I recommend the 'Slow Burn' podcast (by Slate)
Season 1 is an extremely detailed account of Watergate, with lots of details that are overlooked by people who didn't live through it.
Season 2 just started recently, it's on Clinton Scandal
I recommend the 'Slow Burn' podcast (by Slate)
Season 1 is an extremely detailed account of Watergate, with lots of details that are overlooked by people who didn't live through it.
Season 2 just started recently, it's on Clinton Scandal
No one sees a problem with Davis, former Clinton lawyer for years now Cohen’s lawyer, tweeting this after the plea:
https://twitter.com/twt/status/1032026098320789504
And then going on the Rachel Maddow show earlier to say that Cohen will tell Mueller whatever he needs?
This wasn’t completely orchestrated right?
some of these arguments are just bad, where i kind of agree with one.Originally Posted by VaughnP
I thought you were a lawyer? It is a gray area whether or not he violated any law by using his own money to protect his reputation and prevent himself from possible financial harm. It would be 100% legal if he weren’t running for office. Another key aspect that is being overlooked is though Trump was clearly pulling the strings, Cohen did these things while representing him. Trump’s team would have a very strong defense just by saying that Cohen advised him that none of this was illegal, and that he in good faith would assume that his attorney hadn’t violated any laws. Also, what proof is there that he hadn’t asked Trump to reimburse him after the fact? None of this excuses breaking the law, but it can make arguing criminal intent impossible. I ask anyone reading this to list the laws that Trump broke? Not just call it a scheme like certain newspapers. I mean what statutes? The only two in question are a failure to disclose and conspiracy, and to reach that point, one has to overcome the above. Conspiracy given what is known is a major stretch.
as for the argument: "Trump’s team would have a very strong defense just by saying that Cohen advised him that none of this was illegal, and that he in good faith would assume that his attorney hadn’t violated any laws"
no, lack of knowledge that your conduct constitutes a crime is virtually never a defense in criminal settings. using your attorney to do it doesn't help. if that is the defense as to "no criminal intent," it is dead on arrival.
"Conspiracy given what is known is a major stretch."
ordering cohen to do this, in and of itself, could constitute conspiracy.
the only point i agree with you on (or at least where i think you were going) is that the campaign finance disclosure law is, itself, kind of hard to enforce and terrible.
it's tough for a jury to decide beyond a reasonable doubt if a donation made to the campaign was for the purposes of helping the campaign or for personal issues. you could obviously argue it both ways here. probably why these are never enforced.
this is a weird argument. "orchestrated how?" we all knew cohen and trump broke the law when the stormy daniels stuff came out. you're complaining that he is only now pleading guilty?
Well, Cohen obviously has credibility and character issues. If it is just his word I think it would be pretty easy to brush it off. If there are really tapes that is another issue.Pretty sure it's a matter of fact that he made the payments that went to Stormy and the Playboy Girl.
What exactly is there to 'brush off'? Like just ignore the whole thing? Or think he's lying about the reason he made the payments? I don't see any reasonable conclusion other than what he claimed in court under oath today "I paid them off to keep quiet and Trump signed off on it"
can someone explain what exactly there is to brush off.
verm, if i go back in this thread, weren't you one of the people who acknowledged that stormy daniels was the thing that could sink trump's presidency?
edit: my life is sad for remembering what you all said in this thread.
Last edited by blake; 08-22-2018 at 03:39 AM.
Also, you have to remember Cohen flat out changed his story for the plea, and there would be a lot of evidence to the contrary I believe.some of these arguments are just bad, where i kind of agree with one.
as for the argument: "Trump’s team would have a very strong defense just by saying that Cohen advised him that none of this was illegal, and that he in good faith would assume that his attorney hadn’t violated any laws"
no, lack of knowledge that your conduct constitutes a crime is virtually never a defense in criminal settings. using your attorney to do it doesn't help. if that is the defense as to "no criminal intent," it is dead on arrival.
"Conspiracy given what is known is a major stretch."
ordering cohen to do this, in and of itself, could constitute conspiracy.
the only point i agree with you on (or at least where i think you were going) is that the campaign finance disclosure law is, itself, kind of hard to enforce and terrible.
it's tough for a jury to decide beyond a reasonable doubt if a donation made to the campaign was for the purposes of helping the campaign or for personal issues. you could obviously argue it both ways here. probably why these are never enforced.
His original story was, "I was Trump's lawyer, he paid me to take care of this kind of stuff without talking to him about it." (This is just as believable as, "Trump told me to do it.")
My guess is Trump has been sued enough times in his life to know not to put any shady shit in writing anywhere.
So it becomes a game of pointing fingers at best.
really? michael cohen: "yeah i paid trump out of my own pocket without consulting trump cause we're cool like that" is just as believable as trump told me to do it?
really?
REALLY?
i feel like I'm living in the upside down.
what will be really interesting is when michael cohen now says "oh, i was in prague talking to the russians. i was lying before when i denied it." thus, corroborating the dossier.
at that point, you will start to hear team trump flip the fuck out.
He was his personal attorney, Trump did shady shit for years.
really? michael cohen: "yeah i paid trump out of my own pocket without consulting trump cause we're cool like that" is just as believable as trump told me to do it?
really?
REALLY?
i feel like I'm living in the upside down.
What's so hard to understand about Trump saying, "take care of my shit and I will pay you for it"?
I am sure there was the payment to Cohen and the shady shit fund that they used.
If I was protecting my client, I might pay these ladies off personally too, to create a layer of separation between my client and the payee.
He was his personal attorney, Trump did shady shit for years.
What's so hard to understand about Trump saying, "take care of my shit and I will pay you for it"?
I am sure there was the payment to Cohen and the shady shit fund that they used.
If I was protecting my client, I might pay these ladies off personally too, to create a layer of separation between my client and the payee.
i'm not sure where to go with this.
are you saying that trump may not have known about the stormy daniels payment? sure trump can say that. and sure that's absurd. but you indicated that was "just as believable" as trump knowing about it and directing cohen to pay it.What's so hard to understand about Trump saying, "take care of my shit and I will pay you for it"?
respectfully, no it's not. i know we live in a partisan world, but this opinion is just fucking nuts.
rofl, you might? you would be the highest rated lawyer (by clients) in america. you missed your calling.If I was protecting my client, I might pay these ladies off personally too, to create a layer of separation between my client and the payee.
Am I the only one here who doesn't give a shit or think any of this should be criminal? Seriously, people pay people all the time to shut the fuck up about shit. The fact that a politician did it doesn't make it any different in my opinion and certainly isn't so important as to justify the enormous waste of resources and distraction to the Nation. And before someone else says it, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not fucking an intern. And as far as the Russians (or any other nation for that matter) trying to offer information on a candidate, who doubts that this has always gone on - at least through various channels and buffers? Hell, foreign nations hire lobbyists to influence Congress and the American people on the daily and that shit is somehow legal.
in general, i think having to disclose who you take money from is probably a good thing. but honestly, him paying off stormy daniels to STFU does not interest me. i don't think this kind of payment was the reason those laws were created.
i care about the collusion, if true, somewhat cause there's a blackmail angle. there would be an implied threat that trump would have to be overly friendly to putin instead of making decisions he thinks are correct
Yeah, I see that, I'm not trying say it doesn't matter at all; I guess I just don't see it as being any different than what I am confident goes on regularly between countries and business, etc., always trying to do favors which includes giving information to one side or the other to curry favor. I mean, really, if France hated Trump and wanted to tell Clinton hey you know Trump has a fondness for pissing on women you might want to talk with this or that whore, would that be illegal? If not, then what really is the difference here? And if the information is true, and it helped Clinton, then so what? And yes, she'd probably owe them one - which happens all the time.
My point is that there is no way to prove criminal intent given what is known. If the one tape wasn’t all there is, I’m sure the Washington Post and CNN would know by now. In past campaign finance cases that involved lawyers funneling money, juries could find no criminal intent or conspiracy for the reasons I said and there being no proof that the actions done by all were to purposefully hide what they were doing in relation to those laws. Trump’s situation has no chance of seeing an indictment because it would be impossible to prove he didn’t do this to protect himself, his family and business. Even if he admitted to doing it for the campaign too, it’s reasonable to assume he did it for his personal interests. Conspiracy is a major stretch in a legal gray area. How can there be criminal intent if it’s reasonable to assume that one isn’t breaking the law? How can any actions be considered conspiracy if one didn’t know that they were breaking law? Conspiracy would hinge on concrete proof of doing A to hide B and acknowledging the reason why one did so was to break the law directly. This is the exact opinion that came out the John Edwards situation which despite what you said, was actually 100x worse.some of these arguments are just bad, where i kind of agree with one.
as for the argument: "Trump’s team would have a very strong defense just by saying that Cohen advised him that none of this was illegal, and that he in good faith would assume that his attorney hadn’t violated any laws"
no, lack of knowledge that your conduct constitutes a crime is virtually never a defense in criminal settings. using your attorney to do it doesn't help. if that is the defense as to "no criminal intent," it is dead on arrival.
"Conspiracy given what is known is a major stretch."
ordering cohen to do this, in and of itself, could constitute conspiracy.
the only point i agree with you on (or at least where i think you were going) is that the campaign finance disclosure law is, itself, kind of hard to enforce and terrible.
it's tough for a jury to decide beyond a reasonable doubt if a donation made to the campaign was for the purposes of helping the campaign or for personal issues. you could obviously argue it both ways here. probably why these are never enforced.
It wouldn’t be illegal if he wasn’t running for office. The reason why there is no real argument for being illegal even though he was, is because one doesn’t forfeit the right to protect his family and business just because they are doing so. Cohen pleading guilty to charges that he likely could have beaten to avoid harsher sentences on others that he likely could not and then having his plea scripted for political theater is tricking the public into thinking Trump is slam dunk guilty of a crime.
How can you completely gloss over that?this is a weird argument. "orchestrated how?" we all knew cohen and trump broke the law when the stormy daniels stuff came out. you're complaining that he is only now pleading guilty?
You don’t find it a bit bizarre that out of the hundreds of thousands of lawyers that Cohen ended up with one that ranks in the top 3 with connection to the Clintons, and that less than an hour after his client enters his plea, he is tweeting out that this implicates Trump? It’s not weird that he also goes on the Rachel Maddow show to talk about how this implicates Trump and how his client will cooperate with Mueller? It’s also not weird that this was scheduled the same day that the Manafort verdict was expected to come down?
but your take on what the prosecution will have to prove re: criminal intent is wrong, particularly your bolded statement. you don't have to know what you're doing is a crime to be on the hook for it. please stop insisting itMy point is that there is no way to prove criminal intent given what is known. If the one tape wasn’t all there is, I’m sure the Washington Post and CNN would know by now. In past campaign finance cases that involved lawyers funneling money, juries could find no criminal intent or conspiracy for the reasons I said and there being no proof that the actions done by all were to purposefully hide what they were doing in relation to those laws. Trump’s situation has no chance of seeing an indictment because it would be impossible to prove he didn’t do this to protect himself, his family and business. Even if he admitted to doing it for the campaign too, it’s reasonable to assume he did it for his personal interests. Conspiracy is a major stretch in a legal gray area. How can there be criminal intent if it’s reasonable to assume that one isn’t breaking the law? How can any actions be considered conspiracy if one didn’t know that they were breaking law? Conspiracy would hinge on concrete proof of doing A to hide B and acknowledging the reason why one did so was to break the law directly. This is the exact opinion that came out the John Edwards situation which despite what you said, was actually 100x worse.
this is no different than any other crime. i don't have to know tax fraud is wrong to be liable for it. you don't have to "intend to break the law" to be liable for it. if that was true, half of our laws couldn't be enforced.
the only real question is whether trump intended the payment to be something personal to him or to help the campaign. this is tough to prove. the reason the edwards case was not as strong as this, i believe, is because the payment there happened years before the campaign. so it was harder to tie it as a campaign contribution.
the stormy payment happened weeks before the election on the heels of access hollywood. there's a much stronger argument that it was relating to the campaign here, than with edwards.
Jesus Christ. I know that ignorance isn’t an excuse, but in a situation like this where it normally wouldn’t be illegal, the only way to prove that it is, is to establish concrete proof of criminal intent. There is no way to do so unless there are conversations where Trump specifically mentions doing this to get around having to disclose it or to avoid a record of such for campaign purposes.but your take on what the prosecution will have to prove re: criminal intent is wrong, particularly your bolded statement. you don't have to know what you're doing is a crime to be on the hook for it. please stop insisting it
this is no different than any other crime. i don't have to know tax fraud is wrong to be liable for it. you don't have to "intend to break the law" to be liable for it. if that was true, half of our laws couldn't be enforced.
the only real question is whether trump intended the payment to be something personal to him or to help the campaign. this is tough to prove. the reason the edwards case was not as strong as this, i believe, is because the payment there happened years before the campaign. so it was harder to tie it as a campaign contribution.
the stormy payment happened weeks before the election on the heels of access hollywood. there's a much stronger argument that it was relating to the campaign here, than with edwards.
guys, he 100% didn’t know that ignorance of the law wasn’t an excuse. for 10 years the skatz website has been catastrophically fucked up but he can’t fix itJesus Christ. I know that ignorance isn’t an excuse, but in a situation like this where it normally wouldn’t be illegal, the only way to prove that it is, is to establish concrete proof of criminal intent. There is no way to do so unless there are conversations where Trump specifically mentions doing this to get around having to disclose it or to avoid a record of such for campaign purposes.
keep this in mind when reading his opinions
Last edited by blake; 08-22-2018 at 07:14 AM.
There are currently 21 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 21 guests)
Reply With Quote
