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

[waiguoren]

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.

It's a decent post, but it totally misses the point. Cohen most likely is guilty on much more than five counts of tax evasion. It's exceedingly likely that he pleaded guilty to the two extra charges to save himself from many more years in prison on unknown charges. He didn't sign a plea agreement out of the kindness of his heart.

The two extra charges are minor campaign finance violations, but they implicate the president. The SDNY, working with Mueller, were probably happy to get Cohen on fewer and less severe charges in exchange for getting a shot at their ultimate target.

Therefore, whether Cohen would actually have been found guilty before a jury on the two campaign finance charges is an open question. He would have pleaded guilty to all kind of crimes he never committed in order to get a reduced sentence.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

 

[PolishHeadlock]

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

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

... reminds me of Josie Wales spitting on that snake oil salesman.

 

[HOLA]

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

 

[Quipling]

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.

Why do you hate pussy?

 

[Neph]

 

[MikeMcMann]

It's a decent post, but it totally misses the point. Cohen most likely is guilty on much more than five counts of tax evasion. It's exceedingly likely that he pleaded guilty to the two extra charges to save himself from many more years in prison on unknown charges. He didn't sign a plea agreement out of the kindness of his heart.

The two extra charges are minor campaign finance violations, but they implicate the president. The SDNY, working with Mueller, were probably happy to get Cohen on fewer and less severe charges in exchange for getting a shot at their ultimate target.

Therefore, whether Cohen would actually have been found guilty before a jury on the two campaign finance charges is an open question. He would have pleaded guilty to all kind of crimes he never committed in order to get a reduced sentence.

You are putting value on 'being found guilty' that does not exist. You keep pointing to a potential abuse or flaw in the system on one side while ignoring the even bigger one on the other.

You can be 'found guilty' and yet be innocent. The verdict can be an error. Everyone 'found guilty' is still maintaining they are innocent and the conviction was a mistake.

So your argument of 'whether he WOULD have been found guilty' if tried is meaningless since he could still be innocent. INstead we have something much more damning. We have him saying 'you don't need a jury to find me guilty, I will admit my crimes'. You have the criminal admitting the crimes.

If your position of 'those pleading guilty may not truly be guilty of the crime because they were not convicted' then you must also admit that 'those convicted by a jury may not be truly guilty because the jurors could have made the wrong conclusion'.

The criminal admitting the crimes is always >>>> the jury finding someone guilty who denies it. In the first you have the ADMISSION of the crime and the crime itself. In the second you have the DENIAL of the crime and the crime itself. You cannot suggest a jury finding is the only conclusive proof when in fact it is weaker.

 

[HOLA]

Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov will put him back in the grave as soon as he's done using him for a bit.

 

[HOLA]

haha, looks like the Dr. was busted.

https://twitter.com/mstuartdds

 

[waiguoren]

You are putting value on 'being found guilty' that does not exist.

No, that's not right. I'm saying that Cohen's pleading guilty on the campaign finance charges is nearly meaningless to the truth of the matter of whether Cohen is actually guilty of that crime. That's because it's fairly obvious that an implicit cooperation agreement is at play here.

I agree with you that a guilty verdict does not imply actual guilt.

If your position of 'those pleading guilty may not truly be guilty of the crime because they were not convicted' then you must also admit that 'those convicted by a jury may not be truly guilty because the jurors could have made the wrong conclusion'.

I agree with this. I'm comparing a jury's guilty verdict to a plea agreement signed by a squeezed witness admitting guilt. On average, the guilty verdict is more likely to approximate actual guilt. Squeezed witnesses often plead guilty to crimes they are innocent of.

The criminal admitting the crimes is always >>>> the jury finding someone guilty who denies it. In the first you have the ADMISSION of the crime and the crime itself. In the second you have the DENIAL of the crime and the crime itself.

On paper, yes. In practice, definitely not.

You cannot suggest a jury finding is the only conclusive proof when in fact it is weaker.

There is no "conclusive proof" (that's reserved for mathematics and logic). We are talking about probabilities here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There you go again, seeing everything through a political lens.

Facts are facts, whether uttered by a Democrat or by a Republican.

Er, no. You were making a bizarre and obviously silly argument, and then I noticed that Republican talking heads were instructed to make that argument on TV appearances. I'm guessing that you got it retail (that is, you saw some talking head making that ridiculous argument and repeated it rather than getting the memo).

 

[Falsedawn]

Why do you hate pussy?

Why they don't want me man?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Here we have more speculation about motivations. Point me to a post of mine in which I "defended Trump's corruption". That's a smear more befitting of a Sean Hannity broadcast than a Jack V Savage post.

You've been doing it throughout this thread.

This is false and totally unjustified by anything I wrote. In fact, I support the drafting of articles of impeachment against President Trump. A significant bloc of the Congress would vote 'yes', and therefore a vote should be held. This is similar to my support of the holding of a vote on the nomination of Merrick Garland, although the case for a vote there was even stronger (I view the action of the Republicans in that case to have been borderline unconstitutional).

You said that the president can't be indicted and then that he shouldn't be impeached unless he's been found guilty of a crime. Catch 22 situation.

 

[Rational Poster]

You've been doing it throughout this thread.



You said that the president can't be indicted and then that he shouldn't be impeached unless he's been found guilty of a crime. Catch 22 situation.

He just doesn't want to admit he's wrong about the guy.

 

[waiguoren]

Er, no. You were making a bizarre and obviously silly argument, and then I noticed that Republican talking heads were instructed to make that argument on TV appearances. I'm guessing that you got it retail (that is, you saw some talking point making that ridiculous argument and repeated it rather than getting the memo).

The argument I made is that Cohen is being squeezed. Do you really dispute that? Do you really think Cohen is only guilty of five tax evasion charges? Do you think Cohen would have pleaded guilty to the campaign finance charges if he weren't implicitly cooperating with the Mueller team? Do you have unshakable faith the payments to Clifford were indeed in-kind campaign contributions? That question hasn't been adjudicated and I have serious doubts that the average jury would reach a verdict on that question.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The argument I made is that Cohen is being squeezed.

The argument is that fact that he said he did it and will accept prison time for it isn't a finding that he did it. You've made a prior decision to defend Trump to the death here, and you don't care how silly you look doing it.

 

[waiguoren]

You've been doing it throughout this thread.

You didn't cite a single example. Typical.

If I defend the right of evil antifa people to march in the streets, would that be an example of me "defending their evil"?

You said that the president can't be indicted and then that he shouldn't be impeached unless he's been found guilty of a crime. Catch 22 situation.

That's a strawman. The House can bring articles of impeachment for any reason. Whether or not the president is guilty of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors" is another question entirely.

 

[waiguoren]

The argument is that fact that he said he did it and will accept prison time for it isn't a finding that he did it. You've made a prior decision to defend Trump to the death here, and you don't care how silly you look doing it.

Although you're mostly wrong, you got one thing right. I don't care how I look. I care about what is right.

The fact that Cohen pleaded guilty to a minor campaign finance violation as part of a plea agreement is very weak evidence that he is actually guilty of that offense except in the narrowest sense of the term "guilty".

 

[new_mexico1]

Wasn't Cohen's business partner working with prosecutors on that, too?