Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

[Ziggurat]

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.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12

Cohen pled guilty to a crime. I am claiming that his actual actions in regards to paying Stormy were not a crime, and do not meet the necessary criteria of the crime he pled guilty to. Nothing stops him from doing this.

 

[Ziggurat]

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?

No. The impact on the election does not suffice. Trump's interest in the impact of the election does not suffice. To get past the personal use exception, we need to establish that Trump would not have paid Stormy if there were no election. If there were emails which not only discussed the impact on the election but further stated that Trump would not pay but for the election, that would be proof.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

This is huge.

Weisselberg will be able to explain all of Trump's business and personal finances. You now have Trump's most trusted lawyer and his accountant for decades. Trump's taxes and financials are going to come pouring out and AW will be able to explain them all.

 

[carlitos]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12

Cohen pled guilty to a crime. I am claiming that his actual actions in regards to paying Stormy were not a crime, and do not meet the necessary criteria of the crime he pled guilty to. Nothing stops him from doing this.

Thank you.

When a half-dozen people don't understand your point, and ask you the same damn question over and over again, it's not those posters that have the comprehension problem.

 

[Darat]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12

Cohen pled guilty to a crime. I am claiming that his actual actions in regards to paying Stormy were not a crime, and do not meet the necessary criteria of the crime he pled guilty to. Nothing stops him from doing this.

Yet his lawyer, the prosecution and the judge all agreed he had committed a crime.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

Do keep up, we've been over this before, and it should be obvious that this reasoning is wrong.

It all depends on what kind of deal Cohen was able to get. I have no doubt Cohen was guilty on some other charges, and had little chance of successfully defending against them. Pleading to this specific charge is probably irrelevant to him, the total sentence is what likely matters. And if his lawyer can get a lower sentence by pleading to an additional charge, then that's what he's going to do. There's nothing stupid about doing that.

 

[acbytesla]

No. The test is not intention OR utility.

You're wrong. What a surprise.

 

[carlitos]

I was really hoping for good conversation here, because this topic interests me so.

Are there other politics forums that are heavily-moderated like ISF out there?

 

[Ziggurat]

You're wrong. What a surprise.

Go look at the statute. The test is whether the cost would be incurred in the absence of the campaign. That is neither a utility to the campaign nor an intention test.

I'm right, you're wrong, you can't provide any actual argument to support your claim. What a surprise.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yet his lawyer, the prosecution and the judge all agreed he had committed a crime.

No.

The judge accepted his plea of guilty to the charge

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Let's see.

Michael Cohen is a lawyer.
Lanny Davis is a lawyer.
The prosecutors are lawyers.
The judge is a lawyer.

Zig is not.

Now out of that group, who I wonder understands the law?


Hmmmm.

 

[acbytesla]

Go look at the statute. The test is whether the cost would be incurred in the absence of the campaign. That is neither a utility to the campaign nor an intention test.

I'm right, you're wrong, you can't provide any actual argument to support your claim. What a surprise.

I've read the statute. You're wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

Let's see.

Michael Cohen is a lawyer.
Lanny Davis is a lawyer.
The prosecutors are lawyers.
The judge is a lawyer.

Zig is not.

Now out of that group, who I wonder understands the law?


Hmmmm.

Is your claim that people who understand the law always follow it perfectly? Because that claim is kind of self-defeating in this case. And if it's not, well, the fact that they may understand it doesn't really matter.

 

[jimbob]

No. The impact on the election does not suffice. Trump's interest in the impact of the election does not suffice. To get past the personal use exception, we need to establish that Trump would not have paid Stormy if there were no election. If there were emails which not only discussed the impact on the election but further stated that Trump would not pay but for the election, that would be proof.

Well there's probably no more than a 2-8% chance of that happening.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've read the statute. You're wrong.

You've read it? I'm super impressed.

 

[Dr. Keith]

No. The impact on the election does not suffice. Trump's interest in the impact of the election does not suffice. To get past the personal use exception, we need to establish that Trump would not have paid Stormy if there were no election. If there were emails which not only discussed the impact on the election but further stated that Trump would not pay but for the election, that would be proof.

How certain are you that such records don't exist?

 

[The Big Dog]

Is your claim that people who understand the law always follow it perfectly? Because that claim is kind of self-defeating in this case. And if it's not, well, the fact that they may understand it doesn't really matter.

Further, what we have been patiently trying to explain in detail is the the purpose of a plea bargain is not to adjudicate the legal and factual issues, but to reach a plea agreement to avoid that.

All the lawyers knew that the prosecutors had 5 strong claims and 3 questionable ones for the reasons that have been expertly laid out in detail in this thread. So they did a deal.

 

[acbytesla]

No. The impact on the election does not suffice. Trump's interest in the impact of the election does not suffice. To get past the personal use exception, we need to establish that Trump would not have paid Stormy if there were no election. If there were emails which not only discussed the impact on the election but further stated that Trump would not pay but for the election, that would be proof.

I don't believe you're so dense about this. Cohen knew why he made the contribution. That is enough. You can make the flimsy argument that Trump or Cohen would have paid the hush money any way. But it's not believable.

 

[jimbob]

How certain are you that such records don't exist?

I'm going for 2-8% chance that they do

 

[phiwum]

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.

Note that the current WSJ article confirms what I said. It's the Trump Organization that reimbursed Cohen, not the Foundation (i.e., the business, not the "charity").