Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

The guy on the Internet with ZERO background in the law versus a half a dozen attorneys including the defendant knows better. Maybe, and I am just putting it out there. Maybe you don't understand as well as you think you do.

Perhaps?
 
acbytesla said:
The guy on the Internet with ZERO background in the law versus a half a dozen attorneys including the defendant knows better. Maybe, and I am just putting it out there. Maybe you don't understand as well as you think you do.

Perhaps?
Click to expand...

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed to comply with Rule 12


The prosecution has incentive to over-charge. The defense has incentive to cut a deal. The judge has no incentive to throw out the plea. Following the exact letter of the law on this isn't the top priority for anyone involved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...

But you know, David Farentheld at the WashPost has had story after story of bad behavior by the Trump Foundation. It's basically the basis for the NY AG case, even.

Yeah, having the CFO testify will help, but it's not like there will be that much new, I don't think.
 
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Trump forgot the basic principle of keeping your shady deals secret: kill the accountant.
 
pgwenthold said:
But you know, David Farentheld at the WashPost has had story after story of bad behavior by the Trump Foundation. It's basically the basis for the NY AG case, even.

Yeah, having the CFO testify will help, but it's not like there will be that much new, I don't think.
Click to expand...

The Trump Organization is not the same as the Trump Foundation.

The former is the business, the latter the charity. The CFO of the business was granted immunity. I don't know that he plays any role in the charity.

ETA: Also, the CFO already testified before the grand jury in the Cohen case. I don't know if there's any further testimony expected.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
Sure. Not certain how that is relevant.

How many examples can you offer of judges accepting guilty pleas for something that wasn't a crime?
Click to expand...

As others have noted, this happens frequently among poor defendants who have little choice but to rely on overworked, and underpaid, public defenders for legal advise, and are faced with well-funded and wildly aggressive prosecutors. It helps when you set up society specifically to convince them that they'll likely end up in jail sooner or later regardless.

This notably does not apply at all to well-connected, presumably wealthy people like Michael Cohen, who often aren't prosecuted at all despite being obviously corrupt. It's much more likely that, in his case, it was a mix of a lot of evidence against him, and personal anger towards Dolt 45 who famously hung him out to dry after winning office.
 
Ziggurat said:
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed to comply with Rule 12


The prosecution has incentive to over-charge. The defense has incentive to cut a deal. The judge has no incentive to throw out the plea. Following the exact letter of the law on this isn't the top priority for anyone involved.
Click to expand...

Of course it was, the risk is that the whole plea agreement could be overturned
and/or declared null and void if the law wasn't followed.

Plus of course the lawyers on both side could be open to professional malpractice charges and breaches of their professional ethics so could even lose their licence to practice law or worse.

Everyone in this matter had a "top priority" to get the law right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pgwenthold said:
But you know, David Farentheld at the WashPost has had story after story of bad behavior by the Trump Foundation. It's basically the basis for the NY AG case, even.

Yeah, having the CFO testify will help, but it's not like there will be that much new, I don't think.
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong. Farentheld did a fantastic job of investigative journalism. I think he won the Pulitzer for it. But he did it from the outside. AW knows and can prove that Farentheld couldn't possibly have learned.

Trump is almost certainly a big time criminal. But he's not a Mafia don. He wasn't selling drugs or running prostitution or a protection racket. No, his crimes were financial. No one is better equipped to explain how money was moved and hid better than his long time accountant.

AW has been with Trump's forever. I believe he even worked with Donald's father Fred Trump. Cohen might be able to show where some of the bodies were buried but AW can show how much they paid for the shovels.

Never forget what Mark Felt told Woodward and Bernstein.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
The Trump Organization is not the same as the Trump Foundation.

The former is the business, the latter the charity. The CFO of the business was granted immunity. I don't know that he plays any role in the charity.

ETA: Also, the CFO already testified before the grand jury in the Cohen case. I don't know if there's any further testimony expected.
Click to expand...

He was listed as the Treasurer of the Foundation.
 
Last edited:
From Twitter

Kyle Griffin
‏
Verified account

Weisselberg then sent the invoice to another Trump Organization executive via e-mail directing him to "Please pay from the Trust. Post to legal expenses. Put 'retainer for the months of January and February 2017' in the description."
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Keith said:
Then it is quite possible that the people who have access to those records know that they do exist.

Would any of this look different if those records do exist?
Click to expand...

It's also an unrealistically high standard of evidence.

The Scooby Doo requirement.

"Oh dang I knew I shouldn't have detailed all my crimes in such a legally unambiguous way on email"

Luckily the judge didn't see it that way
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

One of us must not understand the meaning of "intent."
 
Darat said:
Of course it was, the risk is that the whole plea agreement could be overturned
and/or declared null and void if the law wasn't followed.

Plus of course the lawyers on both side could be open to professional malpractice charges and breaches of their professional ethics so could even lose their licence to practice law or worse.

Everyone in this matter had a "top priority" to get the law right.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it's quite an obscure case, so there won't be much scrutiny of it.
 
Darat said:
Of course it was, the risk is that the whole plea agreement could be overturned
and/or declared null and void if the law wasn't followed.

Plus of course the lawyers on both side could be open to professional malpractice charges and breaches of their professional ethics so could even lose their licence to practice law or worse.

Everyone in this matter had a "top priority" to get the law right.
Click to expand...

EVERYTHING you just said was wrong.

Folks it was an agreement, where the prosecutors wanted a conviction that would lay a foundation for bigger fish, and Cohen wanted to do as little time as possible and get his wife off the hook.

No lawyer is going to be sued because Cohen copped to plea on charges he could have beaten where he was also being charged with a bunch of counts he had zero chance of winning.
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that really does not make any sense.

Cohen himself flat-out said that he plead guilty to the charges against him because he is in fact guilty of those charges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom