Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

[Ziggurat]

Which poster would that be?

Everyone who said the judge wouldn't have approved an untruthful plea because of the risk of appeal. I don't care to look back at exactly who said that, but I'm pretty sure it was more than one poster.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

What makes you think the judge knew of it?

Wait, the answer is nothing and the judge made zero ruling on the merits. There was no plaintiff.

The prosecutors and defense knew about it, and that is why they did a deal.

A bargain, a give and take.

 

[Oystein]

Just dealing with what I was dealt.

Ok, now that you quoted the basis upon which you base your false claim, I can confidently state that you plain old lied about "the poster who confidentially asserted that Cohen is going to appeal the plea bargain" because, obbviously, no such thing was asserted. As you must know since you read what Darat actually wrote at least twice now.

 

[Oystein]

Everyone who said the judge wouldn't have approved an untruthful plea because of the risk of appeal. I don't care to look back at exactly who said that, but I'm pretty sure it was more than one poster.

Thanks for confirming that no poster actually posted what TBD just claimed some poster posted.

 

[Oystein]

What makes you think the judge knew of it?

Wait, the answer is nothing and the judge made zero ruling on the merits. There was no plaintiff.

The prosecutors and defense knew about it, and that is why they did a deal.

A bargain, a give and take.

Thanks for dropping the obviously false claim that the FEC has an opinion on the Cohen/Trump case.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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?

No, not at all. The thing is that Prosecutors don't structure Plea's the way you and Zig are arguing because doing so would leave them in danger of having the defendant run a scam on them and get off the charges, leaving them stuck in the ugly position of having seen a defendant walk and being protected against further prosecution by the Double Jeopardy rules. The make sure that whatever the Defendant is agreeing to is something that the evidence says that they did (and yes occasionally there are people that the evidence points at who didn't actually do it, but they agree to a plea anyways because they are generally not that bright and have a lawyer who's an overworked public defender and can't be bothered, but that clearly isn't the case here.)

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

What makes you think they think it doesn't apply? What makes you think they care if it applies?

The prosecution wants to nail Cohen for this because it hurts Trump politically and is a feather in the prosecutor's hat. The defense counsel is fine with pleading guilty to it because he's a Hillary toady who probably also wants to nail Trump. Cohen is probably mad at Trump for hanging him out to dry and so probably doesn't care if it hurts Trump, but why wouldn't he plead guilty to this if it gets him a better sentencing deal? Of course he would. And the prosecution probably offered him a better deal by pleading guilty to this because that gets the prosecutor what he wants. And why would the judge care? No injustice is being done to Cohen here, nobody is going to appeal, and the political implications are not the judge's problem.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, not at all. The thing is that Prosecutors don't structure Plea's the way you and Zig are arguing because doing so would leave them in danger of having the defendant run a scam on them and get off the charges, leaving them stuck in the ugly position of having seen a defendant walk and being protected against further prosecution by the Double Jeopardy rules.

Yeah, no. There's no scam the defense can run on this one. The defense has no grounds to appeal here. You cannot appeal a plea on the grounds that the plea was wrong, you can only appeal on the grounds that the process was wrong (for example, incompetent representation or prosecutorial misconduct). But that wouldn't fly in this case. Once the judge accepts this plea, that's it, game over. Cohen will have no grounds for an appeal. And prior to the judge accepting the plea, the defense can't change its mind about only part of the plea agreement without risking the entire agreement, which Cohen won't do because he accepted the plea agreement in the first place because it was better than the alternative.

 

[Mojo]

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?

Not necessarily. It could just be that TBD is betraying a confidence.

 

[WilliamSeger]

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?

Nonsense. In the first place, we're talking about contributions, not existing funds, and other laws would apply as to how campaign funds can be used.

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 all you have is a presumption about "personal use."

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.

No, I do not know that, and in fact I don't believe it at all. You confidence that the defense could make that case is just your opinion. What if Melania already knew about the affairs but didn't care?

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.

That's like saying he really wanted to do something, but any way he did it would potentially put him in legal jeopardy, so there's something wrong with the laws. Trump himself could have avoided this supposed "catch-22" by not making hush money payments in the middle of his campaign.

 

[The Big Dog]

Ok, now that you quoted the basis upon which you base your false claim, I can confidently state that you plain old lied about "the poster who confidentially asserted that Cohen is going to appeal the plea bargain" because, obbviously, no such thing was asserted. As you must know since you read what Darat actually wrote at least twice now.

Thanks for confirming that no poster actually posted what TBD just claimed some poster posted.

Thanks for dropping the obviously false claim that the FEC has an opinion on the Cohen/Trump case.

Oh, you are super welcome!

Lolz

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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

Do you think it's possible that he actually is guilty of it?

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you think it's possible that he actually is guilty of it?

Oh he is guilty of the tax charges, that you can take to the bank.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nonsense. In the first place, we're talking about contributions, not existing funds, and other laws would apply as to how campaign funds can be used.

No. It's only considered a contribution because the prosecution considers it a campaign expense. And paying for a campaign expense is therefore a contribution. But if it isn't a campaign expense, then paying for it isn't a campaign contribution.

And all you have is a presumption about "personal use."

I have said for pages and pages now that the entire issue of the Stormy payments revolves around "personal use". Do you think you're telling me something new?

No, I do not know that, and in fact I don't believe it at all. You confidence that the defense could make that case is just your opinion. What if Melania already knew about the affairs but didn't care?

You think the prosecution can prove that? That is... unlikely.

That's like saying he really wanted to do something, but any way he did it would potentially put him in legal jeopardy, so there's something wrong with the laws.

Yes.

Trump himself could have avoided this supposed "catch-22" by not making hush money payments in the middle of his campaign.

That doesn't change the fact that the law shouldn't create such catch-22's around what are otherwise legal activities. If the law wishes to prohibit such conduct, it should do so directly and explicitly. But it doesn't. The purpose of these campaign finance laws is not to prevent people from paying other people hush money, which is perfectly legal to do.

 

[Ziggurat]

Thanks for confirming that no poster actually posted what TBD just claimed some poster posted.

Thanks for confirming that everyone who said the judge wouldn't approve an incorrect plea because of the risk of appeal was talking out of their ass.

 

[WilliamSeger]

It seems to me, regardless of the "real" reason Trump made the hush money payments, trumpers are of the opinion that Trump has a right to avoid the consequences of his actions. Maybe that underlies the difference in opinions about the law.

 

[Ziggurat]

It seems to me, regardless of the "real" reason Trump made the hush money payments, trumpers are of the opinion that Trump has a right to avoid the consequences of his actions. Maybe that underlies the difference in opinions about the law.

I'm not a "trumper". But what consequences do you think Trump should face, and why? He had an affair, and that affair is now public knowledge. He tried to pay hush money to keep it quiet, and it all came out anyways and he won't get that money back. And who the hell knows how things went down between him and Melania, but I doubt it was fund for him and that's not our business anyways. Trump has faced consequences. A lack of legal punishment doesn't mean no consequences. And not everything wrong needs a legal remedy.

 

[theprestige]

It seems to me, regardless of the "real" reason Trump made the hush money payments, trumpers are of the opinion that Trump has a right to avoid the consequences of his actions. Maybe that underlies the difference in opinions about the law.

I think he has the right to try. And I think we can all agree that everybody has the right to try to avoid the consequences of their actions.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Oh he is guilty of the tax charges, that you can take to the bank.

Do you think it's credible that he's guilty of the campaign finance violation charge?

 

[Oystein]

Thanks for confirming that everyone who said the judge wouldn't approve an incorrect plea because of the risk of appeal was talking out of their ass.

I confirmed no such thing, because no such thing was said.
You don't need to stoop low to TBD's level, Zig