Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

[jimbob]

I believe it is relevant, because if the intent of making hush money payments was really to protect Trump's campaign rather than his marriage or his personal reputation (ha ha), that's what would make them illegal. If they were just a personal expense, then the campaign finance laws don't apply.

And this is where I think Ziggurat's argument is. If there is any slightest hint that it might have been for personal or business reasons - even if it was overwhelmingly for campaign reasons, they seem to argue that no crime has been committed.

This seems to be a very minority view. And of course, there is probably a reasonable chance (maybe 50:50) that the there is actually an email trail discussing the effect of the buried stories on Trump's electoral chances.

 

[jimbob]

Interview with a Trump supporter on the Manafort jury who was certain that Manfort was guilty on all counts

https://twitter.com/ac360/status/1033154313982423041?s=21

 

[WilliamSeger]

And this is where I think Ziggurat's argument is. If there is any slightest hint that it might have been for personal or business reasons - even if it was overwhelmingly for campaign reasons, they seem to argue that no crime has been committed.

This seems to be a very minority view. And of course, there is probably a reasonable chance (maybe 50:50) that the there is actually an email trail discussing the effect of the buried stories on Trump's electoral chances.

Surely, Trump has no reputation to protect with the hush money. Was Melania really unaware of Trump's philandering? If she was unaware, would she be upset when she found out or would she put on her "I don't really care, do u" coat? Would Trump really care what she thought? I should think that a jury would need to be convinced that Trump had some purpose other than protecting his campaign.

 

[The Big Dog]

And this is where I think Ziggurat's argument is. If there is any slightest hint that it might have been for personal or business reasons - even if it was overwhelmingly for campaign reasons, they seem to argue that no crime has been committed.

This seems to be a very minority view. And of course, there is probably a reasonable chance (maybe 50:50) that the there is actually an email trail discussing the effect of the buried stories on Trump's electoral chances.

pretty sure zig did not mention all those fancy over the top qualifiers. so dishonest../

But regale us with tales of how exactly one concluded that the FEC's position appears to be the "very minority position."

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I believe it is relevant, because if the intent of making hush money payments was really to protect Trump's campaign rather than his marriage or his personal reputation (ha ha), that's what would make them illegal. If they were just a personal expense, then the campaign finance laws don't apply.

The how of it is what proves the why of it.

Also, how do you sever "personal reputation" from "electoral outcome" when you are running for office?

 

[jimbob]

pretty sure zig did not mention all those fancy over the top qualifiers. so dishonest../

But regale us with tales of how exactly one concluded that the FEC's position appears to be the "very minority position."

Pretty much that:


As proof that a crime had been committed, they'd accept an email stating that Trump only paid the hush money because of the election - not an email discussing the effect of the hush money on the election.

No. The impact on the election does not suffice. Trump's interest in the impact of the election does not suffice. To get past the personal use exception, we need to establish that Trump would not have paid Stormy if there were no election. If there were emails which not only discussed the impact on the election but further stated that Trump would not pay but for the election, that would be proof.

 

[Oystein]

pretty sure zig did not mention all those fancy over the top qualifiers. so dishonest../

But regale us with tales of how exactly one concluded that the FEC's position appears to be the "very minority position."

The FEC takes no position on the Trump/Cohen case, obviously.

 

[autumn1971]

Flipping should be illegal.

This is what chafes me. A sitting President has advocated against the freedom of the press, advocated violence against anyone who disagrees with him, and now has advocated that criminal priorities should have dominion over legal priorities.

There is not a single line of the Constitution that this POS has not **** on

 

[Oystein]

Pretty much that:


As proof that a crime had been committed, they'd accept an email stating that Trump only paid the hush money because of the election - not an email discussing the effect of the hush money on the election.

No. The impact on the election does not suffice. Trump's interest in the impact of the election does not suffice. To get past the personal use exception, we need to establish that Trump would not have paid Stormy if there were no election. If there were emails which not only discussed the impact on the election but further stated that Trump would not pay but for the election, that would be proof.

I am not sure that the simple binary "would pay/would not pay" suffices as the relevant test here.
it might additionally be of interest if he would have paid the same amount.

E.g., to illustrate:

• Without running for office, he would have paid $60,000
• He actually paid $130,000
• Hence, $60,000 are personal use, $70,000 are campaign use

 

[WilliamSeger]

The how of it is what proves the why of it.

Also, how do you sever "personal reputation" from "electoral outcome" when you are running for office?

Oh, I agree with that, but it would come down to a subjective opinion of the jury.

 

[The Big Dog]

Which is why the defence lawyers, the prosecution lawyers and the judge have such a strong incentive to get the legal bits 100% correct. If they've got the legal issues wrong the plea agreement isn't worth the paper it is written on.
The plea agreement states that Cohen won't appeal any sentencing and neither will the prosecution but if the charge is a false charge i.e. not a crime then that would no longer be binding.

Give him 2 years in jail and he might decide sod this I'm not serving time for a non-crime and start an appeal.

tell us, you think that Cohen or the Prosecutors or the Judge are gonna appeal???? Seriously walk us through that because: FASCINATED

keeping in mind of course that they have him (and his wife) nailed to the ******* wall on the tax counts

Sod this he thinks to himself, I am going to challenge the extraordinarily favorable plea agreement! Two years later: Michael Cohen and his wife sentenced to 25 years for tax evasion, found innocent on campaign finance charges. GENIUS

 

[The Big Dog]

The FEC takes no position on the Trump/Cohen case, obviously.

The FEC has already taken a position on the interpretation of the statute at issue, obviously.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

so tell us, you think that Cohen or the Prosecutors or the Judge are gonna appeal???? Seriously walk us through that because: FASCINATED

keeping in mind of course that they have him (and his wife) nailed to the ******* wall on the tax counts

Sod this he thinks to himself, I am going to challenge the extraordinarily favorable plea agreement! Two years later: Michael Cohen and his wife sentenced to 25 years for tax evasion, found innocent on campaign finance charges. GENIUS

Do you concede that it's a credible scenario that Cohen has pled guilty because he is actually guilty? Or do you believe that the only credible scenario is that he is innocent?

 

[phunk]

What do defendants normally get for pleading? A reduced sentence. Is that not obvious?

I meant specifically. Not your guess.

 

[Oystein]

The FEC has already taken a position on the interpretation of the statute at issue, obviously.

interpretation of the statute at issue <> the Trump/Cohen case, obviously

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you concede that it's a credible scenario that Cohen has pled guilty because he is actually guilty? Or do you believe that the only credible scenario is that he is innocent?

a fella just posts this:

keeping in mind of course that they have him (and his wife) nailed to the ******* wall on the tax counts

(posted it in Magenta! Because I guess it was not clear enough)

As such, kindly do The Big Dog a solid and walk us through the reasoning that led to y'all posting that question, inquiring minds and all....

 

[The Big Dog]

interpretation of the statute at issue <> the Trump/Cohen case, obviously

not getting the "gist" of the phrase "at issue" are we?

 

[WilliamSeger]

The FEC has already taken a position on the interpretation of the statute at issue, obviously.

They haven't taken a position on the unproven assumptions built into Zig's argument.

 

[The Big Dog]

They haven't taken a position on the unproven assumptions built into Zig's argument.

Zig's argument is based on the FEC's interpretation of the statute in the Edwards case.

 

[jimbob]

Zig's argument is based on the FEC's interpretation of the statute in the Edwards case.

And a couple of lawyers have pointed out why that wasn't relevant.

As well as the actions by the judge, prosecution, and defence in this case implicitly supporting the two lawyers analyses.