Status
Not open for further replies.
I've just spent some time reading through Cohen's plea deal. There was something that caught my interest...


"In consideration of his plea to the above offenses, the defendant will not be further prosecuted criminally by this Office and, with respect to tax offenses, the Tax Division, Department of Justice, for any crimes relating to:
(1) evasion of payment of income taxes, for the calendar years 2012 through 2016, as charged in Counts One through Five of the Information;
(2) making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a credit decision, from at least in or about February 2015, up to and including in or about April 2016, as charged in Count Six of the Information;
(3) causing an unlawful corporate contribution, from at least in or about June 2016 through in or about August 2016, as charged in Count Seven of the Information;
(4) making an excessive campaign contribution, on or about October 2016, as charged in Count Eight of the Information, and
(5) making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a credit decision by Sterling National Bank, from at least in or about October 2016, up to an including in or about April 2018, it being understood that this agreement does not bar the use of such conduct as a predicate act or as the basis for a sentencing enhancement in a subsequent prosecution including, but not limited to, a prosecution pursuant to 18 USC 1961 et seq"
.

Its section 5 that I find interesting. I looked up 18 USC 1961; its The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act.

From wiki: Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court since it focuses on patterns of behaviour as opposed to criminal acts.

To me, this looks like the prosecution keeping their options open to go after Cohen and any con-conspirators for racketeering, and if patterns of behaviour are the key, then Dolt really could be in deep doodoo!

Did you look up to see whether that is stock language that the SDNY uses in other plea agreements??

protip: it is.

protip: https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1034254235435593728
 
Last edited:
popehat is a pretty reliable source.

Be that as it may, it still doesn't negate what was said at all. I'm really not sure why anyone would be smug about posting it, that's for sure.

Does anything the big dog said negate the following sentence?

To me, this looks like the prosecution keeping their options open to go after Cohen and any con-conspirators for racketeering, and if patterns of behaviour are the key, then Dolt really could be in deep doodoo!

It can be stock, and that's fine. It can still mean that the phrase was designed to let the prosecution keep their options to open go after cohen (or anyone), and it doesn't mean that Trump isn't in deep doodoo.

It's neat, and thanks for TBD pointing it out from atop his self proclaimed high horse, but I don't get why it's relevant at all. It's a lame attempt at a gotcha.
 
www.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1034193170865774592

ROGER STONE (via Instagram video): "Someone is saying that they overheard a conversation in which I told Donald Trump in October of 2016 what exactly would be in the WikiLeaks disclosures and when they would be disclosed." He says Ronan Farrow—The New Yorker—will soon report it.

Did RS say, "Ronan Farrow of the New Yorker will soon report that someone overheard a conversation in which...." and the NYer will report:

a) that the conversation really happened and that is a verified fact
b) that the claim is just hearsay
 
Be that as it may, it still doesn't negate what was said at all. I'm really not sure why anyone would be smug about posting it, that's for sure.

Does anything the big dog said negate the following sentence?



It can be stock, and that's fine. It can still mean that the phrase was designed to let the prosecution keep their options to open go after cohen (or anyone), and it doesn't mean that Trump isn't in deep doodoo.

It's neat, and thanks for TBD pointing it out from atop his self proclaimed high horse, but I don't get why it's relevant at all. It's a lame attempt at a gotcha.

I won't defend his tone, but the point seems pretty valid to me. We probably shouldn't get our hopes up on some racketeering charge just because some RICO legalese is included in a boilerplate plea agreement.

Mueller can be frustrating in his competence. In a political world of backbiting sycophants spreading rumors and dirt left and right, Mueller's crew doesn't leak. We'll just have to wait for the hammer blows on the Trump org as they come. Chasing after some RICO boilerplate is wishful thinking.
 
Did you look up to see whether that is stock language that the SDNY uses in other plea agreements??

Plea agreements use boilerplate text all the time; it doesn't mean that the same wording is used in every plea agreement, so my question is still a valid one.


You're no legal "pro".

A legal professional would refer people to an actual legal source such as Findlaw, not some dimwit on twitter.
 
Plea agreements use boilerplate text all the time; it doesn't mean that the same wording is used in every plea agreement, so my question is still a valid one.



You're no legal "pro".

A legal professional would refer people to an actual legal source such as Findlaw, not some dimwit on twitter.

Popehat isn't a nitwit, so in this case I think we invoke the stopped clock.
 
That's why it's hard to believe Manafort is considering a plea deal. Unless, of course, if that is his message to Trump.


A pardon won't protect him from state charges, and some of his federal charges -- bank fraud, tax evasion -- are likely subject to prosecution under state law. He knows he's going to prison; the only question now is how long. He has an incentive to make a deal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/business/trump-manafort-pardon-new-york-state-vance.html
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...rdons-him-thanks-to-a-lone-holdout-juror.html

The other problem with a pardon is that he could no longer claim the Fifth; he could then be required to testify fully and completely about everything he knows about Trump, whom he has known since the '80s.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...fort_s_relationship_with_the_trump_world.html
 
Popehat isn't a nitwit, so in this case I think we invoke the stopped clock.

Who?

Keep in mind, I don't have a Twitter account (and I will never have one). I have as little to do with Twitter as possible.. I consider that whole "realm" to be inhabited by a very large number of idiots, for which the very few intelligent ones do not compensate.
 
Last edited:
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.

Thanks for the explanation :)
 
Plea agreements use boilerplate text all the time; it doesn't mean that the same wording is used in every plea agreement, so my question is still a valid one.



You're no legal "pro".

A legal professional would refer people to an actual legal source such as Findlaw, not some dimwit on twitter.

You are rejecting a former federal prosecutor/present criminal defense attorney's opinion, who located several other examples of the fact that it was boilerplate (which you ignore because of course) as a "dimwit' on twitter.

That is fantastic.

say, you didn't happen to get the idea from actual nitwit Maddow did you (tee hee!!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom