that you think that lying under oath, interfering with justice being carried out, having affairs, the use of official equipment for improper purposes, and tax fraud are all things that are worthy of condemnation. I hope you apply these standards even-handedly and with no partisanship.

 

[acbytesla]

To repeat folks:

"Cohen pleaded guilty to an illegal campaign contribution. That's an actual crime. But if the payment to Stormy wasn't a campaign contribution (and I do not believe it was, for reasons detailed already), then Cohen can't actually be guilty of it."

This has been explained ten ways to Sunday

And you're STILL WRONG!

You can massage it any way you want. But it was done to influence the election. Cohen has said this. My guess is that Pecker will confirm it. My guess is that there are emails to confirm it. Just because the spin machine at Fox News and right wing radio say otherwise is irrelevant.

 

[jimbob]

http://news.trust.org//item/20180824150611-suw9c/

WASHINGTON, Aug 24 (Reuters) - Federal prosecutors have granted immunity to Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg in a probe involving President Donald Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

 

[Ziggurat]

TBD, it doesn't matter whether or not Trump wanted to keep the affair a secret for private reasons only. Stormy Daniels certainly wanted to talk about it because of the national, not the private Trump family interest. If she had not been silenced, she would have made the talk-show rounds prior to the election with the aim of influencing the vote.
So suppressing her testimony was a direct benefit to the campaign.
Get over it.

Once again, that isn't how the private use exception works. It doesn't suffice for the expense to benefit the campaign.

 

[quadraginta]

God damn it, are you not paying any attention? We just went through this! No, it's not extraordinary circumstances. It's sadly quite ordinary. Judges very rarely reject guilty pleas from the innocent.



You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Cohen pleaded guilty to an illegal campaign contribution. That's an actual crime. But if the payment to Stormy wasn't a campaign contribution (and I do not believe it was, for reasons detailed already), then Cohen can't actually be guilty of it.

That isn't a complicated concept. How can you not grasp it? You can claim I'm wrong that it was a campaign contribution and therefore a crime, but that's what the argument has to rest on, not the fact that the judge accepted the plea. Star making an argument that actually makes sense.

Your statement was that you didn't believe it was a crime.

If you have changed your view on this point then fine. Just say so.

Otherwise there is no other conclusion which can be reached. In your opinion Cohen pleaded guilty to something that wasn't a crime.

Which leaves the question, "How does that work?". It either was a crime, in which case what is left is whether or not the plea was a sincere one, or it wasn't, in which case he could not plead guilty of it.

 

[acbytesla]

That doesn't suffice to get past the personal use exception. And large fonts don't make your claim more convincing.

Had this been a declared campaign expense, you would be using the personal use exception to go after Trump for embezzling from the campaign.

Just because something also has personal utility to it doesn't mean it meets the exception. The test is intention. Sure Cohen could say he paid Stormy Daniels just to save Trump from personal embarrassment, but it doesn't meet the smell test.

According to Cohen, the payment was made to influence the election and a reasonable assessment of the facts bear that out. Trump has had lots of affairs. Cohen is not going to take out a personal equity loan to pay off a one night stand of Trump's.

What do you think Pecker is going to say about the payments? Do you think he's going to back up Trump or Cohen?

 

[phiwum]

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

No, I don't think so. As I understand it, the money came from the Trump Organization, that is, the business end of things, and not the Foundation.

If you have a citation to the contrary, please provide it.

 

[carlitos]

God damn it, are you not paying any attention? We just went through this! No, it's not extraordinary circumstances. It's sadly quite ordinary. Judges very rarely reject guilty pleas from the innocent.

Guilty pleas to what now? Crimes? Would you kindly, pretty please with sugar on it, clarify what you are saying that Cohen pleaded guilty to is or is not a crime?

 

[Ziggurat]

Just because something also has personal utility to it doesn't mean it meets the exception. The test is intention.

No. The test is not intention OR utility.

 

[jimbob]

Once again, that isn't how the private use exception works. It doesn't suffice for the expense to benefit the campaign.

And that doesn't matter.

All the lawyers and the judge involved in the case agreed that Cohen had violated campaign law with these payments.

A hypothetical, Ziggurat, would your opinion change if emails surfaced where the parties discussed the impact of the story on the election?

 

[Crossbow]

To repeat folks:

"Cohen pleaded guilty to an illegal campaign contribution. That's an actual crime. But if the payment to Stormy wasn't a campaign contribution (and I do not believe it was, for reasons detailed already), then Cohen can't actually be guilty of it."

This has been explained ten ways to Sunday

Well, if you are correct, then Trump sure does hire incredibly stupid people.

After all, Cohen is a lawyer himself and if he just plead "guilty" to a crime that he was actually innocent of, then he has got to be the most stupid lawyer in the world.