Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
Asked and answered pages ago, multiple times. To get a lighter sentence.
Click to expand...

Of course. That's why people flip and tell the truth when they're guilty. He knew he was breaking the law which is why he and his boss, Trump, have lied about it since day one. He's a freaking lawyer. He knows what's a crime and what's not a crime.

You've presented nothing that convinces anyone here that what Cohen and Trump did wasn't a crime. There's good reason for that: it is a crime.

You and TBD go on believing whatever makes you happy. It doesn't make it true. And I've already wasted enough time on this dead as a door nail subject. Toodles!
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
No. He is arguing based on how he interprets the law...which is contrary to what the prosecution found, to what the defense agreed to, and what the judge accepted.


So...
Click to expand...

No, he is explaining how the FEC interprets the law.
 
Stacyhs said:
No, he used one quote from one person. Someone else presented another opposing quote from a former FEC chairman.

As I told Zig, I've wasted enough time on this subject. You believe whatever floats your boat. Toodles!
Click to expand...

I decided to let the courts decide.

Turns out they already did.
 
Drysdale said:
I've got to ask.

What exactly are Cohen, et al going to "flip" on Trump about?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ziggurat said:
Judges don’t get in trouble just for being wrong, and if my argument is right, you still can’t say the judge did anything worse than be wrong.

What oversight do you imagine would prevent this?
Click to expand...

This has got to be one if the funniest threads I have read in a long time. :-)

The world you are creating is really bizarre.
 
jadebox said:
This has got to be one if the funniest threads I have read in a long time. :-)

The world you are creating is really bizarre.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much it. Double jointed ambidextrous game of Twister with just the right amount of bluster and creative reinterpretation. It's a never-ending journey through a hypercube of pretend legal authority to all avoid any hint of a taint of an allusion that The Donald could have done anything even just a shade unsavory or illegal.
 
LSSBB said:
That's pretty much it. Double jointed ambidextrous game of Twister with just the right amount of bluster and creative reinterpretation..
Click to expand...

One of the things that I found funny was thinking of the poor law clerk having to record the guilty plea for a crime that doesn't exist. Granted, I am not familiar with how courts handle things like that, but I doubt they can just make up statutes to cite.
 
I imagine that it’s like an illiterate person signing a contract. Where it says “guilty of crime code # ____________” the clerk just puts an X. It’s not like anyone would ever check. I mean judges and prosecutors do this all the time.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
jimbob said:
That is not addressing what I said, which was addressing what you have been arguing upthread (see the exchange with Smartcooky)- not the moved goalpoasts.

OF COURSE judges, despite their best efforts, will have accepted guilty pleas from people who are actually innocent. Nobody is disputing that.

However that is quite different from a judge accepting a guilty plea to something when their reading of the law is that no crime has been committed.
Click to expand...


That's how one's brain tricks itself.
Click to expand...


Apparently it's even trickier to find examples of judges who have accepted guilty pleas when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed.

I wonder why that is? Some people seem to think it's remarkably common. That should make it easy to document a few.
 
carlitos said:
I imagine that it’s like an illiterate person signing a contract. Where it says “guilty of crime code # ____________” the clerk just puts an X. It’s not like anyone would ever check. I mean judges and prosecutors do this all the time.
Click to expand...


Why even bother with such minor details. Once the defendant has offered a guilty plea, nothing else matters anymore. That's the end of it. Right?

The prosecutor has won their case, and the judge doesn't have any business questioning how it was done.

What do they even need a crime for?
 
quadraginta said:
Apparently it's even trickier to find examples of judges who have accepted guilty pleas when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed.

I wonder why that is? Some people seem to think it's remarkably common. That should make it easy to document a few.
Click to expand...

It happens on TV/movies all the time!!
 
Judges hate it when their cases get thrown out by a higher court because of some obvious flaw.
Since this is such a high-profile case, we can be certain that the t's were crossed.
 
imagination

Upchurch said:
Ziggurat said:
Cohen's statement doesn't mean much, coming as part of a plea deal.
Click to expand...

If Cohen lies as part of his plea deal, the deal is voided and he's eligible for prosecution at higher stakes, which now includes perjury. He has a vested interest in not lying to the court and prosecutors.
Click to expand...
The folks who are promoting increasingly imaginative scenarios in which Donald Trump has done nothing wrong have been amazingly quick to disregard what Cohen said under oath.

In other contexts, these same people have expressed extraordinary fear of the "perjury trap" they see in saying anything at all to a court, a grand jury, the FBI, or a special counsel. It's almost as though they cannot imagine how someone in that position might avoid perjury by telling the truth.

Before I conclude they cannot imagine how they themselves might avoid perjury by telling the truth, I should consider the time and energy they have expended on their defense of a man whose ability to avoid perjury by telling the truth is indeed hard to imagine. Having invested so much of their imagination on normalization of habitual dishonesty, they may have lost their ability to imagine the possibility that someone who is testifying under oath, at risk of being prosecuted for perjury if they lie, might actually tell the truth.

Michael Cohen does not appear to be a person who would tell the truth if he could avoid doing so without consequence. Under the circumstances, however, I'm finding it easier to believe what Michael Cohen said under oath than to believe the Internet non-lawyers who are saying Cohen probably, must have, undoubtedly lied to the court.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Trump supporters should be grateful that Cohen didn't get immunity like Pecker or Weisselberg.
Click to expand...


Prosecutors don't generally offer immunity when they already have air-tight, irrefutable cases in hand, that's when they go for plea deals if they want more information, or (more likely) testimony against other parties.

Immunity is useful when you have someone you can't nail who can give information you don't have, and testify to it, but whose testimony might get them into their own trouble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom