Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

[Dr. Keith]

Of course FEC guidance has legal significance. I cited a US Supreme Court case explaining why.

Iff Trump and Cohen can show they relied on it. That is a big if.

Those lawyers do not appear to know the law as well as I, but I will cheerfully concede that Cohen might just be dumb enough to have **** his own bed, he ****** up his taxes enough to put him and his wife away for a long time.

Imagine they know the law quite well. Then imagine how bad Cohen must have **** his bed. That is exactly how dumb we all think Cohen is, ever since he argued that marital rape was not possible.

 

[The Big Dog]

Iff Trump and Cohen can show they relied on it. That is a big if.



Imagine they know the law quite well. Then imagine how bad Cohen must have **** his bed. That is exactly how dumb we all think Cohen is, ever since he argued that marital rape was not possible.

We know Trump was following the Edwards case very closely, another thing I showed in this thread.

 

[gabeygoat]

No, I have explained my position crystal clearly on several occasions.

The prosecutors had him (and his wife) dead to rights on the tax claims. However, if Cohen wanted a deal, the prosecutors required him to plead to all their charges, given the fact that they have bigger fish in mind.

The judge did not rule on the merits of the charges.

Did he get a deal?

 

[Dr. Keith]

We know Trump was following the Edwards case very closely, another thing I showed in this thread.

No, you showed he was sympathetic to Edwards, not that he understood the legal issues at play.

By that standard he was following the NFL closely and knows all about the new helmet rule.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, you showed he was sympathetic to Edwards, not that he understood the legal issues at play.

By that standard he was following the NFL closely and knows all about the new helmet rule.

One is presumed to know the law

 

[Dr. Keith]

One is presumed to know the law

Yes, we are not talking about the law, we are talking about FEC guidance. To use that as a defense one must show that they relied on it. Absent such evidence, they are pleading guilty to the crime to lessen their sentence.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, we are not talking about the law, we are talking about FEC guidance. To use that as a defense one must show that they relied on it. Absent such evidence, they are pleading guilty to the crime to lessen their sentence.

Oh, I think you misunderstand. You see, the issues we are raising are not a defense, the issue we are raising is part of the prosecutor’s burden as part of what legalbeagles call its prima facile case.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Oh, I think you misunderstand. You see, the issues we are raising are not a defense, the issue we are raising is part of the prosecutor’s burden as part of what legalbeagles call its prima facile case.

Go back and read your case then. The FEC guidance is only applicable if the party can show they relied on it.

And that is iff they aren't already recorded in some way as making it clear that this was a campaign issue. If there is one document where Trump or Cohen make it clear that this payment was only being made because of the campaign, then it doesn't even matter if they also say it shouldn't be an issue because of the FEC guidance.

They need two big ifs to fall just right. And I doubt either of them do.

 

[The Big Dog]

Go back and read your case then. The FEC guidance is only applicable if the party can show they relied on it.

And that is iff they aren't already recorded in some way as making it clear that this was a campaign issue. If there is one document where Trump or Cohen make it clear that this payment was only being made because of the campaign, then it doesn't even matter if they also say it shouldn't be an issue because of the FEC guidance.

They need two big ifs to fall just right. And I doubt either of them do.

Oh dear, again, you appear to be laboring under a misapprehension. You see, as I explained proving intent is part of the prosecutor’s case, not the defendant’s case. Further, if there is a trial, then the judge has to instruct the jury, so what happens is that the legal beagles draft up a jury instruction, so they will take the FEC guidance and write one that says something like “to find that DonnyTrump violated the statute, the government must prove that the sole purpose of the payment was to benefit the campaign.”

 

[smartcooky]

Go back and read your case then. The FEC guidance is only applicable if the party can show they relied on it.

And THAT is most definitely the defence's burden to prove.

And that is iff they aren't already recorded in some way as making it clear that this was a campaign issue. If there is one document where Trump or Cohen make it clear that this payment was only being made because of the campaign, then it doesn't even matter if they also say it shouldn't be an issue because of the FEC guidance.

They need two big ifs to fall just right. And I doubt either of them do.

THIS!

 

[quadraginta]

The Judge was not asked to adjudicate the law, the Judge did not adjudicate the law, the belief that accepting a plea bargain is an adjudication on the merits is wrong.

If that was the case then there would be no need for a judge. But judges must hear the plea ... in court. To evaluate its merits. They pass judgement on it. On its merits. They must accept or deny it. On its merits.

Judges can refuse to accept a plea bargain. On its merits.

And sometimes they do.

Therefore, by definition, they are adjudicating the plea bargain. On its merits.

As usual, your claims are not merely wrong, but really most sincerely wrong.

 

[Drysdale]

Ten years of an inside look at the Trump family criminal enterprise, I would imagine.

Just skimmed through David Cay Johnston's It's Even Worse Than You Think. It would appear Trump once got a cartel cocaine drug dealer off pulling a few strings, getting the venue changed to his sister's courtroom. She eventually recused herself but the dealer who was a mob contact of Trump's still got off scot free.

Adds a bit more to the speculation about his sniffing during some speeches.

I thought this was an investigation focusing on Russian interference in the 2016 election? Now it's morphed into just get Trump.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Those lawyers do not appear to know the law as well as I,

<snip>

Good grief.

I think you might actually believe you know more about the law than two teams of top lawyers, prosecution and defense, in a Federal court.

That much self-delusion alone is enough to discount any of your arguments.

 

[quadraginta]

Oh, I think you misunderstand. You see, the issues we are raising are not a defense, the issue we are raising is part of the prosecutor’s burden as part of what legalbeagles call its prima facile case.

No they don't.

prima facie

: (pry-mah fay-shah) adj. Latin for "at first look," or "on its face," referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial​

Although the unintentional pun does have some interesting connotations.

fac·ile

1.
(especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.
synonyms: simplistic, superficial, oversimplified;​

Thank you for demonstrating that your knowledge of the law is so superior to teams of lawyers in Federal court.

 

[acbytesla]

I thought this was an investigation focusing on Russian interference in the 2016 election? Now it's morphed into just get Trump.

Nonsense. No one is out to get Trump. It's follow the evidence. You can argue that they should turn a blind eye to criminal acts because the President may be implicated. Do you think that?

 

[Stacyhs]

No they don't.

prima facie

: (pry-mah fay-shah) adj. Latin for "at first look," or "on its face," referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial​

Although the unintentional pun does have some interesting connotations.

fac·ile

1.
(especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.
synonyms: simplistic, superficial, oversimplified;​

Thank you for demonstrating that your knowledge of the law is so superior to teams of lawyers in Federal court.

And SNAP!

 

[dmaker]

beaten to the punch..

 

[The Big Dog]

If that was the case then there would be no need for a judge.

facepalm. here is the judges role:

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, A waiver of the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and applicable to the States by the Fourteenth; of the right to trial by jury, and the right to confront one's accusers -- all of which are involved when a guilty plea is entered in a state criminal trial -- cannot be presumed from a silent record. Pp. 395 U. S. 242-243.

Acceptance of the petitioner's guilty plea under the circumstances of this case constituted reversible error because the record does not disclose that the petitioner voluntarily and understandingly entered his plea of guilty.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

People analyze umpire calls all the time. As long as a bar exists somewhere,the umpire is not the final word on the play. There are many words spoken about the play afterwards.

If the umpire and players on both sides agree, are you suggesting fans' POVs should also be taken into account?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

People do know, I hope, that you don't always plead down to a lesser charge in a plea bargain. Sometimes the defendant pleads guilty to avoid a trial for various reasons. Sometimes one hopes for a shorter sentence by not fighting a charge. Some guilty pleas are to avoid airing certain things in public in the trial.

It's a false assumption that a plea bargains always mean some charges are reduced or dropped.