What is the legal precedent?

There is absolutely no point in arguing about what trump may or may not have done. He did have sex with a hooker/porn star, and a beautiful model, and apparently, through different means, silenced their stories with money. To my knowledge of facts and testimony, This is an assumed fact, only waiting on a court room to present the evidence. So as far as I am concerned, no argument from me on that. None.

But in cases like this with a generic person, any old politician at all, who payed money to silence something negative to the Campaign got caught and investigated, and subsequently charged, what was the outcome of punishment? There should be some cases we can reference here, but they will only be facts. No room for wiggle. Whatever has been done in the past, should apply as a reasonable punishment, and if any horrible details emerge, factor in accordingly. But this can't be about "I don't like him" with regards to punishment. If you disagree with that, I'd love to hear why.

a reply to: network dude

Well, Bill Clinton was impeached, he was held in contempt of court for misleading testimony (like Trump's denials) and his license to practice law was suspended for five years.

Clinton–Lewinsky scandal From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Turnabout is fair play.

a reply to: network dude

I don't think you can apply a true legal precedent.

Only because the rule of law has not been applied equally.

It's easy to say, "Person ABC should've been punished, therefore, person XYZ should be punished, but in the end, it's a cop-out."

a reply to: chr0naut

Bill Clinton lied under oath. Trump has not.

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: chr0naut

Bill Clinton lied under oath. Trump has not.

That all depends on what answers he provided to the SC. Lying to the special counsel is the same as lying under oath and carries repercussions.

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: chr0naut

Bill Clinton lied under oath. Trump has not.

That all depends on what answers he provided to the SC. Lying to the special counsel is the same as lying under oath and carries repercussions.

Until I see a blue dress with a white stain submitted as evidence, I doubt much will come of it. Pun intended.

a reply to: Mahogany

Only if he provides contradictory testimony under oath.

Clinton swore under oath that he didn't do a thing he was later proved to have done.

Scooter Libby was railroaded for providing contradictory testimony under two different sessions under oath.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: network dude

I don't think you can apply a true legal precedent.

Only because the rule of law has not been applied equally.

It's easy to say, "Person ABC should've been punished, therefore, person XYZ should be punished, but in the end, it's a cop-out."

Your basic premise is correct that the concept of "precedent" doesn't apply to sentencing. Legal precedent is a concept that applies to matters of law, not facts. In fact, one precedent, at least in federal court, is that every defendant is different and that courts must consider each convicted defendant sui generis. That stems from the fact that crimes carry a range of penalties. The law doesn't say "everyone who steals a car gets x number of years." It says that depending on all facts you might get anywhere from no time (probation or conditional release) to 5 years, and/or a fine of from nothing to 5,000. The precedent is that the sentencing entity, either judge or jury, must consider all mitigating or aggravating circumstances. For example, accepting responsibility works to lessen punishment. Continuing to deny responsibility or continuing to blame others enhances punishment. Continuing to say, "I didn't do anything wrong. It was all Mr. X. This is a witch hunt." is a path to prison.

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: chr0naut

Bill Clinton lied under oath. Trump has not.

Back in 2011, in a libel case, Trump lied in depositions about his business relationships to organized crime figures.

During the court case, Trump was forced to confess to having lied on over 30 previous occasions.

Needless to say, Trump lost the case, too.

My Lawyers Got Trump to Admit 30 Lies Under Oath - Timothy O'Brien, Trump's biographer.

But, hey, he took an oath of office that he would "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States". Any lie that he says during his Presidency is contrary to that oath of faithfulness. And we all know how he has changed his story several times. Some of them must be lies.

a reply to: F4guy

Fair enough.

When guilt has been shown, however, the application to convict isn't even the same.

a reply to: network dude

My understanding is that if Trump committed a campaign finance violation, then so did every other media organization that reported on the election. If money is being exchanged over the dissemination of information and the election is being influenced, so the argument goes, it is illegal. CNN?

So Trump may win either way. If the courts really want to set that precedent, then the media will be just as guilty as Trump for influencing the campaign.

a reply to: chr0naut

Back in 2011 he wasn't the president. You can't impeach a president for lying years before he was president. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

a reply to: chr0naut

Has Trump denied the affair under oath while testifying before Congress? No? Then next argument, please.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Any lie that he says during his Presidency is contrary to that oath of faithfulness.

Ooh, don't go there!!!

Eisenhower swore to the People that no U2 spy plane had been shot down over Moscow and the US wasn't flying spy missions over the USSR... he claimed this while the Russians were sitting on a downed plan and US pilot hostage.

Reagan and Iran Contra... LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin... JFK and the Bay of Pigs... George HW Bush and 'Read my lips...' FDR's entire GD presidency... Dubya and Iraq WMD evidence... Obama and 'you can keep your doctor...' Reagan cl;aimed he was part of a film crew documenting Nazi concentration camps, he wasn't... even Abe Lincoln, while campaigning, promised the Southern states that no Republican government would look to outlaw the practice of slavery.

You're applying a standard by which no president in history, save perhaps Jimmy Carter, can meet the test.

a reply to: network dude

We have a lot of legal precedent. For 235 years, the legal precedent is that no punishment is meted out until and unless there is a conviction in a legal setting. Public opinion does not count.

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

The difference being of course that Clinton committed perjury while under oath in front of a jury. Trumps details have not been under oath nor have they come in front of a jury. Of course you can forget that fact of you wish but it is still a fact. John Edward's faced similar charges and was found not guilty of one charge by a jury and deadlocked on the others, which were dismissed and never retried again.

An indictment from a Grand Jury is easy to obtain, a conviction in front of a Judge and Jury is another animal all together. Under this current scenario, the government itself is guilty of the same criminal act, they have provided money to pay off the numerous sexual assault cases brought against sitting members of Congress, cases that we conveniently do not know about because they make laws to cover it up. Just silly, too many people allow Trump to live in their heads rent free. He will go down as the greatest troll ever.

Probably a good precedent would be John Edwards' case. He was actually indicted by a federal grand jury and brought to trial for multiple campaign finance violations, including the one that some people think Trump might have violated. Edwards was found not guilty on one charge and the jury hung on the remaining five charges, so a mistrial was declared on those counts. The DOJ chose not to retry the five mistrial charges.

There are several differences between Edwards' case and Trump's, as I recall. For one thing, the hush money that Edwards gave to his mistress was given something like 6 months before the election; that made it easier for him to argue that it was not done to influence the election. The Cohen/Trump payoffs occurred only about a month before the election. Also, Cohen and (I believe) AMI (and perhaps others) will probably testify that they had conversations with Trump to the effect that the payoffs were specifically intended to affect the elections. There might be paper trails about that, as well.

a reply to: network dude

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: chr0naut

Back in 2011 he wasn't the president. You can't impeach a president for lying years before he was president. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

He lied while he was President.

originally posted by: network dude
There is absolutely no point in arguing about what trump may or may not have done. He did have sex with a hooker/porn star, and a beautiful model, and apparently, through different means, silenced their stories with money. To my knowledge of facts and testimony, This is an assumed fact, only waiting on a court room to present the evidence. So as far as I am concerned, no argument from me on that. None.

But in cases like this with a generic person, any old politician at all, who payed money to silence something negative to the Campaign got caught and investigated, and subsequently charged, what was the outcome of punishment? There should be some cases we can reference here, but they will only be facts. No room for wiggle. Whatever has been done in the past, should apply as a reasonable punishment, and if any horrible details emerge, factor in accordingly. But this can't be about "I don't like him" with regards to punishment. If you disagree with that, I'd love to hear why.

Wheres your proof that Trump had sex with the pornstar?

Cause she said so?
Because of an NDA?

One thing that EVERYBODY seems to forget is that Daniel's repeatedly said nothing happened between them.

Then she hooked up with Avenatti and here we are.