Not Just a Cohencidence (Mueller/Investigation Thread v.20)

[waiguoren]

Trump just said on Fox that if we impeach him we're all going to be poor, hahah.

"You know, I guess it says something like high crimes and all -- I don't know how you can impeach somebody who has done a great job...If I ever got impeached, I think everybody would be very poor...You would see numbers that you wouldn't believe."

That's really what he was saying, verbatim.

He has a way with words.

 

[Throttlehead]

There is no way he finishes his 3rd year of first term.

 

[waiguoren]

There is no way he finishes his 3rd year of first term.

Account bet on that?

 

[Quipling]

Every qualified defense attorney in Giuliani's position would be wary of a perjury trap and a he-said-she-said situation potentially leading to a conviction.

Nonsense.

 

[waiguoren]

Nonsense.

Let's get a bit more exposition.

 

[44nutman]

What have I learned from this thread.
People plead guilty to non existent crimes.
It is a plea trap.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

- I don't know how you can impeach somebody who has done a great job..."

I'm guilty but well loved

 

[HOLA]

He has a way with words.

Sure does.

 

[Execute]

Trump just said on Fox that if we impeach him we're all going to be poor, hahah.

"You know, I guess it says something like high crimes and all -- I don't know how you can impeach somebody who has done a great job...If I ever got impeached, I think everybody would be very poor...You would see numbers that you wouldn't believe."

That's really what he was saying, verbatim.

That's something a War Room President would say. Not the President of the US lmao

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Sure does.

He treats his cult with contempt, speaking to them as if they're children, with dumbed down language, poorly expressed.

It's pretty amazing. I've never seen a politician completely abandon even a slightly clever attempt at using reason to advance his innocence.

 

[HOLA]

He treats his cult with contempt, speaking to them as if they're children, with dumbed down language, poorly expressed.

It's pretty amazing. I've never seen a politician completely abandon even a slightly clever attempt at using reason to advance his innocence.

Everything has to be so hyperbolic. It's exhausting.

"The best eva! The best words! Nobody else can fix it! "

"My elixir cures constipation, acne and baldness! Believe me!"

 

[Quipling]

Let's get a bit more exposition.

I disagree with the stated assertion hat your belief is one shared by "every", or even "most" qualified defense attorneys. I don't see how you are qualified to make that claim.

Second, "he said she said" does not present a realistic threat of perjury. Most attorneys with criminal experience are aware of this. I have literally never seen perjury come from simple contradiction by another person.

Third, perjury traps are setting someone up, in an interview purportedly about a recent event, to contradict assertions they had previously made about an unrelated set of events. Not he-said-she-said. It's possible that you're aware of this, but it isn't apparent from your posting.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Everything has to be so hyperbolic. It's exhausting.

"The best eva! The best words! Nobody else can fix it! "

"My elixir cures constipation, acne and baldness! Believe me!"

It's frustrating to watch adults listen to an idiot talk down to them and see them praise him for it. Tbh it's even worse in print.

Mueller and his seven Angry Democrats blah blah blah!! Why aren't they investigating Crooked Hillary? No collusion!!

 

[waiguoren]

Wai has tried to sneak in the claim that these campaign contributions were legal unchallenged.

Either they were an illegal contribution from Cohen, or Trump lied on his financial disclosure forms when he didn’t tell the FEC about them. Which I believe is a felony.

Thanks for the comment. I have not been sneaky.

If the payment is considered a "campaign contribution", and if Cohen made the $130,000 contribution himself, then Cohen would be guilty of exceeding the $2700 individual contribution limit or the $0 corporate contribution limit (he pleaded guilty to the latter). Trump would have no culpability. The Trump Campaign for President would also be fined for not disclosing the contribution.

If the payment is considered a "campaign contribution" by Donald Trump, then Trump would be guilty only of the offense of failing to declare a lawful campaign contribution with the FEC. This is the "jaywalking" minor offense that Dershowitz referred to. To my knowledge no one has ever been convicted of it in federal court.

The payment cannot be considered a "campaign expenditure" by the Trump campaign because campaign funds were not used.

If the payment is not considered a "campaign contribution" or a "campaign expenditure", then there is no illegality.

Lanny Davis is insisting that Trump is guilty of a crime because he directed Cohen to make an unlawful campaign contribution. He just stated on Fox News that Trump is guilty of "the same crime" as Cohen. I suspect Davis is referring to "willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution." That's the only interesting legal question that I see here.

 

[44nutman]

Sure does.

Trump hates windmills because of his golf course in Scotland. Scotland put a bunch near his golf course. Trump fought it and lost. He used the dead bird defense in that case. Rudy will probably use the dead bird defense or the Chewbacca defense in Trumps collusion defense.

 

[Tekk]

"My elixir cures constipation, acne and baldness! Believe me!"

There's an episode of an old western tv show where a con man named trump comes to the town selling snake oil.

 

[waiguoren]

I disagree with the stated assertion hat your belief is one shared by "every", or even "most" qualified defense attorneys. I don't see how you are qualified to make that claim.

Second, "he said she said" does not present a realistic threat of perjury. Most attorneys with criminal experience are aware of this. I have literally never seen perjury come from simple contradiction by another person.

Third, perjury traps are setting someone up, in an interview purportedly about a recent event, to contradict assertions they had previously made about an unrelated set of events. Not he-said-she-said. It's possible that you're aware of this, but it isn't apparent from your posting.

I do not believe for one moment that any rational defense attorney representing Trump would consent to Mueller's conditions for an interview.

In order to charge the subject of an investigation with lying to a prosecutor, the Special Counsel needs only a single witness to contradict the subject. In this case, the witness is a criminal who has clearly been squeezed. There is no federal law that requires corroboration of the testimony of a flipped witness in order to convict.

I'll also differ with you on the definition of "perjury trap". The term is classically used to refer to any situation in which a prosecutor cannot indict on the substantive crimes because of insufficient evidence, then proceeds to induce the target to testify in a manner that would be contradicted by other sources. It's much broader than the definition you gave.

 

[sickc0d3r]

I am guilty.
Guilty I am. Do you like green eggs and ham?
You are not guilty, guilty I am! And I do not like green eggs and ham!
I am guilty. Try me. You will see!
You are not guilty, it cannot be! I do not like your guilty plea!
Perhaps you'll like it in a tree?
NOT in a tree! I do not like it in a tree.
In a box? With a fox? Would you like it with a fox?
NOT in a box, not with a fox. I do not like it in a tree, I do not like it, you let me be!
A train! A train! Would you like it on a train?
No, I would not like it on a train.
I do not like it in a box.
I do not like it with a fox.
I do not like it on a train.
I would not, could not, in the rain.
I do not like it in a tree, I do NOT LIKE your guilty plea!
I do not like green eggs and ham! You are not guilty, guilty I am!

 

[MikeMcMann]

I appreciate the tag, especially as I would have missed that post if you hadn't tagged me. I also appreciate @BKMMA's post, which was of high quality. However, nothing that @BKMMA wrote contradicted my post. As I wrote: Cohen pleaded guilty to a crime, but no independent, formal finding of fact concluded that Cohen was guilty of that crime. In context of the Mueller/SDNY probes and the attempts to "squeeze" those under the president, this is a key distinction that many anti-Trump partisans are overlooking.

As I said upthread...


...Its worse than a guilty verdict in terms of assessing guilt.

If you get a guilty verdict you can appeal and you can maintain the jurors were wrong and it was an injustice.

In a guilty plea you have admitted the crime and have no appeals you can make.

You seem to think there is some magic or extra legitimacy to a guilty verdict where there is not. Admitting guilt is a higher threshold of certainty as opposed to being found guilty when you were denying it.

 

[Falsedawn]

Trump hates windmills because of his golf course in Scotland. Scotland put a bunch near his golf course. Trump fought it and lost. He used the dead bird defense in that case. Rudy will probably use the dead bird defense or the Chewbacca defense in Trumps collusion defense.

What makes that such a stupid ass assertion is that high rises and domestic cats kill way more birds than wind turbines. If Dolan thinks turbines need to go because they kill birds, then Trump Tower is the first piece of shit building that's going on the chopping block.

We're saving birds after all.