Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

[jimbob]

Good idea. I've got dibs on Giuliani for my defense team. Anyone who can peddle "the truth is not the truth" belongs in this dispute. Maybe Zig can get Clinton - is he not disbarred in some state? We can have him take up "what the meaning of is is".

Franz Kafka as the judge?

I've got an easier idea. Let's look and see if there is a case where a judge has accepted guilty pleas for such a set of actions and if they have, then we can agree that that judge's legal opinion was that a crime had been committed.


Can anyone suggest any suitable cases?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Cage Match Trump Vs. Avenatti for President should settle the matter.

I'd watch and then have the winner impeached for Dishonoring the Office.

 

[Oystein]

Cool. Please provide evidence.

Or, at least, cite a list of cases where "Western judges" have accepted guilty pleas for white collar crimes that were not committed by the defendant. Bonus points if the defendant was a lawyer himself.

Uh-uh
We need a citation where western judges have accepted guilty pleas for white collar acts that are not crimes.

You know, like pleading guilty to having had a cheese sandwich for breakfast. Zig and TBD argue that Cohen pleaded guilty to not a crime, i.e. to something as legally troubling as having cheese sandwich for breakfast
It's not like pleading that he killed a child, but didn't actually kill a child.
It's only of secondary interest if Cohen did, in fact, have a cheese sandwich for breakfast.

 

[jimbob]

Uh-uh
We need a citation where western judges have accepted guilty pleas for white collar acts that are not crimes. You know, like pleading guilty to having had a cheese sandwich for breakfast. Zig and TBD argue that Cohen pleaded guilty to not a crime, i.e. to something as legally troubling as having cheese sandwich for breakfast
It's not like pleading that he killed a child, but didn't actually kill a child.
It's only of secondary interest if Cohen did, in fact, have a cheese sandwich for breakfast.

Exactly.

 

[Mojo]

Uh-uh
We need a citation where western judges have accepted guilty pleas for white collar acts that are not crimes.

You know, like pleading guilty to having had a cheese sandwich for breakfast. Zig and TBD argue that Cohen pleaded guilty to not a crime, i.e. to something as legally troubling as having cheese sandwich for breakfast
It's not like pleading that he killed a child, but didn't actually kill a child.
It's only of secondary interest if Cohen did, in fact, have a cheese sandwich for breakfast.

Of course, if it turns out that Hillary had a cheese sandwich for breakfast, then that would obviously be an extremely serious crime.

I mean, a cheese sandwich for lunch may be a misdemeanour, but for breakfast? That’s felony cheese sandwich! Lock her up!

 

[Sideroxylon]

Flipping should be illegal.

 

[Mojo]

Flipping should be illegal.

Burgers, the bird, or heck?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Why don't you see if a court could decide between the two views?

Isn't that what courts are supposed to do?

That doesn't work if one side doesn't agree before that they are appropriate arbiters. That is a conundrum with arguing with zig at the moment.

 

[Upchurch]

That is not addressing what I said, which was addressing what you have been arguing upthread (see the exchange with Smartcooky)- not the moved goalpoasts.

OF COURSE judges, despite their best efforts, will have accepted guilty pleas from people who are actually innocent. Nobody is disputing that.

However that is quite different from a judge accepting a guilty plea to something when their reading of the law is that no crime has been committed.

From my reading, this is the argument that correctly debunks the straw Zig is grasping at.

With the exception that this doesn’t prove Trump is guilty. Zig is right about that. That’s not what these charges, and subsequent plea deal, was meant to do. What this does accomplish, however, is giving Mueller far more solid evidence to recommend charges against Trump, if he needs it.

My guess is that Cohen flipped on the campaign finance violations in order to avoid the more serious treason charges he sees coming down the road.

 

[jimbob]

That doesn't work if one side doesn't agree before that they are appropriate arbiters. That is a conundrum with arguing with zig at the moment.

I hope you appreciate the irony of your position on this (which I happen to agree with).

However regardless of what we think - the point is that in matters of law, judges *are* the people with the explicit authority to interpret what the laws actually mean.


Unless a higher court overturns the judgement.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

"Michaels Cohen’s attorney clarified the record, saying his client does not know if President Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting (out of which came nothing!). The answer is that I did NOT know about the meeting. Just another phony story by the Fake News Media!"

 

[BobTheCoward]

I hope you appreciate the irony of your position on this (which I happen to agree with).

However regardless of what we think - the point is that in matters of law, judges *are* the people with the explicit authority to interpret what the laws actually mean.


Unless a higher court overturns the judgement.

Authority doesn't mean they are doing it right. That puts us back at step 1.

ETA I don't see the irony.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Uh-uh
We need a citation where western judges have accepted guilty pleas for white collar acts that are not crimes.

You know, like pleading guilty to having had a cheese sandwich for breakfast. Zig and TBD argue that Cohen pleaded guilty to not a crime, i.e. to something as legally troubling as having cheese sandwich for breakfast
It's not like pleading that he killed a child, but didn't actually kill a child.
It's only of secondary interest if Cohen did, in fact, have a cheese sandwich for breakfast.

They have had whole trials against things that were not crimes. In mcdonnell v United states they tried the wrong interpretation of the law.

 

[LSSBB]

Uh-uh
We need a citation where western judges have accepted guilty pleas for white collar acts that are not crimes.

You know, like pleading guilty to having had a cheese sandwich for breakfast. Zig and TBD argue that Cohen pleaded guilty to not a crime, i.e. to something as legally troubling as having cheese sandwich for breakfast
It's not like pleading that he killed a child, but didn't actually kill a child.
It's only of secondary interest if Cohen did, in fact, have a cheese sandwich for breakfast.

"We"? Zig does. It's his argument, unless you'd like to collaborate with him. Or do an impartial research project... which is what is really needed, instead of making pronouncements based on squat and ridiculing any opposition.

 

[WilliamSeger]

But what evidence could change your mind to zig's argument?

Zig's argument is that protecting Trump's candidacy wasn't the sole benefit of the payment, so a narrow reading of the FEC guidelines (rather than the law itself) would mean it wasn't a campaign contribution. That interpretation would seem to make the law too dependent on unprovable intent and too easy to circumvent, so I'm not convinced a jury would agree. The Edwards case is simply not similar enough to take as a precedent, but at the very least Zig needs to establish that Trump would probably have paid the hush money even if he wasn't running for office. Despite TBD's fraudulent claim to have some, I haven't seen any evidence of that. Maybe it's in Pecker's safe.

 

[LSSBB]

They have had whole trials against things that were not crimes. In mcdonnell v United states they tried the wrong interpretation of the law.

That is an issue, essentially, for the courts to resolve. Would you like to get a law degree, a judgeship, and join the fray?

 

[BobTheCoward]

That is an issue, essentially, for the courts to resolve. Would you like to get a law degree, a judgeship, and join the fray?

That is like saying the right answer to a mature question on a test is for the teacher to resolve (and he/she said 2+2=3). The question may have a property of correctness independent of the ruling of there arbiter.

And while I love this subject, it doesn't amount to much. Zig is not naval gazing but arguing for.... something.

 

[LSSBB]

That is like saying the right answer to a mature question on a test is for the teacher to resolve (and he/she said 2+2=3). The question may have a property of correctness independent of the ruling of there arbiter.

And while I love this subject, it doesn't amount to much. Zig is not naval gazing but arguing for.... something.

No, I feel your analogy is incorrect. A more proper analogy would be It's for mathematicians to resolve, being the final arbiter of what math is correct.

 

[WilliamSeger]

That is like saying the right answer to a mature question on a test is for the teacher to resolve (and he/she said 2+2=3). The question may have a property of correctness independent of the ruling of there arbiter.

And while I love this subject, it doesn't amount to much. Zig is not naval gazing but arguing for.... something.

That's a terrible analogy. A law is not a mathematical truth, and it isn't possible to write laws that precisely cover every possible real-world event.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No, I feel your analogy is incorrect. A more proper analogy would be It's for mathematicians to resolve, being the final arbiter of what math is correct.

Judge's are the teachers, not the scientists. At any time, any principle in the science of mathematics can be challenged through study, scientific method, and peer review. The ruling of judge's is not subject to peer review, but merely hierarchy.

And a challenge in mathematics can come from anyone. Legal rulings can only come from jusges. That is not the methodology used to determine logical truth.