Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Dog said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think any prosecutor can effectively use Mr. Cohen as a witness other than corroborating voices on tapes and that the documents are true and correct copies of the documents he had in his office. And I'm not sure he is even needed for those things. He is a Trump lawyer, he is not credible.
 
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...

If they don't have documentary evidence of the crime, Cohen's testimony is worthless. If they do have documentary evidence of the crime, Cohen's testimony is unnecessary.

He plead guilty to save his family the cost of a trial. Like most people who plead guilty when all the evidence is on the table.
 
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's the problem though, if it's not actually a crime, then it doesn't have any foothold on Trump because sooner or later it has to be tested and the Trump's lawyers can point out that no crime occurred and it all falls over.
 
Emily's Cat said:
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.



[emoji14] IANALE, and I definitely am not smarter about law than lawyers!
Click to expand...
"I'm not smarter about the law than lawyers"

Proceeds to argue about the law with Dr. Keith, who happens to be a lawyer.

Neat.
 
a_unique_person said:
Trump hired Cohen.

If we also consider insane, Trump hired Giuliani.
Click to expand...

Hey, you need to be fair. Cohen might have been Trump's personal Lawyer for twelve years, responsible for dealing with cleaning up his dalliances, but he says that he hardly knew the guy, and who would we be if we didn't believe Trump, right?
 
Dr. Keith said:
If they don't have documentary evidence of the crime, Cohen's testimony is worthless. If they do have documentary evidence of the crime, Cohen's testimony is unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Why would his testimony be worthless? If he says he was directed to do make the payments by Trump, why wouldn't that be enough to charge Trump? Not convict, yeah, but to charge?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Why would his testimony be worthless? If he says he was directed to do make the payments by Trump, why wouldn't that be enough to charge Trump? Not convict, yeah, but to charge?
Click to expand...

He is not a credible witness. Any defense attorney would have a field day with him.

They need to have documents to go after the President. If they don't have documents they won't go after him at all. Even if everyone says they know he did it. Everyone around him has no credibility.

Also, I and using the loose phrase "go after" because there is no chance Mueller will indict a siting president. He will submit a report that details any criminal actions that should be filed, but that will be up to Congress. There is no precedent for a sitting president facing criminal charges. Impeachment is the only route.
 
Dr. Keith said:
He is not a credible witness. Any defense attorney would have a field day with him.

They need to have documents to go after the President. If they don't have documents they won't go after him at all. Even if everyone says they know he did it. Everyone around him has no credibility.

Also, I and using the loose phrase "go after" because there is no chance Mueller will indict a siting president. He will submit a report that details any criminal actions that should be filed, but that will be up to Congress. There is no precedent for a sitting president facing criminal charges. Impeachment is the only route.
Click to expand...

Not sure I would agree. Credibility is a judgment call.

As for whether a sitting President can be indicted, I am not sure why people say this. There is no law I am aware that says this. No, there is no precedent, but so what? I am inclined to believe he won't be, but this is based more on custom than the law.
 
acbytesla said:
Not sure I would agree. Credibility is a judgment call.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you don't go after the most powerful person in the country based on the testimony of a known liar who has a plea bargain in place.

As for whether a sitting President can be indicted, I am not sure why people say this. There is no law I am aware that says this. No, there is no precedent, but so what? I am inclined to believe he won't be, but this is based more on custom than the law.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think it is a custom that will stand.
 
Dr. Keith said:
If they don't have documentary evidence of the crime, Cohen's testimony is worthless. If they do have documentary evidence of the crime, Cohen's testimony is unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Not so. Simply publishing documentary evidence to the jury is not enough. Verbal witness testimony gives context to that documentary evidence.

Why do you think lawyers hand testifying witnesses documentary exhibits and ask them to read certain parts to the jury?
 
Dr. Keith said:
Yeah, but you don't go after the most powerful person in the country based on the testimony of a known liar who has a plea bargain in place.
Click to expand...

Ordinarily I would agree. But this is Trump we're talking about. The least credible person I've ever seen.


Seriously, even Trump supporters roll their eyes when the Donald starts speaking I can't imagine taking Donald's side in any 'he said, she said situation.
 
It's being reported that Manafort tried to get a deal with Mueller before the second trial. This is very interesting to me because that would seem to imply Mueller doesn't really need him. If he did, they certainly could have come to some form of plea.

This could be a bad sign for the special investigation. If Manafort doesn't have anything they want, is there anything worth getting out there?
 
plague311 said:
It's being reported that Manafort tried to get a deal with Mueller before the second trial. This is very interesting to me because that would seem to imply Mueller doesn't really need him. If he did, they certainly could have come to some form of plea.

This could be a bad sign for the special investigation. If Manafort doesn't have anything they want, is there anything worth getting out there?
Click to expand...

Bad sign? The goal is to arrive at the truth. If they can't use it because there wasn't a crime, that is good news.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom