Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
A bunch of people saying something is true, does not make it true. Arguments must stand up on their own evidence, not who supports it.
Click to expand...

There are sports where the judgement of the umpire/referee/judge decides on what happened. It doesn't matter what other people think - the laws are that the official decides. Similarly, with law. The judge is the person adjudicating on the law. In this case the judge (along with the vast majority of disinterested* observers) agreed that a campaign crime had been committed.

In cricket, if a bowler appeals for LBW, the batsman walks and the umpire signals LBW, it doesn't actually matter what anyone else thinks, by definition the batsman was out for LBW.

*Yes, disinterested as opposed to uninterested.
 
jimbob said:
There are sports where the judgement of the umpire/referee/judge decides on what happened. It doesn't matter what other people think - the laws are that the official decides. Similarly, with law. The judge is the person adjudicating on the law. In this case the judge (along with the vast majority of disinterested* observers) agreed that a campaign crime had been committed.

In cricket, if a bowler appeals for LBW, the batsman walks and the umpire signals LBW, it doesn't actually matter what anyone else thinks, by definition the batsman was out for LBW.

*Yes, disinterested as opposed to uninterested.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jimbob said:
There are sports where the judgement of the umpire/referee/judge decides on what happened. It doesn't matter what other people think - the laws are that the official decides. Similarly, with law. The judge is the person adjudicating on the law. In this case the judge (along with the vast majority of disinterested* observers) agreed that a campaign crime had been committed.

In cricket, if a bowler appeals for LBW, the batsman walks and the umpire signals LBW, it doesn't actually matter what anyone else thinks, by definition the batsman was out for LBW.

*Yes, disinterested as opposed to uninterested.
Click to expand...

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.
 
BobTheCoward said:
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.
Click to expand...

But the only one that matters
 
There comes a point in any discussion when I think people need to actually ask themselves why they are continuing to argue.

In cases when every single point that can be raised, has been raised, multiple times, nobody is going to be convinced of the others viewpoint. Especially when they flat-out reject any argument but their own. The comment (that was) directly above mine is a perfect example.*

But obviously, you are liberty to continue. Ill check back in 10 more pages or so and see if the discussion has advanced. I'm willing to bet it won't have ^^





*Damn you Ninja William :D
 
RolandRat said:
There comes a point in any discussion when I think people need to actually ask themselves why they are continuing to argue.

In cases when every single point that can be raised, has been raised, multiple times, nobody is going to be convinced of the others viewpoint. Especially when they flat-out reject any argument but their own. The comment (that was) directly above mine is a perfect example.*

But obviously, you are liberty to continue. Ill check back in 10 more pages or so and see if the discussion has advanced. I'm willing to bet it won't have ^^





*Damn you Ninja William :D
Click to expand...

These types of situations is why God invented gambling. People can put up a bet and just wait, and let the outcome do the talking.
 
BobTheCoward said:
These types of situations is why God invented gambling. People can put up a bet and just wait, and let the outcome do the talking.
Click to expand...

We can let the outcome do the talking. There was lots of evidence, which is why Cohen pleaded guilty and the judge accepted it. *That* was the outcome.

Remember, that TBD initially thought that Cohen hadn't done anything that would even lead him to being disbarred. His record isn't as great as he'd like to claim.
 
The Big Dog said:
Nope
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that Cohen pled down from a crime he did commit to a crime he didn't commit, so that, while still guilty of campaign finance violation(s), he didn't commit the exact violation with which he was charged?


I don't think prosecutors are allowed to do that. If arrested for, and charged with, say, theft, you can't plead down to jaywalking, unless you also jaywalked while committing the theft. They can't just pick some lesser charge from a grab-bag.


The only other way I can think to interpret your arguments is that you believe Cohen committed no crimes at all, and lied when pleading guilty.
 
DallasDad said:
Are you suggesting that Cohen pled down from a crime he did commit to a crime he didn't commit, so that, while still guilty of campaign finance violation(s), he didn't commit the exact violation with which he was charged?


I don't think prosecutors are allowed to do that. If arrested for, and charged with, say, theft, you can't plead down to jaywalking, unless you also jaywalked while committing the theft. They can't just pick some lesser charge from a grab-bag.


The only other way I can think to interpret your arguments is that you believe Cohen committed no crimes at all, and lied when pleading guilty.
Click to expand...

No
 
DallasDad said:
This leaves only the position that the prosecution, judge, Cohen's defense lawyers, and Cohen himself, all agreed that he committed the crimes, but you personally don't believe it. Is that it?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Yes, your analysis of the campaign finance charges seemed to hinge on the Edwards case, which has no impact on this case, and the FEC guidance, which has no legal impact, and an assumption that Cohen and Trump can show some reliance on that FEC guidance, even though there is no evidence that they can.

Compare that to lawyers who have actually seen the documents obtained from Cohen and have had time to review them in detail. Do you think they may know the situation a bit better than you? Well, I'll wait to see how the hand plays out.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
The Big Dog said:
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.
Click to expand...

What legal impact does his guilty plea have on Trump?

How does it help the prosecutors in presenting a case against Trump?

And why is it so easy to assume he is guilty of crimes you know very little about and so hard to see he is guilty of crimes where the probability of guilt is so high?

Ziggurat already admitted that it is possible that there are documents that show this was a campaign expenditure. I would contend it is likely based on Cohen's habit of recording Trump and his inability to get the law straight, but nonetheless, we all know that it is possible. And yet, you seem to think it totally impossible. What an odd position to take. Smack dab int he fiddler's chair as the lifeboats fill up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom