Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
Both you and Loss Leader are confused. I suggested that paying Hunter from campaign funds might have been illegal if she didn't actually do work for the campaign. There is no equivalent here. I don't recall ever arguing that the payments to Hunter through non-campaign funds was illegal, which is the parallel here, and I certainly didn't do so in the thread he recently linked. Nor does whether or not I had made such an argument indicate anything about the validity of the argument here. This is really just an attempt to label me as a hypocrite, and to do so dishonestly rather than engage with the merits of my argument.
Click to expand...

No, I'm just trying to point out that the Edwards case provides little insight into the current case, much less decided law or precedent. It is informative, at best.

But just read LL's post. He took the time to lay that out much more clearly.
 
WilliamSeger said:
In other words, as usual, you have no intention of arguing honestly. Here's what the article says about Trump:

The rest of the article amounts to, "This stuff happens all the time."
Click to expand...

No.... that is what the article says the prosecutors said about Trump.

protip: prosecutors are advocates representing a position.

And yes, as I expertly pointed out in my original post (which you bizarrely accuse me not arguing honestly) "seems like it is a pretty regular thing, huh?" or in other words ""This stuff happens all the time."

******* beautiful...
 
LSSBB said:
I think that was on the Stormy thread. Good post too.

Quoted:
Click to expand...

Thanks. I was scratching my head at how the same references were being made after LL made it clear that there was no controlling precedent established in the Edwards case that would be applicable.
 
Dr. Keith said:
No, I'm just trying to point out that the Edwards case provides little insight into the current case, much less decided law or precedent. It is informative, at best.

But just read LL's post. He took the time to lay that out much more clearly.
Click to expand...

He's right that it's not a binding legal precedent, but he's wrong on basically every other front. Edwards had no legal obligation to give Hunter any money, the money didn't come from Edwards anyways so it wouldn't satisfy any legal obligation he did have, what Hunter spent the money on subsequently is completely irrelevant, and Cohen's efforts to suppress Stormy's story began in 2011.
 
Ziggurat said:
Both you and Loss Leader are confused. I suggested that paying Hunter from campaign funds might have been illegal if she didn't actually do work for the campaign. There is no equivalent here. I don't recall ever arguing that the payments to Hunter through non-campaign funds was illegal, which is the parallel here, and I certainly didn't do so in the thread he recently linked. Nor does whether or not I had made such an argument indicate anything about the validity of the argument here. This is really just an attempt to label me as a hypocrite, and to do so dishonestly rather than engage with the merits of my argument.
Click to expand...

You're being absurd. I've seen post after post after post of you trotting out the Edwards case as support of this silly ass argument that Cohen DIDN'T make an illegal campaign contribution. And LL proved very conclusively that your citation doesn't remotely prove it.

I feel like I'm watching a never ending loop of Vizzini in the Princess Bride.

"INCONCEIVABLE!" cries Zig.
 
The Big Dog said:
No.... that is what the article says the prosecutors said about Trump.

protip: prosecutors are advocates representing a position.

And yes, as I expertly pointed out in my original post (which you bizarrely accuse me not arguing honestly) "seems like it is a pretty regular thing, huh?" or in other words ""This stuff happens all the time."

******* beautiful...
Click to expand...

I asked for evidence that Trump routinely paid hush money. If you have none but keep insisting you do, that's dishonest.
 
acbytesla said:
You're being absurd. I've seen post after post after post of you trotting out the Edwards case as support of this silly ass argument that Cohen DIDN'T make an illegal campaign contribution. And LL proved very conclusively that your citation doesn't remotely prove it.
Click to expand...

Prove it? Perhaps not. It's pretty strong evidence, though. Again, the FEC specifically and explicitly said that the payments to Hunter did not constitute a campaign finance contribution. You can take exception to the FEC's opinion on the matter, but you can't do that at the same time as arguing that all these other people involved in the current case should be heeded as authorities.

Oh, and the count that Edwards was found not guilty on was the relevant one here, the payments from Mellon to Hunter which the prosecution claimed were campaign contributions.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Thanks. I was scratching my head at how the same references were being made after LL made it clear that there was no controlling precedent established in the Edwards case that would be applicable.
Click to expand...

Let me pour some salve on that itch, yo:

Initially, we note that the Commission is precisely the type of agency to which deference should presumptively be afforded. Congress has vested the Commission with "primary and substantial responsibility for administering and enforcing the Act," Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 109 (1976), providing the agency with "extensive rulemaking and adjudicative powers." Id., at 110. It is authorized to "formulate general policy with respect to the administration of this Act," § 437d(a)(9)
Click to expand...

FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27, 37, 102 S.Ct. 38, 70 L.Ed.2d 23 (1981)

You see folks, the government has to prove that the person willfully violated the statute, and if they are relying on FEC guidance regarding what the statute means, well, that is all she wrote.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
Cool. I'm good with that. So, can we stop saying that the FEC guidance that the prosecutors ignored in the Edwards case is now the law?
Click to expand...

No, the FEC guidance is not itself the law. But it is the proper reading of the law.
 
Is there a goal in arguing that Cohen confessed to a non crime? If this was about scrapping campaign finance law, I'm on board. But that doesn't seem to be the point.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Is there a goal in arguing that Cohen confessed to a non crime? If this was about scrapping campaign finance law, I'm on board. But that doesn't seem to be the point.
Click to expand...

If you are uninterested in the theoretical implications of a hypothetical situation that is being pushed, one can tell it's pretty pointless.
 
Ziggurat said:
Prove it? Perhaps not. It's pretty strong evidence, though. Again, the FEC specifically and explicitly said that the payments to Hunter did not constitute a campaign finance contribution. You can take exception to the FEC's opinion on the matter, but you can't do that at the same time as arguing that all these other people involved in the current case should be heeded as authorities.

Oh, and the count that Edwards was found not guilty on was the relevant one here, the payments from Mellon to Hunter which the prosecution claimed were campaign contributions.
Click to expand...

Wow! And then you trot it out again. "INCONCEIVABLE"!

That IS irrelevant. Two totally different situations.

A one time payment 11 days before the election for the expressed purpose of influencing that election is a whole other kettle of fish.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Is there a goal in arguing that Cohen confessed to a non crime? If this was about scrapping campaign finance law, I'm on board. But that doesn't seem to be the point.
Click to expand...

I believe the purpose of the law is to prevent secret influence over a potential office holder. Do you really have a problem with knowing who is doing what to help a candidate win, and what they might want in return?
 
acbytesla said:
Wow! And then you trot it out again. "INCONCEIVABLE"!

That IS irrelevant. Two totally different situations.

A one time payment 11 days before the election for the expressed purpose of influencing that election is a whole other kettle of fish.
Click to expand...

You were wrong before, and you're still wrong. About everything.
 
More popcorn

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/nyregion/trump-organization-criminal-charges-vance.html

The Manhattan district attorney’s office is considering pursuing criminal charges against the Trump Organization and two senior company officials in connection with Michael D. Cohen’s hush money payment to an adult film actress, according to two officials with knowledge of the matter.

A state investigation would center on how the company accounted for its reimbursement to Mr. Cohen for the $130,000 he paid to the actress, Stephanie Clifford, who has said she had an affair with President Trump, the officials said.
Click to expand...
 
WilliamSeger said:
I believe the purpose of the law is to prevent secret influence over a potential office holder. Do you really have a problem with knowing who is doing what to help a candidate win, and what they might want in return?
Click to expand...

If you are focusing on my statement that I'm onboard with scrapping campaign law, my answer to your question is a derail.
 
The Big Dog said:
Let me pour some salve on that itch, yo:



FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27, 37, 102 S.Ct. 38, 70 L.Ed.2d 23 (1981)

You see folks, the government has to prove that the person willfully violated the statute, and if they are relying on FEC guidance regarding what the statute means, well, that is all she wrote.
Click to expand...
should <> has
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom