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

[waiguoren]

Cohen is willing to testify that all of this is true and is willing to serve time for his own crimes in order to do it.

Cohen is willing to do this to save his own ass, not out of some sense of moral duty. Let's be realistic here.

 

[MikeMcMann]

When the Innocent Plead Guilty

The 31 individuals listed below pled guilty to crimes they didn’t commit— usually seeking to avoid the potential for a long sentence (or a death sentence). They served a combined total of more than 150 years in prison before they were exonerated:

https://www.innocenceproject.org/when-the-innocent-plead-guilty/

Do you think we cannot find even more examples of guys convicted by a jury that were not guilty?

You are basically arguing that no conviction (Jury or Confession) has meaning because you can site examples of abuse and Failure.

 

[syct23]

Damn, Waygu on like a 36 hour straight posting spree...

Go on..

 

[Rational Poster]

You do realize the campaign finance violation in question assumes it's an "in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign for president" for another person to pay hush money to a woman Trump slept with?

By the same reasoning, anything that helps the Trump campaign could be construed as an in-kind contribution to the campaign. Where do you draw the line? If Trump buys a bunch of fruit to eat for energy, that will benefit his campaign. Should the purchase of that fruit be considered an "in-kind campaign contribution"?

This is just bullshit also.

Unless it was a $3000 haircut it does not violate any finance laws.

 

[waiguoren]

Do you think we cannot find even more examples of guys convicted by a jury that were not guilty?

You are basically arguing that no conviction (Jury or Confession) has meaning because you can site examples of abuse and Failure.

I'm merely arguing that it can be advantageous to plea guilty to crimes for which one is innocent. Some of the less-informed posters in this thread such as @Limbo Pete were convinced that "GUILTY IS GUILTY!!!>$!@$", but it just ain't so.

 

[Rational Poster]

Trump's purchase of a massage benefitted his campaign by giving him more energy on the trail. Is that an in-kind campaign contribution? You can't just say "I know it when I see it." The jurors in the Edwards case couldn't agree either.

It depends how much the massage cost.

If it was a $130,000 massage it would be considered a violation.

 

[waiguoren]

This is just bullshit also.

Unless it was a $3000 haircut it does not violate any finance laws.

No, you're talking about exceeding the contribution limit. There is no contribution limit when you contribute to your own campaign. Trump was legally entitled to make unlimited contributions to his own campaign for any reason. The only requirement is that he declare those contributions.

If Trump buys a $10,000 platter of fruit for himself for energy and vitality on the campaign trail, he's certainly benefitting his campaign. You can construe the purchase as an "in-kind campaign contribution". The point is that the law is not clear about where the line is. We have precedent for jurors not being able to agree on it, either. See the Edwards case.

 

[waiguoren]

It depends how much the massage cost.

If it was a $130,000 massage it would be considered a violation.

Many, probably most experts would disagree with you there. Trump could argue that he just wanted the massage for himself, not to benefit his campaign. There is a very fuzzy line between helping the individual and helping the campaign, and that's why the jurors in the Edwards case were confused.

 

[Rational Poster]

No, you're talking about exceeding the contribution limit. There is no contribution limit when you contribute to your own campaign. Trump was legally entitled to make unlimited contributions to his own campaign for any reason. The only requirement is that he declare those contributions.

If Trump buys a $10,000 platter of fruit for himself for energy and vitality on the campaign trail, he's certainly benefitting his campaign. You can construe the purchase as an "in-kind campaign contribution". The point is that the law is not clear about where the line is. We have precedent for jurors not being able to agree on it, either. See the Edwards case.

But Trump didn't sign anything and the payments came from Cohen.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

The payments were made to quiet a story that would impact the campaign during the campaign. Trump is on tape discussing the payments. He also didn't sign anything in regards to the transfer of wealth, so it could also be considered conspiracy/cover up. He knew what he was doing was wrong and didn't want his name on it.

Cohen is willing to testify that all of this is true and is willing to serve time for his own crimes in order to do it.

It's pretty cut and dry, my dude.

Exactly, paying skanks in 2016, to stay quiet about the sex Trump had with them circa 2007, is clearly related to his running for president, particularly when said payments were made shortly after the "grab em by the pussy" tape.

So at this point, it is do people believe Trump or Cohen. Sure, Cohen lied to the media about it when Avenatti brought these issues to light, but Trump has as well, and keeps changing his story to defend against whatever evidence came out the day before. Cohen has now plead guilty though, under oath, and stated that Trump directed him to make these payments. What Cohen is saying now is lining up with what Avenatti has been saying all along. Add to that Cohen providing an audio tape of he and Trump discussing the McDougle payment, and Trump peddling a new story in reaction to Cohen's plea yesterday with a new convoluted explanation that contradicts what is on the tape, and contradicts what he said on Air Force One, with some "bbbut Obama" thrown in there to distract.

 

[waiguoren]

But Trump didn't sign anything and the payments came from Cohen.

Yes. I see it as falling under of the following categories:

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 of the minor 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.

 

[Rational Poster]

Yes. I see it as falling under of the following categories:

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 of the minor 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.

Except Trump ordered him to do it and willingly didn't sign anything in regards to the transfer.

Trump instructed Cohen to commit a crime to protect himself and the campaign.

 

[waiguoren]

Trump instructed Cohen to commit a crime to protect himself and the campaign.

If that's true, which specific federal offense do you accuse Trump of committing?

 

[Rational Poster]

If that's true, which specific federal offense do you accuse Trump of committing?

Conspiracy.

 

[HOLA]

Even the National Enquirer guy is turning on Cadet Bone Spurs loool.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/23/nat...tors-trump-knew-of-cohen-payments-report.html

National Enquirer publisher David Pecker reportedly told prosecutors Trump knew about ex-lawyer Michael Cohen’s deals to pay women

• AMI chairman Daivd Pecker gave prosecutors information about President Donald Trump's knowledge of payments his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen made to women alleging affairs with Trump, The Wall Street Journal reports.
• Pecker, along with both his company and the Trump Organization, had reportedly been subpoenaed by federal investigators in April.
• Cohen pleaded guilty Tuesday to eight criminal charges including tax fraud and campaign finance violations, and could face years in prison.

 

[Quequeg]

Even the National Enquirer guy is turning on Cadet Bone Spurs loool.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/23/nat...tors-trump-knew-of-cohen-payments-report.html

National Enquirer publisher David Pecker reportedly told prosecutors Trump knew about ex-lawyer Michael Cohen’s deals to pay women

• AMI chairman Daivd Pecker gave prosecutors information about President Donald Trump's knowledge of payments his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen made to women alleging affairs with Trump, The Wall Street Journal reports.
• Pecker, along with both his company and the Trump Organization, had reportedly been subpoenaed by federal investigators in April.
• Cohen pleaded guilty Tuesday to eight criminal charges including tax fraud and campaign finance violations, and could face years in prison.

Criminals always flip on each other, this is going just like a typical Mob trial, start low on the food chain.

 

[HOLA]

Criminals always flip on each other, this is going just like a typical Mob trial, start low on the food chain.

yep.

Trump would fit right in as a low level gangster in Goodfellas btw.

Right after Jimmy Two Times. "I'm gonna go get the papers, get the papers."

Here's Donny Two Scoops! "IT'S RIGGED!!!!"

 

[7437]

If that's true, which specific federal offense do you accuse Trump of committing?

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Conspiracy is a crime, and a pretty well known one.

 

[*Z*]

I'm merely arguing that it can be advantageous to plea guilty to crimes for which one is innocent. Some of the less-informed posters in this thread such as @Limbo Pete were convinced that "GUILTY IS GUILTY!!!>$!@$", but it just ain't so.

So basically you're saying they made up these charges in hopes of screwing Trump. The only problem with this is we know the payments happened, he pleaded guilty and a judge accepted it. If a judge accepts the guilty plea, he obviously believes what happened was a crime. I really don't see how your "People plea to lesser crimes that they didn't commit" argument has anything to do with this case. These things 100% happened.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Criminals always flip on each other, this is going just like a typical Mob trial, start low on the food chain.

According to the POTUS, it should be illegal and is "unfair".
Presumably, he means "unfair to other criminals".