Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

[BobTheCoward]

I'm thinking it would look like a group of adults having a rational and open discussion. And seriously, where would be the fun in that?

I have no side. People can't stand my discussion.

 

[plague311]

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.

The point may or may not be valid. I'm not sure. I will wait to see how this plays out.

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.

That's part of what I am referring to in my statement. Mueller or his team obviously edited the line to include the details about the specific bank, dates, etc. If they went through and edited it, but left it in there then they must see it as relevant, even if it is boiler plate.

For instance, when I prep equipment there's a lot of "bloatware" in the system. Some of it I remove, some of it I leave because it could come in handy. I feel like this could easily be the same scenario. Yes, it's boilerplate, but that doesn't make it any less useful or relevant. I don't think we should be banking on any specific thing, because I think there will be more than enough to go around in the long run

 

[smartcooky]

You are rejecting a former federal prosecutor/present criminal defense attorney's opinion

You are claiming to be a former federal prosecutor/present criminal defense attorney?

say, you didn't happen to get the idea from actual nitwit Maddow did you (tee hee!!)

No, I haven't seen MSNBC for about a week.

 

[The Big Dog]

You are claiming to be a former federal prosecutor/present criminal defense attorney?

Now why would you ask that? The person you referred to as a "dimwit on twitter" was the former federal prosecutor, etc I was referring to...

oh right, you don't read things on twitter, which seems to be something that is convenient when people link to things on twitter that nuke your arguments from orbit.

Say, in coming up with this theory totes on your own, did you dig at all to figure out that it might just be boilerplate?

Little digging to test your theory, hmmm? Little bit?

 

[smartcooky]

Now why would you ask that?[

You claimed you were giving a "pro" tip. I read that as you claiming you are a "pro".

The person you referred to as a "dimwit on twitter" was the former federal prosecutor, etc I was referring to...?

I had no idea who that was. Perhaps if you were to say something like... "Read this link. The user here is a former federal prosecutor" instead of your smart-alec "pro tip" BS, perhaps we'd all get somewhere.

As regards twitter, I never go there. I have said so before so that's nothing new, or unusual. Lots of people don't like those limited media platforms. As I said, I consider them to be overwhelmingly inhabited by idiots with the occasional intelligent person, but I'm not prepared to waste my time sorting through the chaff to find the occasional grain of wheat.

 

[carlitos]

At this point, you could google popehat a lot faster that this nonsense you’re engaged with.

 

[smartcooky]

At this point, you could google popehat a lot faster that this nonsense you’re engaged with.

TBD never mentioned popehat, so I had no reason to google it

 

[LSSBB]

You claimed you were giving a "pro" tip. I read that as you claiming you are a "pro".



I had no idea who that was. Perhaps if you were to say something like... "Read this link. The user here is a former federal prosecutor" instead of your smart-alec "pro tip" BS, perhaps we'd all get somewhere.

As regards twitter, I never go there. I have said so before so that's nothing new, or unusual. Lots of people don't like those limited media platforms. As I said, I consider them to be overwhelmingly inhabited by idiots with the occasional intelligent person, but I'm not prepared to waste my time sorting through the chaff to find the occasional grain of wheat.

Yeah, I've found it pretty limited in usefulness myself, due to the character limit. It'd be fine if it had any grounding to it, however the signal to noise ratio combined with the tiny info funnel makes it mainly a playground for content-free sound bites, zingers, and unfiltered tiny turdlets. To use it as a serious reference vs. original sources is, well, not being serious

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You claimed you were giving a "pro" tip. I read that as you claiming you are a "pro".



I had no idea who that was. Perhaps if you were to say something like... "Read this link. The user here is a former federal prosecutor" instead of your smart-alec "pro tip" BS, perhaps we'd all get somewhere.

As regards twitter, I never go there. I have said so before so that's nothing new, or unusual. Lots of people don't like those limited media platforms. As I said, I consider them to be overwhelmingly inhabited by idiots with the occasional intelligent person, but I'm not prepared to waste my time sorting through the chaff to find the occasional grain of wheat.

If you google popehat, his blog and wikipedia page are the first two hits. It even has a picture. He's practically a household name...

Popehat is active on twitter, but his primary means of communication is his blog at popehat.com It's a longtime blog about the first amendment and other legal issues with a very good reputation. Ken White, the owner and primary author of the blog, is a former federal prosecutor and current defense attorney and is often featured in editorials of major publications. His long running series about the malfeasance and takedown of Prenda law is a very interesting story with a satisfying ending.

He also has a podcast and is co-host of another podcast about Trump's legal troubles, All the President's Lawyers, which I recommend. It tends to be very level headed and doesn't go down the hyperbolic rabbit holes that many other, less legally astute journalists do.

 

[Ziggurat]

You claimed you were giving a "pro" tip. I read that as you claiming you are a "pro".

That's... not what it means.

 

[The Big Dog]

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/[HILITE]Popehat[/HILITE]/status/1034254235435593728

TBD never mentioned popehat, so I had no reason to google it

O'Rly.

Or ya know, y'all could have just clicked the link before declaring that the person linked was a "nitwit."

Cool tho that you selectively deleted my questions whether you had done any research to determine whether there was any substance to your claim, and now we can say with great, indeed overwhelming confidence that you did not.

 

[smartcooky]

Yeah, I've found it pretty limited in usefulness myself, due to the character limit. It'd be fine if it had any grounding to it, however the signal to noise ratio combined with the tiny info funnel makes it mainly a playground for content-free sound bites, zingers, and unfiltered tiny turdlets. To use it as a serious reference vs. original sources is, well, not being serious

100%.

When I said earlier I didn't have a Twitter account that wasn't strictly speaking true. I actually do because I started one to follow Prof Brian Cox around the time of the LHC starting, but I found it so frustrating to use that I decided it wasn't worth the time wasted to get at the rare useful bit of information, so I stopped using it, and spam blocked notifications in my email (I couldn't figure how to stop Twitter sending be notifications.)

 

[Trebuchet]

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.

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.

Popehat is the nom-de-web of Ken White, a former federal prosecutor turned criminal defense attorney. If you don't like twitter, you can always read his blog. He's no fan of Trump, BTW. I believe he self-describes as a "left-libertarian".

 

[smartcooky]

O'Rly.

Or ya know, y'all could have just clicked the link before declaring that the person linked was a "nitwit.

I clicked the link. I see nothing in that link that tells me pophat is a lawyer.

Cool tho that you selectively deleted my questions whether you had done any research to determine whether there was any substance to your claim, and now we can say with great, indeed overwhelming confidence that you did not.

Sorry, by why would I? I took the wording in the agreement at face value?

And as I stated later (and you ignored) it makes no difference if the wording is "boilerplate". This type of "prefab" wording is used frequently in legal documents, BUT NOT ALWAYS. Every plea agreement ever does no have this same wording. Why has it been used here?

 

[LSSBB]

O'Rly.

Or ya know, y'all could have just clicked the link before declaring that the person linked was a "nitwit."

Cool tho that you selectively deleted my questions whether you had done any research to determine whether there was any substance to your claim, and now we can say with great, indeed overwhelming confidence that you did not.

Do you agree in with Ken White's analysis in areas of law, or do you feel your judgement is better than his in certain areas?

 

[The Big Dog]

I clicked the link. I see nothing in that link that tells me pophat is a lawyer.



Sorry, by why would I? I took the wording in the agreement at face value?

And as I stated later (and you ignored) it makes no difference if the wording is "boilerplate". This type of "prefab" wording is used frequently in legal documents, BUT NOT ALWAYS. Every plea agreement ever does no have this same wording. Why has it been used here?

Well, as Popehat explained in the link I gave you which mentioned his name and contained actual links to actual examples of actual plea bargains that contain the same or similar actual language and after you "clicked' it concluded he was a dimwit on twitter based on....?????....

I mean, @maddow, if you just seized on some stock language from an agreement you didn't understand, without asking anyone who did understand, and used it to go on national TV to promote a fatuous "HEY LOOK RICO" narrative -- well, that's some ******* of the deepest dye.

 

[jimbob]

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.

From wiki

Popehat is a law-oriented internet blog.[1] According to its tagline, Popehat is a "group complaint about law, liberty, and leisure". Its primary blogger, American attorney Ken White, writes about law, scams, and freedom of expression on the internet.[2]

 

[smartcooky]

From wiki

Yes, I'm aware of that NOW, but I wasn't then.

In any case, I don't see how it is my burden to check the veracity of someone else's source.... their source, their onus

 

[smartcooky]

Well, as Popehat explained in the link I gave you which mentioned his name and contained actual links to actual examples of actual plea bargains that contain the same or similar actual language and after you "clicked' it concluded he was a dimwit on twitter based on....?????....

Well, perhaps when I saw "twatter" in the URL, my eyes glazed over and I went into zombie mode. Platforms full of idiots have that effect on me.

If that is the case, then guilty - I should have read it more closely.

(Links to twitter should come with a mandatory mental heath warning)

 

[Belz...]

Why is a law not a mathematical truth?

Why is a flower not a spaceship?

Why didn't he pay her in 2011 then? Answer, because back then, he didn't much care whether she said anything.

Why did he pay her in 2016? Answer, because he was running for president and he knew if her story came out it would affect his chances at the polls.

If statements made as part of a plea deal don't mean much, why do prosecutors go to so much trouble to get them.

It's pretty sad that you can cut through those arguments this easily.

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.

That doesn't actually answer the question. Why do you think Cohen is not guilty of the crime of campaign finance violation?