- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/24/18 at 8:23 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
so someone with some legal expertise explain this to me. What is the recourse to someone pleading guilty to a crime that isn't a crime? This seems like a really bad legal precedent no matter what your political leanings.
You do have legal recourse. Look up false confessions, it happens. The police interview technique isn't exactly complicated it is
Part one - tell me what you were doing (allow suspect to give you as much information as possible)
Part two - ask them about what they just said, get more detail
Part three - step by step confront them with any contrary evidence
Part three essentially involves telling the suspect more or less what their theory of the crime is and in a roundabout way giving them the other versions of the event they have gotten from other witnesses or suspects.
Given the significant pressure, and the prospect of a reduced sentence, some people basically just agree to plead guilty at interview stage, even going so far as to retrofit their story to what they learned in part 3.
If a convict can later raise an affirmative defense that was missed, bring in a new alibi or other strong testimony, or new physical or documentary evidence is exculpatory, the conviction can be thrown out, or an alford plea agreed. The burden of proof is reversed at appeal though, it's no longer the defenses job to just provide reasonable doubt, they have to go further.
In Cohen's case though, yeah, it's a crime and no it's not getting reversed, thrown out etc.
Firstly unless I missed something, Cohen doesn't have a deal. He just pleaded guilty. He didn't agree to cooperate in future, although he is offering to via counsel. The information is clear that he faces further potential charges in relation to the guilty pleas he made.
Furthermore the Dershowitz/Levin theory of "he pleaded guilty to a non-crime" is nonsense despite those two men being smart pros. Dershowitz is a habitual defense attorney, it's in his blood. His trick is to take an element of the crime which by itself is not criminal, act as if that's the entire crime, then say it's all preposterous nonsense.
Cohen didn't plead guilty to taking part in a hush money payoff. That isn't actually illegal by itself unless you're in a state where adultery is illegal (which NY is, believe it or not, but it's not in the charges). He admitted making in an in-kind campaign contribution which he did not declare - that is a crime. The prosecution from the SDNY and Michael Cohen both described the documentary evidence that underlies the conclusion the court reached, and Cohen explained out loud how his crime met every element required. The judge examined what was put forth and accepted that it was in accordance with the law. FWIW the information the prosecutors put forth also isn't exactly coy about what other crimes he's being investigated for (rhymes with Zico).
Just to recap
Having an affair? Possibly a crime, but not being handled as one.
Paying off your mistress? Not a crime, except in adultery illegal states.
Hiding a campaign contribution? Crime.
And further reading
Making a political donation from a corporation without using a PAC - crime
Paying for personal legal services from a 501(c)(3) that didn't actually receive the services? Crime
Signing off on FEC/OGE/Tax filings you know to be inaccurate? Crime
For every Dershowitz/Levin there's a 100 others who do see how deliberately hiding a campaign contribution is a crime, even if the payment by itself is not, so forget the argument from authority. Levin is a Koch Brothers employee and Dersh knows Trump is a criminal but is basically a god-tier level attorney who is courting Trump because getting Trump out of a Senate conviction is his only chance to out-do Gerry Spence before they both die.
Posted on 8/24/18 at 8:32 pm to Mephistopheles
quote:
He admitted making in an in-kind campaign contribution which he did not declare - that is a crime.
Not a campaign contribution.
Not a crime.
Posted on 8/24/18 at 8:34 pm to Mephistopheles
quote:Yet none of them would win a case against AD. So let's review: if there is ANY personal explanation for utility of personal funds during a campaign other than for the campaign, then THERE IS NO VIOLATION.
For every Dershowitz/Levin there's a 100 others who do see how deliberately hiding a campaign contribution is a crime
It really does not matter whether there are 1000 nitwits or 100000000000 nitwits claiming otherwise. The law is the law.
Posted on 8/24/18 at 8:37 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
I think your forgetting about Dinesh D'Sousa, remember how Obammy's DOJ lackeys railroaded Dinesh for exceeding campaign contribution limits by using other people's names. I think he may have been the first American to go to jail for that offense.
Heck, Obama had the guy who made the obscure Youtube Muslim video arrested in the middle of the night!
Posted on 8/24/18 at 9:42 pm to Revelator
quote:
and Session is standing idly by with his hands up
It's worse than that. Sessions is saying he won't politicize the Justice dept, when ALL of employess ARE politicizing the Justice Dept under his watch. He is too blind to see it.
Time for Trump to fire the blind AG. If you can't see the crime, then you can't be the AG.
Posted on 8/25/18 at 12:05 am to NC_Tigah
If the law were that simple attorneys wouldn't earn three figures an hour at the low end. Is having any personal utility always an affirmative defense to a charge of campaign finance fraud? My reading of the situation doesn't seem to suggest so. And for obvious reasons the law as it relates to in-kind contirbutions is very, very broad.
Some of you mocked when I said Cohen was fricked and could bring Trump down with him. And that the Stormy Daniels scandal was worse than the Russia Scandal in March. He's going to prison and presumably Trump will face a grand jury, possibly as well as Michael Avenatti when the stay on Daniel's motion for declaratory judgement is lifted shortly.
Here's a vox article featuring 13 "experts". It's not a rosy picture for Trump. Feel free to dismiss it biased. Ciara Thomas has the clearest breakdown of the issues imo.
LINK
But the argument Trump is making that he didn't know what Cohen was doing is one he has to make right now. If he knew he's guilty of conspiracy to commit campaign finance fraud. But let's imagine that's off the table right now. He didn't know and/or it's a personal expenditure.
After that there's the question of what Trump knew when the reimbursement happened, why it came out of the foundation, and crucially, what Trump knew when documents were filed to enforce the NDA against Daniels - because that's were Cohen really fricked up, his filing claims that Daniels has tangible evidence of an affair as well as documentary evidence of it, like texts. If Trump knew this, let Cohen enter the pleading and didn't stop him, despite it obviously being false, he conspired with his attorney to submit materially false court filings- and at this point whether it's a campaign contribution or not doesn't matter, it's gonna matter whether she can prove he fricked her.
When the stay is lifted Trump is in a bind one way or the other, Trump's best move is to ask for dismissal on the grounds that he accepts accept the NDA is non-binding, but that means she can publish what she has, otherwise the case is going to discovery, and given that Cohen probably isn't going to plead the fifth again, it's going to make Trump's previous filings look like bad faith at best.
Or you can stay on the other side of the rabbit hole and assume Cohen's plea gets tossed somehow because it's not a crime. Didn't work out with Flynn. Perhaps Dersh and Levin can challenge the ruling on Cohen's behalf somehow?
Some of you mocked when I said Cohen was fricked and could bring Trump down with him. And that the Stormy Daniels scandal was worse than the Russia Scandal in March. He's going to prison and presumably Trump will face a grand jury, possibly as well as Michael Avenatti when the stay on Daniel's motion for declaratory judgement is lifted shortly.
Here's a vox article featuring 13 "experts". It's not a rosy picture for Trump. Feel free to dismiss it biased. Ciara Thomas has the clearest breakdown of the issues imo.
LINK
But the argument Trump is making that he didn't know what Cohen was doing is one he has to make right now. If he knew he's guilty of conspiracy to commit campaign finance fraud. But let's imagine that's off the table right now. He didn't know and/or it's a personal expenditure.
After that there's the question of what Trump knew when the reimbursement happened, why it came out of the foundation, and crucially, what Trump knew when documents were filed to enforce the NDA against Daniels - because that's were Cohen really fricked up, his filing claims that Daniels has tangible evidence of an affair as well as documentary evidence of it, like texts. If Trump knew this, let Cohen enter the pleading and didn't stop him, despite it obviously being false, he conspired with his attorney to submit materially false court filings- and at this point whether it's a campaign contribution or not doesn't matter, it's gonna matter whether she can prove he fricked her.
When the stay is lifted Trump is in a bind one way or the other, Trump's best move is to ask for dismissal on the grounds that he accepts accept the NDA is non-binding, but that means she can publish what she has, otherwise the case is going to discovery, and given that Cohen probably isn't going to plead the fifth again, it's going to make Trump's previous filings look like bad faith at best.
Or you can stay on the other side of the rabbit hole and assume Cohen's plea gets tossed somehow because it's not a crime. Didn't work out with Flynn. Perhaps Dersh and Levin can challenge the ruling on Cohen's behalf somehow?
Posted on 8/25/18 at 12:35 am to Mephistopheles
Oh yeah and Cohen has tapes. And so do the SDNY. But Trump doesn't know what's on them. So if Trump does end up in deposition (I don't really think he will) he's in some shite.
Posted on 8/25/18 at 12:52 am to Revelator
I still can't understand this take. If it's a totally legal personal expenditure, why make Cohen get a second mortgage? Why not just write a personal check to cohen up front and let him handle it from there? From that point on there's no way to question it without someone alleging strongly that the 130k is illegal somehow, attorney client privilege would've covered them, just a man paying his attorney, nothing more.
It looks like it was a scheme to disguise the payment to Daniels as actually being a financial transaction between Cohen's company and Daniels. And the fact that Cohen was repaid by the foundation to me is just bizarre, I'm still not sure why it happened, seems like that's liable for much deeper scrutiny.
Here's a former FEC employee examining the situation before Cohen got raided.
It looks like it was a scheme to disguise the payment to Daniels as actually being a financial transaction between Cohen's company and Daniels. And the fact that Cohen was repaid by the foundation to me is just bizarre, I'm still not sure why it happened, seems like that's liable for much deeper scrutiny.
Here's a former FEC employee examining the situation before Cohen got raided.
quote:LINK
“If he coordinated the spending with either the candidate or the candidate’s committee — and as a lawyer, he almost certainly did that and had an ethical obligation to before he signed off on the settlement — then it is an in-kind contribution that was subject not only to reporting but to contribution limits,” Noti said.
Cohen has been adamant that he was not reimbursed by the Trump Organization or the Trump campaign.
If Cohen was reimbursed by Trump, the payoff would have qualified as a campaign expense paid by Trump himself.
Candidates are allowed to spend without limit on their own campaign, but legally, the transaction would still need to be disclosed.
...
“If this had been made three years earlier, I don’t think we’d be having this same conversation,” Noti said. “But it was made 11 or 12 days before the election to ensure that a damaging piece of information was not available to voters when they went to vote.”
This post was edited on 8/25/18 at 12:58 am
Posted on 8/25/18 at 6:11 am to Revelator
Every political team both R and D and every lobbyist and politico in DC needs raided @ O dark thirty, thrown in jail in solitary for campaign finance laws and failing to register as foreign agents.
This post was edited on 8/25/18 at 6:13 am
Posted on 8/25/18 at 6:19 am to cokebottleag
quote:
Now on the other hand, Trump is not going to agree to a plea for the same thing. There is no win for him to take a few months in prison in exchange for no possibility of 63 years.
What? Trump is never even going to be charged with any of this
Posted on 8/25/18 at 6:33 am to Mephistopheles
quote:
is all but an unindicted co-conspirator.
“The President did enough to almost be considered to have not committed actions which aren’t enough to be indicted.”
Whoo buddy.
Imma read the article. But I’m not going to be surprised when it’s full of shite.
Posted on 8/25/18 at 6:39 am to Mephistopheles
quote:
Here's a vox article
Stopped reading right here!
Posted on 8/25/18 at 6:40 am to the808bass
quote:
It was a political plea deal. Make Trump look bad and we’ll give you less prison time.
and it will never be tested in court so it just remains 'out there' as a forever anti-Trump talking point
Posted on 8/25/18 at 7:00 am to the808bass
First legal expert.
So it is primarily a political issue? Checks out.
Second
This same professor can’t be found to have anywhere summoned the temerity to comment on Hillary Clinton’s email server. Did no one want his opinion then?
He did comment on Andy McCabe and said that his wife receiving money from Clinton-connected people while he was investigating her isn’t really any big deal.
Third expert
Ok. We’re done there.
Fourth expert
That’s a big “if.”
Apparently Cohen pleading to the charges he plead to doesn’t convince this expert that liability goes to Trump yet.
Fifth
I can’t find this expert’s opinion on Hillary’s email server.
Sixth Expert
Welp. That’s as far as I’m going. Lol.
quote:
and it should have political repercussions even if it does not have immediate legal ones.
So it is primarily a political issue? Checks out.
Second
quote:
Trump is clearly guilty of violating campaign finance laws
This same professor can’t be found to have anywhere summoned the temerity to comment on Hillary Clinton’s email server. Did no one want his opinion then?
He did comment on Andy McCabe and said that his wife receiving money from Clinton-connected people while he was investigating her isn’t really any big deal.
Third expert
quote:
Assuming he or prosecutors can substantiate this claim
Ok. We’re done there.
Fourth expert
quote:
If the Cohen investigation unearthed evidence implicating the President
That’s a big “if.”
Apparently Cohen pleading to the charges he plead to doesn’t convince this expert that liability goes to Trump yet.
Fifth
quote:
clearly implicates the President in those campaign violations.
I can’t find this expert’s opinion on Hillary’s email server.
Sixth Expert
quote:
Another fundamental requirement of campaign finance law is that campaign funds be used for legitimate campaign expenditures and not for personal use.
Welp. That’s as far as I’m going. Lol.
Posted on 8/25/18 at 7:20 am to cahoots
quote:
Dude, Deroshowitz is alleging that the campaign finance thing is not a crime, not that Cohen is innocent of all of the other charges. It's more like that campaign finance charge was wrapped into the plea deal. This isn't tough to understand.
So, what you're saying is that Lanny "sHitlary" Davis is orchestrating a plea deal for Cohen to plead to something that isn't a crime, and Mueller and his team of Deep State FILTH will give him immunity for all the "real" crimes (that have nothing to do with Trump) he committed without even mentioning those crimes.
Is that about right?
Now, the question anyone with an IQ above single digit already knows the answer to (sorry Libtards, this excludes YOU), is why in the hell would Mueller and his team of FILTH pull such a legally, ethically, and morally bankrupt SCUMBAG move?
And, while we will never know exactly what Cohen is getting in terms of sentence reduction because we don't know what "real" non-Trump related crimes Mueller has him on and never will (something to do with the NYC taxi-medallion thing?), what else is Cohen getting ($$$$$$$$)?
This post was edited on 8/25/18 at 7:28 am
Posted on 8/25/18 at 7:51 am to Revelator
It's like pleading guilty to wearing a white tie with a black shirt , on a monday.. and all the free press blowing up about that.
This post was edited on 8/25/18 at 7:51 am
Posted on 8/25/18 at 9:57 am to cokebottleag
lanny is hrc's main man.
Posted on 8/25/18 at 11:55 am to cajunangelle
If you read the judge's instructions for the John Edwards, there are two elements needed for a crime: wilful and knowdeledge of the law. Without both, it is civil.
That's why Rudy made the statement yesterday that Trump isn't a lawyer. The tape recording helps Trump. Trump relied on Cohen's advice and used reasonable care.
That's why Rudy made the statement yesterday that Trump isn't a lawyer. The tape recording helps Trump. Trump relied on Cohen's advice and used reasonable care.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News