Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

[The Big Dog]

That's circular reasoning, though. We don't know if it was a plea bargain. That's they yarn you're spinning without evidence. So yes, that's a label for the myth you're latched onto, but this isn't Rumpelstiltskin, it's not in and of itself support for the claim.

What an odd comment. You do know that the plea agreement we have been discussing is also known as a plea bargain, correct? Indeed, Black's Law dictionary says "Plea agreement: see "plea bargaining'"

 

[jimbob]

The proof on these counts at trial would establish
that these payments were made in order to ensure that each
recipient of the payments did not publicize their stories of
alleged affairs with the candidate.
include:
Records obtained from an April 9, 2018 series of
search warrants on Mr. Cohen's premises, including hard copy
documents, seized electronic devices, and audio recordings made
by Mr. Cohen.

We would also offer text messages, messages sent over
encrypted applications, phone records, and emails.
We would also submit various records produced to us
via subpoena, including records from the corporation referenced
in the information as Corporation One and records from the
media company also referenced in the information.

Finally, we would offer testimony of witnesses,
including witnesses involved in the transactions in question
who communicated with the defendant.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4780185-Cohen-Court-Proceeding-Transcript.html#document/p1

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you saying no judge was involved when the 2-8% pled guilty?

Proving once again that you don't understand statistics. I'm saying nothing of the sort.

Judges were involved in 100% of the cases where an innocent person pled guilty to a crime. Oh my gosh, there's another percentage! So if judges were involved in 100% of those cases, then does that mean that 100% of people who pled guilty weren't actually guilty? No. That would be a stupid conclusion. But it's essentially the level of statistical analysis you're at.

Let me see if this hint can clue you in. If a judge is presented with a guilty plea from an innocent person, what percentage of the time does the judge accept that guilty plea? Hint: it isn't 2-8% of the time.

 

[carlitos]

And the quality of Cohen's defense isn't at issue here. If they offer Cohen a plea bargain that's significantly better than he can expect from a trial, then the plea bargain is worth taking. The total punishment is what really matters to Cohen, the exact tally of charges is basically irrelevant. Adding a minor charge that he could win in court isn't worth the loss and higher sentencing on other more serious charges.

Objection - speculation.

 

[The Big Dog]

Objection - speculation.

overruled

 

[blutoski]

Because he's not a random sample, and we have additional information.

Agreed, his specific details make it even less likely, which I itemized in a later post. But this is the baseline based on your post that only quoted the odds in isolation, so wondering why you pitched for the disproven null.

No. The DA doesn't need obscurity, his target is unpopular and the charge is at least superficially plausible. And the DA risks nothing in making a plea bargain offer which isn't public unless it gets accepted.

And the quality of Cohen's defense isn't at issue here. If they offer Cohen a plea bargain that's significantly better than he can expect from a trial, then the plea bargain is worth taking. The total punishment is what really matters to Cohen, the exact tally of charges is basically irrelevant. Adding a minor charge that he could win in court isn't worth the loss and higher sentencing on other more serious charges.

It's at issue if we're talking about odds, which is what you produced in a previous post, and to which I was responding.

If you're saying, fine, fine, all the post was trying to prove was that at least one person has done this ever, so it's not impossible for Cohen to have plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit, then sure. Defendants have also been reported to spontaneously combust. The details of this specific case suggest neither has happened.

 

[Cain]

A funny article from The Guardian explores what would happen if Trump gunned down Michael Cohen on Fifth Avenue:

https://amp.theguardian.com/comment...ohen-broad-daylight?__twitter_impression=true

 

[Ziggurat]

Objection - speculation.

Speculation suffices for that part of the argument. Remember, all I'm trying to do there is demonstrate that Cohen's guilty plea does not by itself demonstrate that he's actually guilty. A reasonable motive for him to do so suffices. I do not need to prove that this was his motive, only show that it could have been.

The claim that he didn't commit that specific crime still rests upon the argument that paying Stormy wasn't a campaign expenditure. I've said that before.

 

[dudalb]

This is getting silly, now.
I have not seen grasping at straws like this in a long time.

 

[Ziggurat]

Agreed, his specific details make it even less likely, which I itemized in a later post.

No, they do not make it less likely. They make those odds completely irrelevant.

If you're saying, fine, fine, all the post was trying to prove was that at least one person has done this ever, so it's not impossible for Cohen to have plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit, then sure. Defendants have also been reported to spontaneously combust. The details of this specific case suggest neither has happened.

The details of the case suggest nothing of the sort. And the purpose of the link from which that statistic was drawn had nothing whatsoever to do with showing that Cohen might plead guilty to something he didn't do. Go back and read the exchange again, you'll see that the point of the link was something quite different.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Have we moved on from "He pleaded guilty to something that was not a crime" then?

Or was I being too generous to the argument?

Both Ziggurat and The Big Dog seem to be arguing that he's pleaded guilty to something that's not a crime and which he didn't do anyway, because prosecutors have asked him to.

 

[carlitos]

Speculation suffices for that part of the argument. Remember, all I'm trying to do there is demonstrate that Cohen's guilty plea does not by itself demonstrate that he's actually guilty. A reasonable motive for him to do so suffices. I do not need to prove that this was his motive, only show that it could have been.

The claim that he didn't commit that specific crime still rests upon the argument that paying Stormy wasn't a campaign expenditure. I've said that before.

In that case - a serious question. Why? Why are you playing Cohen's lawyer on this board, when he and his lawyer already pleaded guilty to 2 counts of election crimes? What's your interest here?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Pretty much all of them. Remember, that was about judges accepting guilty pleas from people who were not actually guilty.

My apologies, I meant how many of the defendants. I thought that was clear from the context, but apparently it was not.

You seem confused. Plea bargains aren't only about what crimes are charged. They are often about recommended sentencing, even if the charge remains the same.

The Stormy payment as campaign expenditure charge is minor. The penalty he gets from adding that charge can be more than offset by a reduction in penalties for other charges. For Cohen, the legal accuracy of any particular charge is irrelevant. What matters is minimizing the total punishment he gets. If pleading to something that wasn't a crime reduces his punishment, then of course he's going to do it, and his law degree doesn't pose any sort of impediment to that.

The campaign charge has the same range of penalty as most of the other charges. Only one of the eight charges has a greater penalty range. The determination of the suggested penalty range is set by formula, as laid out in the plea agreement. I don't see any evidence that they are letting him off easy for adding another charge to his sheet. Could you please point me to that?

 

[Darat]

What it really hinges on is whether I'm right about paying Stormy not being a campaign expenditure. I think my argument on that point is pretty strong. If I'm right that it's not an expenditure, then it doesn't really matter why Cohen pled guilty to it, but I've given a very plausible explanation for why he might.

But suppose I'm wrong, and he's truly guilty on that count. The incentive for him to plead guilty is still the same. In neither case is his plea itself evidence that the action was or was not a crime. In both cases, his incentive to plead guilty has nothing to do with the truth, and everything to do with reducing his sentence.

How can you plead guilty to something that isn't a crime?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Now what we have not been discussing in connection with this is Cohen's "expensive lawyers," and in this case, Lanny Davis. It might but should not surprise you to know that he might not be on the up and up and might not have had Cohen's best interests in mind....

I may be able to believe this if you add a few more qualifying "mights". Or you could provide evidence. Either would work.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Now what we have not been discussing in connection with this is Cohen's "expensive lawyers," and in this case, Lanny Davis. It might but should not surprise you to know that he might not be on the up and up and might not have had Cohen's best interests in mind....

The Deep State keeps getting bigger, and deeper, doesn't it? It's probably easier to list how many people aren't part of this conspiracy.

 

[Dr. Keith]

What are the odds if the prosecutor has him (and his wife) 100% dead to rights on 5 charges, but will ONLY make a deal for him (and his wife) if he pleads to additional charges?

Practically a 100% doncha think? Of course.

Do you have evidence for this persuaded perjury theory of yours?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What are the odds if the prosecutor has him (and his wife) 100% dead to rights on 5 charges, but will ONLY make a deal for him (and his wife) if he pleads to additional charges?

Practically a 100% doncha think? Of course.

The Deepest of States. Muahahahaha!

 

[The Big Dog]

I may be able to believe this if you add a few more qualifying "mights". Or you could provide evidence. Either would work.

See, we needed the mights!

We Just Gonna Sit Here and Act Like Lanny Davis Isn't a Lifesized Bag of ******

 

[phunk]

You don't need to understand legal theory to know this. You can just look at what actually happens. And what actually happens is that people plead guilty to crimes they don't commit, and judges accept those pleas, all the time.

But the thing is, they can only plead guilty after being charged with a crime. They aren't pleading guilty to things that aren't illegal. They are pleading guilty to things that have made a judge and grand jury say "yup, those are crimes and there's enough evidence to go forward with a trial."