Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

[dasmiller]

Rumors that Trump is going to Pardon Manafort, despite almost everybody telling him not to do it.
Go ahead Donnie do it!
I could not think of anything that could help the Democrats more come November.

Even if he does, it may not help Manafort all that much. As was pointed out in a Slate article, Manafort can still be prosecuted New York, California, Virgina, and Illinois for the states' versions of the mistrial charges. If he'd been found guilty or not guilty of the related federal charges (in most of those cases), the states wouldn't have been able to go after him due to double jeopardy. But jeopardy doesn't attach if there's a mistrial . . . and Trump can't pardon state charges.

 

[smartcooky]

It's cute that you think this principle is inviolable.

It is. Corpus Delecti is a legal doctrine! No Judge is going to accept a plea of guilty to a crime unless they are satisfied that a crime has actually been committed.

Anyhow, y'all are having a spectacular problem understanding what we have explained.

I have no problem undertstanding any of what you are saying. It's just that you are both wrong!

Cohen pled guilty because he got something in exchange.

So what? That's no different from the large majority of plea deals.

Just because he got something in exchange does not mean there was no crime committed.

All the lawyers involved in the case (including the defendant) agree that a crime was committed.

You think they are wrong

Hooboy!

 

[GlennB]

It's cute that you think ...

The seemingly inevitable Ziggurat personal jibe.

... this principle is inviolable. Really, it's just totes adorbs.

"Corpus delicti (Latin: "body of the crime"; plural: corpora delicti) is a term from Western jurisprudence referring to the principle that a crime must be proved to have occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime. "

smartcooky has explained and referenced this fundamental principle a number of times.

Try to keep up.
Read for comprehension.
Which part didn't you understand?
Are you really this dumb?
Are you just pretending to be an idiot?
You seem confused.
It has been explained to you a number of times.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's in the plea agreement.

He got the prosecutor to recommend the punishment as calculated by a formula taking into account the number and severity of charges he plead to as well as his criminal history, among other things.

And no, there is nothing in there that says he got more lenient charges on the tax crimes because he plead to this specific crime. The implied quid pro quo simply does not exist.

The evidence indicates that he plead because they raided his offices before he had a chance to clean up. When they got everything, you fold quickly.

yeah, pretty sure they had his tax stuff, which was more than sufficient to put him and the missus away.

I did giggle when you claimed the "implied quid pro quo" and then immediately provided your conclusion of what the "evidence" "indicates."

Love it!

 

[The Big Dog]

Just because he got something in exchange does not mean there was no crime committed.

All the lawyers involved in the case (including the defendant) agree that a crime was committed.

You think they are wrong

Hooboy!

Nope, I am saying you are wrong. the lawyers involved cut a deal, and that is it.

 

[LSSBB]

It's cute that you think this principle is inviolable. Really, it's just totes adorbs.

Citation please.

 

[CapelDodger]

Corpus Delecti demands that if no crime has been committed, then a defendant cannon be convicted of it, nor can he/she plead guilty to it. This is black letter law, and a cornerstone of western jurisprudence.

As you say, making an illegal campaign contribution is an actual crime. The fact that....

1. Michael Cohen (a lawyer) plead guilty to it.
2. Lanny Davis (a lawyer) allowed his client to plead guilty to it.
3. Prosecutor Robert Khuzami (a lawyer) allowed Cohen to plead guilty to it.
4. Judge Kimba Wood (a lawyer) allowed Cohen to plead guilty to it.

... is a cast iron indication that they are all satisfied a crime has, in fact been committed. Dozens of other lawyers all agree, but two Trump sycophants on this forum, you and Ziggurat, both with a combined experience in legal matters that amount to ZERO disagree and insist they are wrong.

It's telling that this argument is the best theconservativetreehouse can come up with. Trump's defenders are being sent to the barricades armed with nothing more than sticks of celery.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's telling that this argument is the best theconservativetreehouse can come up with. Trump's defenders are being sent to the barricades armed with nothing more than sticks of celery.

Yeah, while that argument is not a compelling one at all, i am pretty sure that the poster is not a trump defender

 

[blutoski]

It's telling that this argument is the best theconservativetreehouse can come up with. Trump's defenders are being sent to the barricades armed with nothing more than sticks of celery.

It's fascinating, from a psychology point of view. GlennB has already asked the obvious questions... is TBD for real? There's something performance-art about it.

I mean, we're a long, long way from the original promise that a judge would throw this out of court laughing. Cohen's going to jail and says he'll testify that the president conspired to break the law. Options are shrinking.

 

[carlitos]

Rumors that Trump is going to Pardon Manafort, despite almost everybody telling him not to do it.
Go ahead Donnie do it!
I could not think of anything that could help the Democrats more come November.

Pardoning Manafort before he's even sentenced for only the federal portion of his many crimes would be stupid, tone-deaf and ineffectual. Which is to say that Trump will probably do it.

I'd like to be in the room when someone explains to Trump that he cannot pardon someone for a crime adjudicated in a state court. "Bring me the head of that troublesome governor."

 

[Elagabalus]

Wow! After reading the last few pages I now realize that Gary Leon Ridgway, also known as the Green River Killer, is actually innocent!

As part of a plea bargain wherein he agreed to disclose the locations of still-missing women, he was spared the death penalty and received a sentence of life imprisonment without parole.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yeah, while that argument is not a compelling one at all, i am pretty sure that the poster is not a trump defender

It is, of course, your argument that I'm referring to.


It must be increasingly obvious to you that expecting Trump to effectively confront the Obama-Clinton-Soros-Bezos combination was pure quixoticism.

 

[Dr. Keith]

yeah, pretty sure they had his tax stuff, which was more than sufficient to put him and the missus away.

Sounds like they had all his stuff, including recordings with his clients. I have no idea if his missus signed joint returns with him, but I'm sure you do if you are making that claim.

I did giggle when you claimed the "implied quid pro quo" and then immediately provided your conclusion of what the "evidence" "indicates."

Love it!

You are pushing a narrative that he admitted to a crime that he didn't commit in exchange for leniency. You have provided no evidence for this other than "why do you think he made a deal?"

I think it is fair to point out that the evidence, so far, supports him pleading out because all his cards were not he table. He had a losing hand and everyone at the table knew it.

Guilty people make plea deals every day. Cohen looks like one of those guys.

 

[LSSBB]

Now the Trump apologists are not only in the broom closet of the Bailey, they are now on the lower shelf with the garbage bags, peering up at the shelf with the mouse traps looking for a way up.

 

[Cain]

We're dealing with the deep state here. Even the President of the United States is almost powerless against the jack booted thugs of the Illuminati and Freemasons. They orchestrate false flag mass shootings to justify stealing the peoples liberties... getting a morally upstanding godfearing citizens convicted of bogus crimes is nothing...

This gets to the core of it. Trump apologists would have us believe that the president, a life-long huckster, is relatively clean compared to the deep state, actors who are so corrupt they would compel Cohen to admit guilt to crimes he didn't even commit.

Mueller's powers are sprawling and unchecked whilst Trump merely reserves the authority to fire him at any time, pardon himself for any crimes, and maintains it's impossible for him to obstruct justice. The president's TV lawyer has said truth is not truth.

 

[smartcooky]

Nope, I am saying you are wrong. the lawyers involved cut a deal, and that is it.

No, you are wrong.

Lawyers cut deals, defendants cut deals, JUDGES DO NOT CUT DEALS

A judge will NOT agree to a plea deal if that plea deal is illegal or does not satisfy minimum requirements. The simple reason for this is that any such deal will almost certainly be overturned on appeal.

"Corpus Delecti" is an inviolable doctrine of minimum requirement that MUST BE MET before a defendant can be convicted of allowed to plead guilty. .

 

[W.D.Clinger]

This is really just an attempt to label me as a hypocrite,

That ship may have sailed; did you miss the boat?

and to do so dishonestly rather than engage with the merits of my argument.

I have engaged your argument precisely because it was dishonest and lacked merit.

Our disagreement here has not been about our political opinions or preferences.

You cited and quoted an estimated statistic. When several people drew a legitimate statistical inference, you accused them of not understanding statistics.

You were objectively wrong about a technical matter. If you had combined an equally fallacious argument with a similar number of wholly unfounded insults during some discussion of entropy or Bell's inequality, I'd have responded pretty much as I've done here.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, you are wrong.

Lawyers cut deals, defendants cut deals, JUDGES DO NOT CUT DEALS

A judge will NOT agree to a plea deal if that plea deal is illegal or does not satisfy minimum requirements. The simple reason for this is that any such deal will almost certainly be overturned on appeal.

"Corpus Delecti" is an inviolable doctrine of minimum requirement that MUST BE MET before a defendant can be convicted of allowed to plead guilty. .

Bwahahahahaha!

No. Judges routinely accept guilty pleas from the innocent. And there is really no chance of appeal here.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, you are wrong.

Lawyers cut deals, defendants cut deals, JUDGES DO NOT CUT DEALS

A judge will NOT agree to a plea deal if that plea deal is illegal or does not satisfy minimum requirements. The simple reason for this is that any such deal will almost certainly be overturned on appeal.

"Corpus Delecti" is an inviolable doctrine of minimum requirement that MUST BE MET before a defendant can be convicted of allowed to plead guilty. .

Corpus delecti! Drink!

Tell me what kimba did again.

 

[The Big Dog]

Sounds like they had all his stuff, including recordings with his clients. I have no idea if his missus signed joint returns with him, but I'm sure you do if you are making that claim.



You are pushing a narrative that he admitted to a crime that he didn't commit in exchange for leniency. You have provided no evidence for this other than "why do you think he made a deal?"

I think it is fair to point out that the evidence, so far, supports him pleading out because all his cards were not he table. He had a losing hand and everyone at the table knew it.

Guilty people make plea deals every day. Cohen looks like one of those guys.

Well i have also provided detailed expert explanations why he could have beat the trumped up campaign finance charges.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove invitation to personalise the argument