Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Keep away from addressing the other posters. There are more than enough non-members to fling poo at without splattering it all over your fellow forum members.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
Eagle-eyed readers will note that a selection of posts have been sent to a better place, for reasons such as personalisation, baiting and bickering.

Will you all please bear your membership agreements in mind when composing and submitting your posts, and in particular will you all please refrain from personalisation. This includes making your post(s) about yourself as well as making posts about your interlocutors.

Thank you for your understanding and anticipated compliance.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
ponderingturtle said:
Well there was the side issue that it seems that the money came from the Trump Foundation and not out of Trumps Pocket.
Click to expand...

No, Weisselberg's email ordered it to be paid from the trust that was set up to hold the Trump Organization and Trump's other businesses. Like so many other stories about this absurd administration, the stories are getting mixed up: The Trump Foundation is also under investigation for other self-dealing and tax evasion schemes.
 
WilliamSeger said:
No, Weisselberg's email ordered it to be paid from the trust that was set up to hold the Trump Organization and Trump's other businesses. Like so many other stories about this absurd administration, the stories are getting mixed up: The Trump Foundation is also under investigation for other self-dealing and tax evasion schemes.
Click to expand...

Ah it seems Opening Arguments got that wrong.
 
plague311 said:
Many people are saying that Roger Stone believes a Donald Trump Jr. indictment and arrest for lying to the FBI is right around the corner. I doubt it's true as I saw it on Newsweek, but I'd be pouring a glass of excessively expensive bourbon if it does happen.
Click to expand...

smartcooky said:
Can I tempt you to swap that for a large glass of Glenlivet 12 on the rocks? :D
Click to expand...

plague311 said:
So it is written, so it shall be done.
Click to expand...

Oystein said:
Why?? :boggled:
Click to expand...

plague311 said:
Can you clarify your question? Why would I drink Glen? Why would I drink in this situation? Why did I use that phrase?
Click to expand...


I don't have any Glenlivet on hand, but I've got some expensive bourbon and two full bottles of Balvenie 15 I've been saving for such occasions.

I assume Oystein drinks good German beer. Come to think of it, I still have a couple of bottles of St Bernardus Abt 12, which is Belgian but what the hey.
 
quadraginta said:
Sure there was. It could have been reported properly. Just because doing so would have been embarrassing is not a sufficient reason to try to evade the law.
Click to expand...
At which point it could reasonably be argued that he was using campaign money for personal things.

quadraginta said:
He could also have not made the pay-off.

Yeah, that could have ended up embarrassing, too, but that's the situation he got himself into. There was no Catch-22. He just got himself in a bind with no way out that wasn't personally embarrassing to him. That isn't the law's fault.
Click to expand...
Except that if he had reported it appropriately, it could have been argued that he had used campaign funds for personal stuff... which is where the catch-22 comes in.
 
Emily's Cat said:
At which point it could reasonably be argued that he was using campaign money for personal things.


Except that if he had reported it appropriately, it could have been argued that he had used campaign funds for personal stuff... which is where the catch-22 comes in.
Click to expand...

It could have been argued, but the argument would fail, per Edwards and the FEC guidance. All they would need to do is properly document the reason for the expense per needs of the election. Since it was not part of a series of ongoing payments, it would be in the clear.

ETA: IANAL. Just to be clear. And I don't pretend to be smarter than lawyers about law, either.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
At which point it could reasonably be argued that he was using campaign money for personal things.


Except that if he had reported it appropriately, it could have been argued that he had used campaign funds for personal stuff... which is where the catch-22 comes in.
Click to expand...


Yep it is almost as if there is no way to legally conspire to pay hush money. WHy is that a major problem?
 
Emily's Cat said:
At which point it could reasonably be argued that he was using campaign money for personal things.


Except that if he had reported it appropriately, it could have been argued that he had used campaign funds for personal stuff... which is where the catch-22 comes in.
Click to expand...

It is not a catch-22. They did NOT only have those two choices.

EDIT: Sorry for piling on. No one had posted when I started typing my reply.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
This makes zero sense whatsoever. If they had him dead to rights on the tax charges, and the campaign financing wasn't a crime, and they wanted him to plead out, then they charge him with a lessor Tax crime charge, you know the one that they have him dead to rights on. There is no reason, and in fact becomes dangerous due to double jeopardy, to charge him for something that he didn't actually commit a crime doing.
Click to expand...

If the expenditure could be cast as a campaign finance violation, then even if it is arguable that it was NOT a violation (for example, if it were considered a personal expense rather than a campaign expense), and even if there is a reasonable chance that if it went to court Cohen could be found not guilty with respect to that campaign violation....

That campaign violation gives Mueller a foot into Trump directly, where Cohen's tax charges do not.

There are definitely motivations for offering an attractive plea bargain to Cohen if he pleaded guilty to this specific crime, regardless of how cut-and-dried the other charges might be.
 
Emily's Cat said:
That campaign violation gives Mueller a foot into Trump directly, where Cohen's tax charges do not.

There are definitely motivations for offering an attractive plea bargain to Cohen if he pleaded guilty to this specific crime, regardless of how cut-and-dried the other charges might be.
Click to expand...

Except that Cohen's guilty plea has no legal impact on Trump. It can not be used to as a "foot into Trump directly" in any real sense.
 
LSSBB said:
It could have been argued, but the argument would fail, per Edwards and the FEC guidance. All they would need to do is properly document the reason for the expense per needs of the election. Since it was not part of a series of ongoing payments, it would be in the clear.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar enough with the Edwards thing to draw a parallel. But since Trump has a history of paying off women during times when he was NOT running for office, wouldn't there be a reasonable precedent for arguing that it was a personal expenditure if he had reported it appropriately?

I'm not saying it WAS a personal expenditure as opposed to a campaign expenditure. I'm just saying that it seems like EITHER argument could be made in a reasonably strong fashion.

LSSBB said:
ETA: IANAL. Just to be clear. And I don't pretend to be smarter than lawyers about law, either.
Click to expand...

:p IANALE, and I definitely am not smarter about law than lawyers!
 
Emily's Cat said:
If the expenditure could be cast as a campaign finance violation, then even if it is arguable that it was NOT a violation (for example, if it were considered a personal expense rather than a campaign expense), and even if there is a reasonable chance that if it went to court Cohen could be found not guilty with respect to that campaign violation....

That campaign violation gives Mueller a foot into Trump directly, where Cohen's tax charges do not.

There are definitely motivations for offering an attractive plea bargain to Cohen if he pleaded guilty to this specific crime, regardless of how cut-and-dried the other charges might be.
Click to expand...

Here is the thing, they didn't use campaign funds but rather made sure to hide it through various means, and used corporate money eventually to pay cohen back. Hence no catch 22 if it was merely reported as an expense because it was campaign related as it was 2 weeks before the election. If this was done in 2013 it would not have been a campaign violation.

For someone who supposedly doesn't like Trump you really toe the Trumpist line really well.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Except that Cohen's guilty plea has no legal impact on Trump. It can not be used to as a "foot into Trump directly" in any real sense.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with you. Cohen's guilty plea certainly doesn't prove that Trump is guilty of the same crime... but taken with the statement that the payments were made at Trump's direction, I would say that it can have a legal impact on Trump - It gives the prosecution something that they can charge the president with directly, even if they don't have enough evidence to get a conviction out of it. To date, I think this would be the first thing they can directly charge Trump with, isn't it?

I mean, they may not charge him (although I don't know why they wouldn't), but they could, couldn't they?
 
Dr. Keith said:
Except that Cohen's guilty plea has no legal impact on Trump. It can not be used to as a "foot into Trump directly" in any real sense.
Click to expand...

I think you need to explain that, because a prosecutor cannot effectively use the lawyer who Trump hired to deal with the situations as a witness against Trump if the lawyer has not plead to the crime himself.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I'm not sure I agree with you. Cohen's guilty plea certainly doesn't prove that Trump is guilty of the same crime... but taken with the statement that the payments were made at Trump's direction, I would say that it can have a legal impact on Trump - It gives the prosecution something that they can charge the president with directly, even if they don't have enough evidence to get a conviction out of it. To date, I think this would be the first thing they can directly charge Trump with, isn't it?

I mean, they may not charge him (although I don't know why they wouldn't), but they could, couldn't they?
Click to expand...

Maybe yes maybe no. It certainly implicates him, but legally it makes no difference. Cohen didn't do this to flip on Trump, unlike others his deal is not contingent on his continued aid to any prosecutors. He could be called in as a witness but he always could.

ANd this shows the Cohen kept around things he really shouldn't have like the contract to buy the rights to the story of the playboy bunny from the national enquirer when they realized that dealing with the candidate and suppressing the story for him and getting reimbursed for it was a felony. And you can't make the argument it was just a poor business decision but clearly made to influence the election. THat is why they broke of that deal and Cohen was supposed to destroy the contract.


Remember everyone involved in this whole thing is really really dumb
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom