Cohen to plead guilty

a reply to: UKTruth

If he was not running fur office, would a payment to keep a woman quiet about an affair land you jail or ok receipt of a fine?

But he was running for office. And a threat was made immediately prior to the election to release information that would have been detrimental to that campaign. A deal was made to suppress the release of that information. A deal to which the candidate was allegedly complicit.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Solely for the purposes of the campaign. If it was not, and not paid by campaign funds there is no crime.

Considering the timing, from any reasonable perspective it was directly related to the campaign. But you have that backwards. If it was from campaign funds there was no crime.

Trouble is, if it was from campaign funds it would have to have been declared as such and I seem to recall the president himself saying there was no payment made. Until he changed the story.

No. As a private payment it makes it perfectly fine. It was not solely for campaign purposes, so campaign funds were not used.
Now if it WAS from campaign funds then there IS a reporting issue.

a reply to: UKTruth

It was not solely for campaign purposes, so campaign funds were not used.

We'll see what happens.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

If he was not running fur office, would a payment to keep a woman quiet about an affair land you jail or ok receipt of a fine?

But he was running for office. And a threat was made immediately prior to the election to release information that would have been detrimental to that campaign. A deal was made to suppress the release of that information. A deal to which the candidate was allegedly complicit.

All irrelevant.
Unless the payment was solely for the purposes of the campaign it can be funded legally with private funds.
There is a reason for the 'solely' terminology. The FEC do not want to make the legalities a mess. If anything related to a campaign was determined to be campaign funds, you would create a nightmare whereby even buying a new suit to look good on TV could be questioned and lead to criminal charges.
The FEC debated these exact points in drafting the regulations.

a reply to: UKTruth

All irrelevant.

I disagree. Quite relevant. We are not talking about a new suit, we are talking about a payment of $130k to keep a woman from talking about an affair a few weeks before the general election, a short time after an audio tape of the candidate talking about grabbing women by their genitals was released.

Quite relevant considering the context of the recording of a conversation between Cohen and the "candidate" about the payment. And who knows what other evidence the prosecutors have.

a reply to: Phage

It's all irrelevant, tbh. Heres why:
1) sitting president cant be indicted, must be impeached
2) no one is getting impeached over gray area campaign violations (or even blatant violations)
3) campaign finance violations are met with fines in 95% of cases
4) this is a reporting issue, on the part of trump (if it's a violation at all).
5) trump hasn't amended (or moved to) his paperwork, meaning his counsel doesn't think it's an illegal payment

All of that means what we're looking at is muddy water where, if the worst is assumed, a fine is due.

a reply to: UKTruth

He's paid women off before ever running for office, so there is zero chance that a prosecutor could win an argument that he only did it because of the campaign.

This is a really good point. And you have to remember the circumstances surrounding the campaign at the time: trump was expected to lose massively. Given the reasonable doubt standard, absent a tape of trump saying "I wouldn't give her a dime if I wasn't running a campaign" there's no way to get a conviction.

a reply to: Phage

This wasn't even from Mueller. Which raises another red flag. Mueller passed this case off to the new york field office because it had nothing to do with trump/russia/obstruction. So, if the prosecutors demanded this statement be in there, why? Are they colluding with the special counsel? What is the motivation for a random FBI field office to implicate the president? Is the entirety of the FBI politicized? This is getting tiresome.

So that's what the odd situation is or was....

The Prosecutor knew that trying to tie NDA's with private money, to campaign finance violations was a stretch. And it is...

Cohen, was worried about it as well... Lets be honest it's a dangerous gamble. While there is no actual law that says this is illegal or even related to a campaign financing... WHo knows what is in the mind of a jury ? It may not have been worth the gamble in his point of view.


Kinda of seems like, to me that it was easier to abide the malicious prosecution than to take a risky gamble from Cohen's perpective.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

The campaign finance violation, according to the sentencing guide, would land him (at most) 18 months in jail and a 2-3 thousand dollar fine. You can look it up yourself (just type sentencing guide in google, go to the proper section and compare the situation with the sentencing table). So cohen wasn't trying to avoid the jury on those charges (they're tiny compared to counts one through six). He was trying to avoid the jury on the counts dropped and the first six counts which hold much more jail time and much heftier fines.

a reply to: Dfairlite

1) sitting president cant be indicted, must be impeached

There is no language in any laws that specifically state that. You would be correct if you said that is the opinion of many legal experts, but I'm sure we could find many legal experts that would say he can be indicted.

What is clear is we have never had to venture down that road. No sitting president has been indicted so there is no precedence to guide us.

Overall, I think taking the position that a president cannot be indicted for crimes committed is a horrible precedent to set. That means he is above the law due to his position. That contradicts the very basis in which many principles in the constitution are rooted and leaves the position open to blatant disregard and corruption.

2) no one is getting impeached over gray area campaign violations (or even blatant violations)

A president can be impeached for any reason whatsoever.

3) campaign finance violations are met with fines in 95% of cases

I believe that is fairly accurate.

4) this is a reporting issue, on the part of trump.

Ok. So?

5) trump hasn't amended (or moved to) his paperwork, meaning his counsel doesn't think it's an illegal payment

What his counsel thinks is a bit irrelevant. What matters are the facts and what the facts actually show.

All of that means what we're looking at is muddy water where, if the worst is assumed, a fine is due.

If the worst is assumed, congress decides they have had enough of this idiot clown show and they impeach Trump. For whatever reason or no reason at all.

originally posted by: Grambler
And it is so frustrating watching people that are absolutely certain they know the law, and have 100% proof of trumps guilt from publicly available evidnce, and acting like if we dont agree with them we are somehow partisan hacks.

And the irony is, I usually understand much more about the laws in discussion and what does and does not amount to proper evidence for indictments per my current day job and past job as a paralegal, yet people still want to argue ad nauseam that they know exactly what's going on.

And the funny thing is, 9/10ths of the time, my argument is that we need to wait for more evidence before coming to a conclusion. Most of the time, that is treated as an unacceptable position to take. It's laughable.

a reply to: introvert

1) that's according to the office of legal counsel. We have had many presidents accused of crimes so this is the guidance they've set up. If you want to prosecute a president, it needs to be a large enough issue to warrant impeachment. So you impeach him then try him according to the law. This doesn't mean the president is above the law. It simply means the process for prosecution is to wait until he is out of office or impeach him. You could say the presidency is above the law but the person isn't.

The duties of the president are heavy and important to the nation. Having a president take time away from those duties to defend himself in court (remember, he is presumed innocent) is unfair to the people. This policy (impeach then prosecute) is a wise policy.

2) can be, but won't.

4) The reason that it's relevant that it's a reporting issue is that we have hand over fist of precedent on reporting issues and a fine is what is levied in every case that I know of.

5) The reason his counsel's opinion is relevant is that it shows abiguity in the law. If he was moving to amend his filing it would be a type of admission of guilt.

6) Congress isn't as irrational as individual leftists. There will likely be some fringe dems who write up articles of impeachment but the house won't pass them. And you can forget about a conviction and removal in the senate.

a reply to: Dfairlite

1) that's according to the office of legal counsel. We have had many presidents accused of crimes so this is the guidance they've set up. If you want to prosecute a president, it needs to be a large enough issue to warrant impeachment. So you impeach him then try him according to the law. This doesn't mean the president is above the law. It simply means the process for prosecution is to wait until he is out of office or impeach him. You could say the presidency is above the law but the person isn't.

Yes. That is their opinion, as I stated. All we have is opinion because we have no laws on the books that are specific in this sort of situation. All the laws do state is that the laws must be applied equally, with no regard for political position.

The duties of the president are heavy and important to the nation. Having a president take time away from those duties to defend himself in court (remember, he is presumed innocent) is unfair to the people. This policy (impeach then prosecute) is a wise policy.

A very unwise policy. An impeachment is a political process and that means congress can protect the president from potential prosecution until his term is up. And then if we believe what we have been told, the president can then pardon himself. So you literally have a position in which they cannot be held accountable whatsoever. That directly contradicts many constitutional principles.

Is that the system you want to have in place?

2) can be, but won't.

I have no doubt about that.

4) The reason that it's relevant that it's a reporting issue is that we have hand over fist of precedent on reporting issues and a fine is what is levied in every case that I know of.

But I don't believe it is a reporting issue. They are not refiling the proper paperwork, are they? Aren't they sticking to their guns, saying that all is in proper order?

Perhaps I am mistaken.

5) The reason his counsel's opinion is relevant is that it shows abiguity in the law. If he was moving to amend his filing it would be a type of admission of guilt.

So it's not a reporting issue? Or is it?

6) Congress isn't as irrational as individual leftists. There will likely be some fringe dems who write up articles of impeachment but the house won't pass them. And you can forget about a conviction and removal in the senate.

Irrationality is what led to his becoming president and the Republicans are not as stupid as their base. They mock Trum and his base, and even they recognize the #storm Trump has become and once it is decided he is a bigger liability than they are willing to attach to the party, he could very well be impeached.

a reply to: introvert

A very unwise policy. An impeachment is a political process and that means congress can protect the president from potential prosecution until his term is up.

It also means they can throw him to the wolves for no reason.

And then if we believe what we have been told, the president can then pardon himself. So you literally have a position in which they cannot be held accountable whatsoever. That directly contradicts many constitutional principles.

Which constitutional principals? The self pardon is a very gray area so who knows how that would play out but it would seem the wise policy (and more constitutionally sound) to address your concerns would to be finding the self pardon to be invalid.

I know, you want to get someone. But that's not what the law was meant to do. The constitution err's on the side of innocence and not prosecuting over the side of guilt and zealous prosecution. Which is exactly why the office of legal counsel has set up the rules the way they have.

Is that the system you want to have in place?

It is the system we have in place. My wants are irrelevant to the situation.

But I don't believe it is a reporting issue. They are not refiling the proper paperwork, are they? Aren't they sticking to their guns, saying that all is in proper order?

Perhaps I am mistaken.

Yes, I should have been more clear: The alleged crime is a reporting issue. The trump team says it's not a violation. But if they're wrong, the violation is a reporting violation. That's all I was getting at.

...once it is decided he is a bigger liability than they are willing to attach to the party, he could very well be impeached.

Yes, unfortunately for them, they're the liability, not trump. Trump is in the unique position of holding all of the keys to the future of the republican party. His base is loyal and as long as they are, the republican party is forced to support him or go the way of the whigs.

a reply to: Dfairlite

It also means they can throw him to the wolves for no reason.

True. Removal from office for purely political reasons through impeachment is much more acceptable than allowing someone to stay in office with absolute impunity.

Which constitutional principals? The self pardon is a very gray area so who knows how that would play out but it would seem the wise policy (and more constitutionally sound) to address your concerns would to be finding the self pardon to be invalid.

Equal application of the law. All men are created equal, etc.

I know, you want to get someone.

I don't want to "get" anyone. I want to believe that we live in a nation in which the constitutional principles I mentioned earlier are upheld. That includes the president, regardless of their politics.

The constitution err's on the side of innocence and not prosecuting over the side of guilt and zealous prosecution. Which is exactly why the office of legal counsel has set up the rules the way they have.

That is their opinion. Not a rule. Opinion.

www.justice.gov...

It is the system we have in place. My wants are irrelevant to the situation.

That is not the system we have in place. Just like the OLC, all we have is opinion on the matter because it is uncharted territory.

That being said, do you think that is the sort of system you want in place, in which congress can protect a president from being held accountable for his crimes, and then the president can pardon himself?

What is your opinion?

Yes, I should have been more clear: The alleged crime is a reporting issue. The trump team says it's not a violation. But if they're wrong, the violation is a reporting violation. That's all I was getting at.

Ok. A very minor issue if it is a violation.

Yes, unfortunately for them, they're the liability, not trump. Trump is in the unique position of holding all of the keys to the future of the republican party. His base is loyal and as long as they are, the republican party is forced to support him or go the way of the whigs.

And that is what many people have precisely feared. The Republican party is now in a position that it must allow the extremists to run the party, or else.

Of course, unless, they decide to stand on principle, which is a long shot, and keep the reigns on their party while they allow the Trump element to die, which it eventually will.

a reply to: introvert

Equal application of the law. All men are created equal, etc.

I'm not sure how pardoning is unequal application, though. Everyone is able to be pardoned, except the president? Is that equal application? I get where you're coming from with this, but it seems to be an issue with pardons in general rather than specifically for the president. The power of the pardon prevents equal application to the friends and associates of the president (or governor, in the case of a state trial). But the pardon is specifically written into the constitution, so it can't really go against constitutional values.

I don't want to "get" anyone. I want to believe that we live in a nation in which the constitutional principles I mentioned earlier are upheld. That includes the president, regardless of their politics.

Until it comes to his eligibility for a pardon. Let's take your example a step further. Let's say the congress protects a president when they shouldn't, but he is unable to pardon himself. Does the next president have the ability to pardon the prior president? Heck, look at Bill Clinton. Should he have been criminally charged after he left office? Why wasn't he?

That being said, do you think that is the sort of system you want in place, in which congress can protect a president from being held accountable for his crimes, and then the president can pardon himself?

What is your opinion?

The impeachment part and the OLC guideline, I agree with 100%.

The self pardon, honestly I haven't given it much thought. There are other mechanism's which are clearly legal which achieve the same end result so no one is going to pardon themselves. See nixon, resign and have your VP pardon you. Hell, you could resign, be appointed VP, get pardoned, have the new president (former VP) resign, then reappoint your VP. So a self pardon doesn't really bother me.

The Republican party is now in a position that it must allow the extremists to run the party, or else.

What are trump supporters positions that are extreme?
Trump is basically following the republican party platform, except on trade deals. So is negotiating trade deals extreme?

a reply to: Dfairlite

I'm not sure how pardoning is unequal application, though. Everyone is able to be pardoned, except the president? I get where you're coming from with this, but it seems to be an issue with pardons in general rather than specifically for the president. The power of the pardon prevents equal application to the friends and associates of the president (or governor, in the case of a state trial). But the pardon is specifically written into the constitution, so it can't really go against constitutional values.

It is not just about pardons.

It's about a position that I disagree with, in that the president cannot be prosecuted for crimes as long as he is president. Then add to that the idea that the president can be protected from impeachment for his crimes if congress is in his favor, and then when he leaves office, he can pardon himself for any potential convictions.

That contradicts the very principles in which this nation was created. Perhaps the constitution contradicts itself, but it stinks regardless.

Until it comes to his eligibility for a pardon. Let's take your example a step further. Let's say the congress protects a president when they shouldn't, but he is unable to pardon himself. Does the next president have the ability to pardon the prior president? Heck, look at Bill Clinton. Should he have been criminally charged after he left office? Why wasn't he?

That's a good point that needs to be addressed. That also gives way to potential corrupt acts.

The impeachment part and the OLC guideline, I agree with 100%. The self pardon, honestly I haven't given it much thought. There are other mechanism's which are clearly legal which achieve the same end result so no one is going to pardon themselves. See nixon, resign and have your VP pardon you. Hell, you could resign, be appointed VP, get pardoned, have the new president (former VP) resign, then reappoint your VP. So a self pardon doesn't really bother me.

I do not agree with it.

If a president were to walk in to the street and kill someone in broad daylight, he could potentially do so without regard to any consequence.

Is that equal application of the law?

Is that "All men are created equal" in the eyes of the law?

What are trump supporters positions that are extreme? Trump is basically following the republican party platform, except on trade deals. So is negotiating trade deals extreme?

Is about more than just positions on certain issues. It's about conduct, lack of constitutional understanding and a respect for it, lack of respect for people in general and an overall ignorance that leads them to perpetuate and believe in unfounded conspiracies and outright lies.

It's about appealing to white supremacist/nationalists and being associated with them, openly advocating for persecution of the media and also those they disagree with politically, while completely dismissing the authoritarian nature of their conduct.

It's about a section of society that is so blind and ignorant to the world around them that they cannot see what is going on in front of their faces, or so dishonest that they are unwilling to admit what they also recognize and try their best to deflect from it as much as they can.

Yes, the extremists are running the party and there must be total compliance, or else. They will have their way or they will sink the ship in the process.

a reply to: introvert

It is not just about pardons.

It's about a position that I disagree with, in that the president cannot be prosecuted for crimes as long as he is president. Then add to that the idea that the president can be protected from impeachment for his crimes if congress is in his favor, and then when he leaves office, he can pardon himself for any potential convictions.

That contradicts the very principles in which this nation was created. Perhaps the constitution contradicts itself, but it stinks regardless.

I think the reason for the different interpretations is a view on the presidency. Both views are right in some ways. I view the presidency as an office, occupied by a person. You view the presidency as a person, occupying an office. In my view the needs of the office transcend the person. In yours the person is the office.

Let me explain my view: Police have to speed, to catch someone who is speeding (going faster than the person they are pulling over for the violation). They don't get ticketed for their speeding because the position they are in demands them to do so. The same is said of the office of president. They don't have to defend themselves against legal jeopardy because their other responsibilities are far more important.

I do not agree with it. If a president were to walk in to the street and kill someone in broad daylight, he could potentially do so without regard to any consequence. Is that equal application of the law? Is that "All men are created equal" in the eyes of the law?

There's not really such a thing as equal application of the law. Andrew Jackson shot and killed a man who defamed his wife, and never faced a charge. Aaron burr (while serving as vice president) killed Alexander Hamilton, was charged, but was never tried. I won't speculate on whether that was right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that we literally had presidents and vice presidents who did kill people and were never held to account. Much closer to our nations founding.

It's about conduct, lack of constitutional understanding and a respect for it, lack of respect for people in general and an overall ignorance that leads them to perpetuate and believe in unfounded conspiracies and outright lies.

I guess I don't understand how any of that makes people extremists.

It's about appealing to white supremacist/nationalists and being associated with them, openly advocating for persecution of the media and also those they disagree with politically, while completely dismissing the authoritarian nature of their conduct.

Do you know any trump supporters in real life? are they white supremacists? Do they want to be associated with white supremacists? As for the media, why are they above persecution? Most of them are as bad as most politicians. They lie and mislead for political gain. The dinosaur news media needs to plummet into the earth, and they will without any interference from government. There's nothing authoritarian about regular people not liking the media.

It's about a section of society that is so blind and ignorant to the world around them that they cannot see what is going on in front of their faces, or so dishonest that they are unwilling to admit what they also recognize and try their best to deflect from it as much as they can.

We can assume they weren't made blind and ignorant by trump, but were blind and ignorant before trump, right? So, Why did they vote for trump?

Let's ask a former Clinton employee what he thinks of all this.

Former Clinton Pollster: Hillary Clinton Broke Campaign Finance Laws, Not Donald Trump

Mark Penn, former pollster for the Clintons wrote this article:

The usual procedures here would be for the FEC to investigate complaints and sort through these murky laws to determine if these kinds of payments are personal in nature or more properly classified as campaign expenditures. And, on the Daniels payment that was made and reimbursed by Trump, it is again a question of whether that was made for personal reasons (especially since they have been trying since 2011 to obtain agreement). Just because it would be helpful to the campaign does not convert it to a campaign expenditure. Think of a candidate with bad teeth who had dental work done to look better for the campaign; his campaign still could not pay for it because it’s a personal expenditure.

Contrast what is going on here with the treatment of the millions of dollars paid to a Democratic law firm which, in turn, paid out money to political research firm Fusion GPS and British ex-spy Christopher Steele without listing them on any campaign expenditure form — despite crystal-clear laws and regulations that the ultimate beneficiaries of the funds must be listed. This rule was even tightened recently. There is no question that hiring spies to do opposition research in Russia is a campaign expenditure, and yet, no prosecutorial raids have been sprung on the law firm, Fusion GPS or Steele. Reason: It does not “get” Trump.

It appears as if the prosecutors didn't even go through the proper channels to determine if an election violation actually occurred. I would argue that the federal prosecutor wasn't even competent to judge this, and should have submitted the matter to the FEC for a decision.