Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

[PhantomWolf]

tell us, you think that Cohen or the Prosecutors or the Judge are gonna appeal???? Seriously walk us through that because: FASCINATED

keeping in mind of course that they have him (and his wife) nailed to the ******* wall on the tax counts

Sod this he thinks to himself, I am going to challenge the extraordinarily favorable plea agreement! Two years later: Michael Cohen and his wife sentenced to 25 years for tax evasion, found innocent on campaign finance charges. GENIUS

They can't be sentenced on the Tax evasion because of Double Jeopardy.

 

[The Big Dog]

And a couple of lawyers have pointed out why that wasn't relevant.

As well as the actions by the judge, prosecution, and defence in this case implicitly supporting the two lawyers analyses.

And which I have expertly explained is relevant, in fact controlling.

I have also explained that the judge did not rule on anything, and the prosecution and the defense reached a deal, an agreement, a bargain.

 

[The Big Dog]

They can't be sentenced on the Tax evasion because of Double Jeopardy.

Then you will wish to take that up with the poster who confidentially asserted that Cohen is going to appeal the plea bargain, right? Unless one thinks that one can appeal part of the plea bargain?

Pro tip: you can’t, and Cohen ain’t gonna appeal anything and Cohen’s wife was not in legal jeopardy, yet.

 

[BobTheCoward]

And which I have expertly explained is relevant, in fact controlling.

I have also explained that the judge did not rule on anything, and the prosecution and the defense reached a deal, an agreement, a bargain.

The judge accepted the agreement and could have rejected it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

a fella just posts this:

keeping in mind of course that they have him (and his wife) nailed to the ******* wall on the tax counts

(posted it in Magenta! Because I guess it was not clear enough)

As such, kindly do The Big Dog a solid and walk us through the reasoning that led to y'all posting that question, inquiring minds and all....

I'm specifically asking about the campaign finance issue, which also implicates Trump. Do you think it's a credible scenario that he pled guilty to this because he is guilty of it? Or do you think the only credible scenario is that he pled guilty to this charge, even though he's innocent, because it would get him a reduced sentence on the tax charges?

 

[The Big Dog]

The judge accepted the agreement and could have rejected it.

“Could have.”

Famous last words.

The judge’s job in taking a plea is not to weigh the merits of the charges, his job is to make sure the defendant knows what he is doing, ain’t drunk, and understands the issues.

 

[acbytesla]

Why are we entertaining this off topic question? Establishing if there exists a realm for debating the truth of the law outside the rulings of judges and that zig can argue that zigs position carries equal weight, that still doesn't get us anywhere to that having any consequence.

Yes, and people argue that they were abducted by aliens. That 911 was an inside job. That Thor, Zeus and Yahweh are real. Doesn't make any of this true. Nor are they epistemolically sound and really worth discussing.

People argue for different reasons. They may argue to create a dialectic. They may argue to persuade with honesty. They may argue to persuade with deceit.

And then some, they know who they are, argue to pleasure themselves. A form of masturbation.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Then you will wish to take that up with the poster who confidentially asserted that Cohen is going to appeal the plea bargain, right? Unless one thinks that one can appeal part of the plea bargain?

Pro tip: you can’t, and Cohen ain’t gonna appeal anything and Cohen’s wife was not in legal jeopardy, yet.

You don't appeal a "plea" you appeal a conviction.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm specifically asking about the campaign finance issue, which also implicates Trump. Do you think it's a credible scenario that he pled guilty to this because he is guilty of it? Or do you think the only credible scenario is that he pled guilty to this charge, even though he's innocent, because it would get him a reduced sentence on the tax charges?

He plead guilty to it because that was the deal the prosecutors offered.

 

[Darat]

Then you will wish to take that up with the poster who confidentially asserted that Cohen is going to appeal the plea bargain, right? Unless one thinks that one can appeal part of the plea bargain?

Pro tip: you can’t, and Cohen ain’t gonna appeal anything and Cohen’s wife was not in legal jeopardy, yet.

You know that is an imaginary person?

 

[The Big Dog]

You don't appeal a "plea" you appeal a conviction.

Again, I suggest that perhaps you are agreeing with me and are disagreeing with the person who raised that argument in the first place, you dig?

 

[Oystein]

not getting the "gist" of the phrase "at issue" are we?

Not getting the gist of the sign "<>", are we?
Quite obviously, the FEC has not yet formed an opinion on how the particulars of the Cohen/Trump case map onto their previous take on a more general description of the "issue". Obviously.

 

[BobTheCoward]

“Could have.”

Famous last words.

The judge’s job in taking a plea is not to weigh the merits of the charges, his job is to make sure the defendant knows what he is doing, ain’t drunk, and understands the issues.

It sounds like pleading guilty to something that isn't a crime would be not understanding the issue.

 

[The Big Dog]

Which is why the defence lawyers, the prosecution lawyers and the judge have such a strong incentive to get the legal bits 100% correct. If they've got the legal issues wrong the plea agreement isn't worth the paper it is written on.

The plea agreement states that Cohen won't appeal any sentencing and neither will the prosecution but if the charge is a false charge i.e. not a crime then that would no longer be binding.

Give him 2 years in jail and he might decide sod this I'm not serving time for a non-crime and start an appeal.

You know that is an imaginary person?

Just dealing with what I was dealt.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Zig's argument is based on the FEC's interpretation of the statute in the Edwards case.

Yup, that's the point you would like to dodge.

 

[The Big Dog]

It sounds like pleading guilty to something that isn't a crime would be not understanding the issue.

If someone was making that argument, you might have a point.

 

[Oystein]

Zig's argument is based on the FEC's interpretation of the statute in the Edwards case.

which is, obviously, <> the Cohen/Trump case, particulars and all that. Obviously.
And obviously, with the prosecution, the judge, the plaintiff, the defense counsel all likely being aware of the FEC's interpretation, and yet quite apparently not thinking it applies, makes your non-lawyerly case a bit ... uneassy in the knees, shall we say.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yup, that's the point you would like to dodge.

The point I made is the point I am dodging.

Huh.

 

[Ziggurat]

Zig's argument is that protecting Trump's candidacy wasn't the sole benefit of the payment, so a narrow reading of the FEC guidelines (rather than the law itself) would mean it wasn't a campaign contribution. That interpretation would seem to make the law too dependent on unprovable intent and too easy to circumvent, so I'm not convinced a jury would agree.

The alternative interpretation allows candidates to basically embezzle money from the campaign so long as they declare it. You really think that's a step forward in making politics less corrupt?

The Edwards case is simply not similar enough to take as a precedent

It absolutely is. It doesn't suffice for a payment to aid the campaign. If it runs into the personal use exemption, then it's not a campaign expense. And hush money payments to keep illicit affairs quite can certainly quality for the personal use exemption. If Trump had paid Stormy with campaign money, people would go after him for embezzling from the campaign for personal use. And rightly so.

but at the very least Zig needs to establish that Trump would probably have paid the hush money even if he wasn't running for office.

If this ever went to trial, the defense wouldn't even need to show that. They'd only need to show that there was a reasonable chance that the hush money would have been paid even if he wasn't running for office. And be honest: you know there is.

Look, this isn't something I pulled out of my ass. The catch-22 lurking in the prosecution's interpretation is very real, and I'm not the only one to recognize it. And an interpretation which contains such a catch-22 isn't tenable.

 

[Oystein]

Then you will wish to take that up with the poster who confidentially asserted that Cohen is going to appeal the plea bargain, right? Unless one thinks that one can appeal part of the plea bargain?

Pro tip: you can’t, and Cohen ain’t gonna appeal anything and Cohen’s wife was not in legal jeopardy, yet.

Which poster would that be? You are not talking about Darat, perchance? Because Darat very certainly did not write such.