WSJ: How exactly did Cohen break the law?

Michael Cohen is an absolute moron for listening to his attorney; his attorney had no interest in representing him, he used him to get to Trump.

"Oh, you need to please guilty to these "crimes" so you don't serve more jail time" but in reality he wanted him to plead guilty because it would make Trump look guilty.

WHAT A JOKE

originally posted by: xstealth
Michael Cohen is an absolute moron for listening to his attorney; his attorney had no interest in representing him, he used him to get to Trump.

"Oh, you need to please guilty to these "crimes" so you don't serve more jail time" but in reality he wanted him to plead guilty because it would make Trump look guilty.

WHAT A JOKE

Lanny Davis - wiki

Lanny Jesse Davis (born December 12, 1945) is an American lawyer, consultant, lobbyist, author, and television commentator. He is the co-founder and partner of the law firm of Davis Goldberg & Galper PLLC, and co-founder and partner of the public relations firm Trident DMG. From 1996 to 1998, he served as a special counsel to President Bill Clinton, and was a spokesperson for the President and the White House on matters concerning campaign-finance investigations and other legal issues.

From 1970 to 1972, Davis was National Director of Youth Coalition for Muskie, the youth organization of Edmund S. Muskie's unsuccessful campaign for the 1972 Democratic Party Presidential nomination.[citation needed]

In 1976 Davis ran for Congress as a Democrat in Maryland's 8th congressional district and lost to Republican Newton Steers.[citation needed]

Davis served three terms (1980–1992) on the Democratic National Committee representing the State of Maryland. In 2005 President Bush appointed Davis to serve as the only Democrat on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.[citation needed]

Davis was the treasurer for Joe Lieberman's Reuniting Our Country PAC.[10]

Take from it what you will... To me its kind of like having the SS investigate Auschwitz.

Lanny Davis is also a registered foreign agent for Russian backed Ukrainian interests.

a reply to: HunkaHunka

It only effects trump if the intent was helping his campaign. If it was to prevent personal embarrassment then its just private business matters.

Then....to maintain precedence, Trump pays a smaller fine than Obama and moves on with presidential duties.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

For what it is worth plea deals are not used to establish any legal precedence. Plea deals are nonajudicated outcomes reached by agreement of the prosecutor and the target. No court (judge nor jury) has found the person guilty of any of the charges the suspect agreed to. That is how Mueller was able to get the 2 campaign finance violations into the deal without it being thrown out of court (neither apply to what occurred).

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

For what it is worth plea deals are not used to establish any legal precedence. Plea deals are nonajudicated outcomes reached by agreement of the prosecutor and the target. No court (judge nor jury) has found the person guilty of any of the charges the suspect agreed to. That is how Mueller was able to get the 2 campaign finance violations into the deal without it being thrown out of court (neither apply to what occurred).

The plea to a non crime indirectly relating to Trump was included at behest of the prosecution to push the impeachment narrative. They have nothing against Trump and it's proven in the Cohen and Manafort trials. Every Mueller indictment has been announced timed manners to undercut Trump. This is the definition of a witch hunt.

a reply to: mkultra11

You're preaching to the choir.

a reply to: HunkaHunka

What you are doing, via WSJ's opinion on the matter, is applying a way too liberal reading and understanding of said laws.

Plea deals are just that--deals. People plea to things that often would not receive convictions by a jury per the elements of the laws all of the time. Hell, it probably happens on a daily basis in this country, and it's done in order to gain some sort of favor, be it no conviction on laws with harsher penalties/classifications, more lenient sentencing, to spare themselves or their family a lengthy and expensive trial, etc., etc.

Yes, a guilty plea is 'the strongest form of evidence known to the law,' but it doesn't mean that it's always accurate to the letter of the law.

You are correct, there is a lot of ignorance on ATS surrounding this topic--are you sure that you aren't falling into that trap? It's easy to assume things if one doesn't fully understand elements of the law or the actual application of said laws.

I have combed through most anything of 11 CFR Chapter 1 and 52 US Code Chapter 301 that would have anything to do with the topic at hand, and nothing I can find shows any wrongdoing in this matter by Trump. Cohen took it upon himself to plead guilty to these charges, and if he has said recordings that indicate Trump was knowingly breaking the law, then Trump should be investigated and indicted, if evidence necessitates.

But right now, everyone is speculating, and like I noted in another thread, just because Cohen makes a claim that amounts to hearsay at this point, both about the deal with Mr. Pecker at AMI (unless there is harder evidence that I have yet to see or read about) and the fact that Trump directed him to do these things, it doesn't make them true. He has prove to be quite the shady character, both in his actions and his words, so going all-in because of his plea and claims isn't a bet I'd be willing to take right now.

To each their own, though, I suppose. Maybe he'll be proven to be telling the truth soon--the wait continues.

originally posted by: HunkaHunka
a reply to: Alien Abduct

You know what’s better than the best constitutional lawyer in the country?

A judge.

Oh? Just any judge will do?

Uhm... WSJ is a conservative rag

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: HunkaHunka

What you are doing, via WSJ's opinion on the matter, is applying a way too liberal reading and understanding of said laws.

Plea deals are just that--deals. People plea to things that often would not receive convictions by a jury per the elements of the laws all of the time. Hell, it probably happens on a daily basis in this country, and it's done in order to gain some sort of favor, be it no conviction on laws with harsher penalties/classifications, more lenient sentencing, to spare themselves or their family a lengthy and expensive trial, etc., etc.

Yes, a guilty plea is 'the strongest form of evidence known to the law,' but it doesn't mean that it's always accurate to the letter of the law.

You are correct, there is a lot of ignorance on ATS surrounding this topic--are you sure that you aren't falling into that trap? It's easy to assume things if one doesn't fully understand elements of the law or the actual application of said laws.

I have combed through most anything of 11 CFR Chapter 1 and 52 US Code Chapter 301 that would have anything to do with the topic at hand, and nothing I can find shows any wrongdoing in this matter by Trump. Cohen took it upon himself to plead guilty to these charges, and if he has said recordings that indicate Trump was knowingly breaking the law, then Trump should be investigated and indicted, if evidence necessitates.

But right now, everyone is speculating, and like I noted in another thread, just because Cohen makes a claim that amounts to hearsay at this point, both about the deal with Mr. Pecker at AMI (unless there is harder evidence that I have yet to see or read about) and the fact that Trump directed him to do these things, it doesn't make them true. He has prove to be quite the shady character, both in his actions and his words, so going all-in because of his plea and claims isn't a bet I'd be willing to take right now.

To each their own, though, I suppose. Maybe he'll be proven to be telling the truth soon--the wait continues.

In this case they are one and the same

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: HunkaHunka

It only effects trump if the intent was helping his campaign. If it was to prevent personal embarrassment then its just private business matters.

Then....to maintain precedence, Trump pays a smaller fine than Obama and moves on with presidential duties.

a reply to: HunkaHunka

What does a "rag" being either conservative or liberal have to do with anything that I said?