Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

[theprestige]

What's with the Dan Rather revival? Did he just die in a Paris hotel room of an overdose of bichloride of mercury?

 

[carlitos]

Because I think it's correct. Do I need any more reason?

I guess not. "Someone is wrong on the internet" after all. You and others here might consider that speed of response isn't increasing the quality of discussion. You guys are shouting past each other, not even pausing to clarify when the other side asks multiple times for clarification. It makes for rather tough reading.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think it's pretty obvious that Cohen did wilfully and knowingly hide these contributions.

Of course he hid the payments. But if the payments are not a campaign contribution, then doing so is not a crime.

I think it's pretty obvious from what we already know that these were intended to benefit Trump's election chances.

That doesn't suffice to pass the irrespective test.

There really is no reason to suppose that Cohen risked a charge of perjury in testifying against Trump in order to get a reduced sentence

Cohen hasn't testified against Trump. If he ever does, we don't know what he will say. And you can't get him for perjury if he says that the payments are a campaign contribution even if they aren't, because he can always claim he thought they were and you can't disprove that. So no, Cohen has not risked perjury.

It also takes a lot of effort to believe that Trump did not commit multiple serious crimes before becoming president

My argument here isn't about anything other than the payments to Stormy and Karen. I make no claims about Trump being otherwise law abiding.

This is obviously not legally admissible evidence, but it can help assess whether the Cohen was lying when he said that Trump has instructed him to commit crimes. There is no reason to doubt this.

There is considerable reason to doubt that, namely that the actions in question (payments to Stormy and Karen) were not crimes because they were not campaign contributions. Edwards should have settled that.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not when it comes from you. I will let Ziggurat answer.

Uh huh. Well let me give you a tip? The lines "Okay, so no charges, that is very likely but not impossible. Indictment, it is then. It could become a part of an indictment, but that is political."

Are completely nonsensical, you dig?

 

[WilliamSeger]

You shouldn't. You should evaluate my claim on its merits. Nothing I have said requires any personal trust in me.

No, but at a minimum it requires that we believe Cohen and Trump would have paid the hush money even if he weren't running for president, and that a jury would also believe that. If the standard is "reasonable doubt," why should we believe that? You say it's because he paid hush money to women before. When, to whom, for what, and how much? At the least, that part of the trial would have been fun.

 

[GlennB]

I think that Ziggurat has me on ignore, and maybe that's a good thing. Perhaps someone could quote this.

Ziggurat, given that you are a light of truth and justice here, among a bunch of idiots who can't understand your brilliance, why - why?!? - are you arguing this theory in Cohen's defense? I asked before, with no answer. I begged you to make your position clear with no answer. Why are you even on this board, if you don't want to engage in honest discussion?

Yes. Your quotes will go missing in this reply, but I'm astonished that Ziggurat's incessant bombardment of ad homs haven't attracted a bunch of yellow cards.

"You can't honestly be this dense, can you?"

"Are you honestly this clueless?"

Maybe they're phrased carefully enough to escape a ding. Dunno.

 

[Shalamar]

Sorry, but that really does not make any sense.

Cohen himself flat-out said that he plead guilty to the charges against him because he is in fact guilty of those charges.

But he's obviously innocent. Only liberals/democrats are guilty.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, but at a minimum it requires that we believe Cohen and Trump would have paid the hush money even if he weren't running for president, and that a jury would also believe that. If the standard is "reasonable doubt," why should we believe that? You say it's because he paid hush money to women before. When, to whom, for what, and how much? At the least, that part of the trial would have been fun.

here you go, just a handful of examples:

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/remember-all-those-other-times-the-national-enquirer-sq-1828558014

seems like it is a pretty regular thing, huh?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Because I think it's correct. Do I need any more reason?

This isn't a new issue, it came up with John Edwards. And the FEC actually said directly that the payments to Edwards' mistress were not campaign contributions. The prosecution decided to ignore that. The prosecution also argued that the payments are a campaign contribution if they fulfill any purpose for the campaign, but the FEC has made pretty clear with their "irrespective test" that this is a misinterpretation of the statute, and the jury in Edwards' case agreed with the FEC.

Lastly, a note on the importance of all of this. The payment was made just before the election. Supposing that the expense had been declared as a campaign expense, that declaration would not need to happen until after the election. So even under the theory that this was a campaign expense that needed to be declared, the lack of a declaration did not affect the election in any way.

Didn't Loss Leader correct you on the differences between the Edwards case and this case? Was that not in this thread?

 

[WilliamSeger]

here you go, just a handful of examples:

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/remember-all-those-other-times-the-national-enquirer-sq-1828558014

seems like it is a pretty regular thing, huh?

In other words, you don't have any actual evidence.

 

[acbytesla]

No, but at a minimum it requires that we believe Cohen and Trump would have paid the hush money even if he weren't running for president, and that a jury would also believe that. If the standard is "reasonable doubt," why should we believe that? You say it's because he paid hush money to women before. When, to whom, for what, and how much? At the least, that part of the trial would have been fun.

That would be hilarious.

I'd be shocked if before Trump became political that he paid ANY women to say they 'no, they didn't sleep with him'. Trump has never been afraid of negative press and I bet he would hardly consider sleeping with other women to be negative.

 

[Darat]

EVERYTHING you just said was wrong.

Folks it was an agreement, where the prosecutors wanted a conviction that would lay a foundation for bigger fish, and Cohen wanted to do as little time as possible and get his wife off the hook.

No lawyer is going to be sued because Cohen copped to plea on charges he could have beaten where he was also being charged with a bunch of counts he had zero chance of winning.

You do know you are not addressing what I said to Ziggurat?

 

[The Big Dog]

Didn't Loss Leader correct you on the differences between the Edwards case and this case? Was that not in this thread?

Now I know that a legal beagle such as yourself is not trying to undermine a legal principle ("the FEC has made pretty clear with their "irrespective test" that this is a misinterpretation of the statute") based on differences in facts.

The legal principle stays the same, here it is the "irrespective test."

 

[The Big Dog]

You do know you are not addressing what I said to Ziggurat?

I do know that everything you said to Ziggurat was totally and completely wrong, which therefore addresses everything you said to Ziggurat.

 

[LSSBB]

Didn't Loss Leader correct you on the differences between the Edwards case and this case? Was that not in this thread?

I think that was on the Stormy thread. Good post too.

Quoted:

Just for fun, please explain what Cohen could have done differently (eleven days before the election) to avoid the question of a campaign finance violation.





Edwards' lawyers proved no such thing. The gifts made to Edwards were over a two year period. In comparison, Cohen's gift to Trump came just eleven days before an election. Gifts to Edwards were used for the support of his child over the course of years. In comparison, Cohen's gift did not help satisfy a legal obligation for Trump to support his child. The gifts never had anything to do with a federal election because Edwards never got that far. He withdrew during the Democratic primaries. In comparison, Cohen's gift was made after Trump had secured the nomination and just a week and a half before the general election.

In any case, Edwards' lawyers did not prove much of anything. The jury did find Edwards not guilty of one count but the jury was hung on five other counts. The prosecution declined to retry him on those counts. But declining to retry a person is in no way the same as him being found not guilty.

The only thing even vaguely instructive about the Edwards case for this situation is that federal prosecutors were not bound by the opinion of the FEC. Even though the FEC chose to see no campaign finance violation, the justice department was free to ignore that and ask a jury to make that decision.

 

[The Big Dog]

In other words, you don't have any actual evidence.

Golly, i just took a gander at that article again, and it is chock full of evidence!

Did y'all get a chance to read it, or just gonna post howlers like "In other words, you don't have any actual evidence"?

 

[dudalb]

I think we have a couple of those "I could shoot somebody in broad daylight in Times Sqaure and they would still support me" Trump supporters here.

 

[Ziggurat]

Didn't Loss Leader correct you on the differences between the Edwards case and this case? Was that not in this thread?

Both you and Loss Leader are confused. I suggested that paying Hunter from campaign funds might have been illegal if she didn't actually do work for the campaign. There is no equivalent here. I don't recall ever arguing that the payments to Hunter through non-campaign funds was illegal, which is the parallel here, and I certainly didn't do so in the thread he recently linked. Nor does whether or not I had made such an argument indicate anything about the validity of the argument here. This is really just an attempt to label me as a hypocrite, and to do so dishonestly rather than engage with the merits of my argument.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Golly, i just took a gander at that article again, and it is chock full of evidence!

Did y'all get a chance to read it, or just gonna post howlers like "In other words, you don't have any actual evidence"?

In other words, as usual, you have no intention of arguing honestly. Here's what the article says about Trump:

When those stories did come up, they would be “purchased and their publication avoided,” prosecutors said, adding that during the campaign, Cohen arranged “for the purchase of two stories so as to suppress them and prevent them from influencing the election.”

The rest of the article amounts to, "This stuff happens all the time."

 

[Dr. Keith]

Now I know that a legal beagle such as yourself is not trying to undermine a legal principle ("the FEC has made pretty clear with their "irrespective test" that this is a misinterpretation of the statute") based on differences in facts.

The legal principle stays the same, here it is the "irrespective test."

No, I was trying to refer readers to the very good post by LL that reminds us that the FEC is not arbiter of what is illegal and what is not.

Also, that the facts are quite different.