Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

[Ziggurat]

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

But it was said. For example:

A judge will NOT agree to a plea deal if that plea deal is illegal or does not satisfy minimum requirements. The simple reason for this is that any such deal will almost certainly be overturned on appeal.

 

[WilliamSeger]

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.

Did it or did it not "contribute" to the campaign to keep the affair quite? You haven't argued that it didn't; your claim is that wasn't the only purpose so it gets a technical exclusion, according to your interpretation of the FEC guidelines in this particular case.

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?

Well, I'm trying to tell you that your opinion is based on an unsubstantiated presumption on your part. Give me some actual reason to think Trump would have made the payments if he were still just a game show host.

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

They might, if they called her to testify. My point is, you just assume he was hiding the affair from Melania, when you really have no idea what his intent was.

That doesn't change the fact that the law shouldn't create such catch-22's around what are otherwise legal activities.

Laws do that all the time, e.g. it wasn't illegal to fire Comey unless the intent was obstruction of justice. If that ever goes to trial, that will be the issue, not some "catch-22" that prevented him from firing Comey.

 

[autumn1971]

“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.

Actually the record shows, in the judge's words, that all parties must be truthfully relating facts. This includes both the confession of crimes by the defendant and the bona fide explanation by the prosecution of the nature of the evidence which they would reasonably expect to produce a guilty verdict.

All of this is under penalty of perjury and the nullification of the plea agreement.

This is not to say that no corners may be a bit ambiguous, but it certainly isn't the casual gentlemen's agreement that some would have us believe.

 

[abaddon]

Thread be bobbed for a second time.

 

[WilliamSeger]

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.

Maybe so (ETA depending on your sense of what's "right"), but I wouldn't expect anyone to jump to my defense when I failed.

 

[Ziggurat]

Did it or did in not "contribute" to the campaign to keep the affair quite? You haven't argued that it didn't; your claim is that wasn't the only purpose so it gets a technical exclusion, according to your interpretation of the FEC guidelines in this particular case.

This isn't just according to my interpretation of the FEC guidelines. The FEC is very explicit about this: it doesn't suffice for the expense to benefit the campaign, it must be an expense that would not be incurred irrespective of the campaign. And this isn't a merely technical exclusion. There are obvious and important reasons for that exclusion.

They might, if they called her to testify. My point is, you just assume he was hiding the affair from Melania, when you really have no idea what his intent was.

You say that as if there can be only one intent. But that's nonsense. There can be multiple intentions. And once again, the test the FEC lays out is not a test of intentions.

Laws do that all the time, e.g. it wasn't illegal to fire Comey unless the intent was obstruction of justice.

That isn't a catch-22.

 

[LSSBB]

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

Argument from incredulity.

 

[Aridas]

Trumpistas have fought a constant retreat action on everything Donald ever since his nomination. Long gone are the times when anyone thought that he "hires only the best people" or could actually "lock her up" or even really "build the wall".

This, too, will past into history as a case where pro-Trump people considered this not a crime, but which will turn out as only the tip of the systematic criminality that is the Trump Organization.

Anecdotal refutation - My father (and some other Republican friends of mine) thinks Trump can get that wall built... and that it would be a seriously effective way to curb illegal immigration. Of course, on the same general topic my father also tried to seriously claim that 90% of (Obama-era) asylum seekers don't show up to their court date. Incidentally, it looks like that claim is based on this article. It's actually a little amazing, given that the source of that number, linked to in the article itself, says that nearly 90% of the unaccompanied minors who are facing deportation nevertheless qualify for immigration relief, allowing them to remain in the United States legally, which is notably different in nature and implications.

Anyways... that's a tangent.

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 Edwards case is simply not similar enough to take as a precedent, 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. Despite TBD's fraudulent claim to have some, I haven't seen any evidence of that. Maybe it's in Pecker's safe.

Highlight mine. Also, (combining TBD's advocacy) that Trump would have made or ordered the payment regardless of the election, like he then presumably did plenty of other times when he wasn't a candidate. I'd count these as fair points, but that they're unconvincing when it comes to fully addressing whether it was done as a campaign contribution. The relative size, method, and specific intent of the payment are all also important considerations as well, after all, to begin with. If, say, a $15K payoff suddenly became a $150K payoff when the person was a candidate, that would pretty clearly indicate that it's not a "normal" payoff.

To separately address a couple other issues... yes, this is dramatically worse than the Obama campaign's reporting mistakes in its nature, and quite blatantly so. No, this is not what I would consider impeachment worthy, itself, even if I also think that everyone who thought that Bill Clinton should have been impeached over the Monica Lewinsky scandal should be clamoring for Trump's impeachment by now (and that it's quite telling that they're mostly doing much the opposite).

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.

*sigh* Assume significant and nasty bias. Conclude there's significant and nasty bias. Focus solely on that to the exclusion of anything else. Man, the logic there is totally irrefutable if you assume your conclusion and then work backwards to set up the case for it, right?

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually the record shows, in the judge's words, that all parties must be truthfully relating facts. This includes both the confession of crimes by the defendant and the bona fide explanation by the prosecution of the nature of the evidence which they would reasonably expect to produce a guilty verdict.

All of this is under penalty of perjury and the nullification of the plea agreement.

The argument that Cohen is not guilty on the Stormy payments depends upon an interpretation of the personal use exception. Suppose for a moment that this interpretation is correct. Is the prosecutor at risk of perjury? No. He is wrong as a matter of law, not as a matter of fact, and it takes more than being wrong to be guilty of perjury. There's really no chance in hell that the prosecutor would get in trouble for this. Courts don't punish lawyers for advancing incorrect legal arguments, which is all that I'm suggesting is happening here. Lawyers would be hesitant to even step into court if that were the case.

In principle, the plea agreement could be at risk, but in practice, from whom? Not the defendant. The defendant doesn't want the plea agreement nullified. And the judge has no reason to care.

 

[WilliamSeger]

No, this is not what I would consider impeachment worthy, itself, even if I also think that everyone who thought that Bill Clinton should have been impeached over the Monica Lewinsky scandal should be clamoring for Trump's impeachment by now (and that it's quite telling that they're mostly doing much the opposite).

One big difference in my mind is the significance of the offences: It's quite possible that we wouldn't have a president Trump if he hadn't made those hush money payments.

 

[Ziggurat]

One big difference in my mind is the significance of the offences: It's quite possible that we wouldn't have a president Trump if he hadn't made those hush money payments.

You are mistaken.

Suppose that this was a campaign expenditure which needed to be declared, as the prosecution alleges. When would that declaration need to be made? The instant the payment was made? No. The declaration would not need to be made until after the election.

So even under the prosecution's theory of the Trump campaign's legal obligations, their failure to meet those obligations would make absolutely no difference to the election.

 

[WilliamSeger]

You are mistaken.

Suppose that this was a campaign expenditure which needed to be declared, as the prosecution alleges. When would that declaration need to be made? The instant the payment was made? No. The declaration would not need to be made until after the election.

So even under the prosecution's theory of the Trump campaign's legal obligations, their failure to meet those obligations would make absolutely no difference to the election.

Way to miss the point, which doesn't have anything to do with legal technicalities.

 

[LSSBB]

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.

Citation please, that appeals in cases such as these never work.
For example, incompetent representation or prosecutorial misconduct can also include the witholding of exonerating evidence.

 

[Ziggurat]

*sigh* Assume significant and nasty bias. Conclude there's significant and nasty bias. Focus solely on that to the exclusion of anything else. Man, the logic there is totally irrefutable if you assume your conclusion and then work backwards to set up the case for it, right?

You have this completely backwards. I have been saying for pages and pages now that the real question hinges upon whether or not the payment to Stormy qualifies for the personal use exemption. If it qualifies for the personal use exemption, none of these other claims can change that, and Cohen is innocent of that charge. If it doesn't qualify for the personal use exemption, then none of these other claims are necessary, and he's guilty. I am not the one trying to focus on all this other bull ****. I'm not the one assuming no bias is possible, and that the lack of bias proves something about the law.

 

[WilliamSeger]

You have this completely backwards. I have been saying for pages and pages now that the real question hinges upon whether or not the payment to Stormy qualifies for the personal use exemption. If it qualifies for the personal use exemption, none of these other claims can change that, and Cohen is innocent of that charge. If it doesn't qualify for the personal use exemption, then none of these other claims are necessary, and he's guilty. I am not the one trying to focus on all this other bull ****. I'm not the one assuming no bias is possible, and that the lack of bias proves something about the law.

Yes, you made that point pages and pages ago, but you keep making the same point over and over because people don't agree with it. Why can't you let it go?

 

[Ziggurat]

Citation please, that appeals in cases such as these never work.

Because for the most part you don't even have grounds to appeal a plea.
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/criminal-law-basics/guilty-pleas-and-appeals.html
"If you choose to give up your right to trial in a criminal case and enter a guilty plea, you will be giving up not only a trial but also, in most instances, the right to appeal any legal or factual issues to a higher court."

For example, incompetent representation or prosecutorial misconduct can also include the witholding of exonerating evidence.

An interpretation of the law is not evidence. Nor is the prosecution capable of withholding it. And I see no reason to believe that the prosecution has withheld any actual evidence either.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, you made that point pages and pages ago, but you keep making the same point over and over because people don't agree with it. Why can't you let it go?

Because whether or not you agree, that's still what the entire question hinges upon. All this other stuff, like the claim that the judge would never accept an incorrect plea, is both wrong and irrelevant.

 

[LSSBB]

Because for the most part you don't even have grounds to appeal a plea.
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/criminal-law-basics/guilty-pleas-and-appeals.html
"If you choose to give up your right to trial in a criminal case and enter a guilty plea, you will be giving up not only a trial but also, in most instances, the right to appeal any legal or factual issues to a higher court."



An interpretation of the law is not evidence. Nor is the prosecution capable of withholding it. And I see no reason to believe that the prosecution has withheld any actual evidence either.

You haven't even seen all the evidence.

 

[Ziggurat]

Way to miss the point, which doesn't have anything to do with legal technicalities.

I know you think that the payments themselves affected the election. And maybe they did. But actions are not prohibited on the basis that they could affect the election. The entire point of a political campaign is to affect an election. The law isn't supposed to prevent that from happening.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I know you think that the payments themselves affected the election. And maybe they did. But actions are not prohibited on the basis that they could affect the election. The entire point of a political campaign is to affect an election. The law isn't supposed to prevent that from happening.

In this case, it "affected an election" by depriving voters of information that may or may not have affected their decision. That's immoral on its face, regardless of the law.