"Co-conspirator" Trump in deep trouble as Cohen pleads guilty

[Rightguide]

Um, no. Thanks for admitting it was about the campaign. Step one taken.

Expenditures in regard to polishing a campaign are not illegal in and of it themselves. All campaign expenditures are by definition about the campaign. They are not by definition, illegal.

 

[Rightguide]

He’s shooting to the top again in mere hours in his frantic desire to defend Trump. No quoting necessary.

As you scream your way to the bottom in your efforts to frame a man out of hate, not evidence.

 

[070276]

Like I've been saying...

I don't give a crap what you've "been saying": you're legend for your outright fabrication on this Board.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Levin is a top attorney, constitutional scholar, founder of Landmark Legal Foundation, and former Chief of Staff to The Attorney General of the United States. He knows what he's talking about:

“I wanna help the law professors, the constitutional experts, the criminal defense lawyers, the former prosecutors, and of course the professors, I wanna help them understand what the law is,” Levin said. “The general counsel for the Clinton mob family, Lanny Davis, he had his client plead to two counts of criminality that don’t exist.”

“Just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so. He’s not the judge; he’s not the jury,” Levin said. “We didn’t adjudicate anything. It never went to court.”

Levin explained that a campaign expenditure under U.S. campaign finance law is an expenditure “solely for campaign activity.” He argued that any supposed reimbursement Trump paid to Cohen with his own money after Cohen paid off Stormy Daniels or any other woman who slept with the president is “perfectly legal.”

“A candidate who spends his own money, or even corporate money, for an event that occurred not as a result of the campaign — it is not a campaign expenditure,”
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/levin-on-cohen-guilty-plea-donald-trumps-in-the-clear/

I believe Levin is exactly right, but like I said, the best legal theory is worthless if you don't fight for it. Any number of other future defendants might very well face that same charge (maybe even Trump), fight for it and WIN. For the sake of the law, they should.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Expenditures in regard to polishing a campaign are not illegal in and of it themselves. All campaign expenditures are by definition about the campaign. They are not by definition, illegal.

Huh?

.

 

[Adre]

We've got him this time!


lol

Every day...

By ‘him’ I’ll assume you mean:

Flynn
Gates
Papadopoulos
Manafort
Cohen
Hunter
Collins
And whoever comes next

 

[KeithD]

The most fun now is watching the rightwing jackoff club members scrape the bottom of the excuse barrel in an attempt to insulate their dear President from the known criminals he has surrounded himself with. As if it’s just coincidence that his associates and perhaps even family members brazenly operate above the law, lying to banks and not bothering with details like paying taxes as they go about their lowlife (a favorite term of Trump’s) activities.


(RWCJ whataboutism in 5,4,3...)

Yes, the Trumpettes posting to this board are very entertaining in their bleating bluster.

 

[Pookie]

We've got him this time!


lol

Every day...

Not every day. I think it's averaging about one every month or so.

I could be off. I hate ciphering and shit. I'll leave the mathmatics to you.

 

[Wrong Element]

I don't give a crap what you've "been saying": you're legend for your outright fabrication on this Board.

I suppose one way of becoming a legend here is not getting your username banned every 4 days or so.


By the way, I haven't said much about impeachment of Trump, mostly because it's futile to talk about but also because the bar for that is rightfully very high. But there's no serious doubt now that he has engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors (Lord only knows what a truly serious look into his entire life that we never got during the campaign might uncover); the only question now is if we're going to do anything about it aside from allowing him to place a second person on the Supreme Court.

 

[KeithD]

And btw, I don’t want to see him go down because...PENCE!,,

I thought that for a while, but now I see Trump's venial criminality as so egregious that it must be addressed and punished and then worry about what to do with the next one. The example of Trump being followed through his sewer and locked up might temper what Pence does, as would a comfortable majority Democratic Congress (which the Republicans in Congress so richly deserve to happen to them).

 

[Rightguide]

I thought that for a while, but now I see Trump's venial criminality as so egregious that it must be addressed and punished and then worry about what to do with the next one. The example of Trump being followed through his sewer and locked up might temper what Pence does, as would a comfortable majority Democratic Congress (which the Republicans in Congress so richly deserve to happen to them).

Except you cannot point to any presidential criminality.

 

[phrodeau]

Expenditures in regard to polishing a campaign are not illegal in and of it themselves. All campaign expenditures are by definition about the campaign. They are not by definition, illegal.

If they are not reported, they are illegal.

 

[Rightguide]

I believe Levin is exactly right, but like I said, the best legal theory is worthless if you don't fight for it. Any number of other future defendants might very well face that same charge (maybe even Trump), fight for it and WIN. For the sake of the law, they should.

If Mueller subpoenas the President, Trump will take it to the SCOTUS and win.

The media and the trump haters are acting as if Cohen's plea means anything other than a statement made in order to receive more favorable treatment from the prosecutor.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

One of Trump's lawyers, probably Giuliani, also said it was done to help the campaign. So you have at least two who've confirmed what it was really for.

The payoff to Stormy Daniels did occur as a result of the campaign. Why did he pay her in the fall of 2016 when the sexual encounter happened a decade earlier? The campaign was the only reason he needed her to keep quiet.

It is a crime if it's done as part of a political campaign.

Michael Cohen shelled out over a hundred thousand dollars to benefit the Trump campaign, far in excess of the amount allowed by law.

The Trump campaign failed to report Cohen's cash contribution, also in violation of the law.

Cohen was on the staff of the Trump Corporation. If any money went through the Trump Corporation to benefit the Trump Campaign, that is also in violation of the law.

Um, no. Thanks for admitting it was about the campaign. Step one taken.

Every one of you insist on missing the legal point of this. As Rightguide is repeatedly telling you, the personal motivations for the expenditure of funds in a political campaign IS NOT the determining factor that renders that expenditure a legitimate campaign expense under law. It is the nature of the expense itself. A candidate and/or his staff might sincerely believe that plastic surgery might greatly enhance his or her electability. A candidate might very well receive what he thought was a campaign contribution for that specific purpose, run it through his campaign treasury and then spend it for that specific purpose all under the erroneous belief that he was acting properly. But on audit, that expenditure would be denied.

What makes this dubious charge an unarguable campaign violation in the Cohen case is that Cohen pleaded guilty to it. "Marginally" innocent and wholly innocent defendants suffer at the hands of bad law, politically motivated prosecutions, and the temptation of accepting comparatively attractive plea bargains to avoid the hassle of spending further time and money with great regularity. That doen't make it right and it CERTAINLY in and of itself does NOT establish legal precedence. Courts alone ultimately make that determination.

At present, Cohen's plea alone DOES present a legal problem for President Trump. It remains to be seen just how big a problem it presents based on how his legal team attacks the issue.

 

[IG_88]

Nothing I've seen in the news suggests Trump is in any real legal trouble. Impeachment after midterms seems to be the only thing anyone is seriously considering.

 

[phrodeau]

If Mueller subpoenas the President, Trump will take it to the SCOTUS and win.

The media and the trump haters are acting as if Cohen's plea means anything other than a statement made in order to receive more favorable treatment from the prosecutor.

What exactly will Trump win from the SCOTUS?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

If Mueller subpoenas the President, Trump will take it to the SCOTUS and win.

The media and the trump haters are acting as if Cohen's plea means anything other than a statement made in order to receive more favorable treatment from the prosecutor.

Well, I disagree with you that Cohen's plea is meaningless beyond the bounds of a plea bargain agreement. It will go down as a criminal conviction that has further potential impact for a future criminal prosecution against the President under the same federal criminal code, 18 USC.

Yeah, he can fight it and win, but the Cohen plea serves to legitimize, in not an insignificant way, a prosecution against the President that, heretofore, was merely speculative and poorly founded.

No longer speculative and not quite as poorly founded.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Lying on a federal disclosure form is a felony, as I recall.

 

[about_average]

The payoff to Stormy Daniels did occur as a result of the campaign. Why did he pay her in the fall of 2016 when the sexual encounter happened a decade earlier? The campaign was the only reason he needed her to keep quiet.

I can't believe people are arguing it wasn't about the campaign.
Cohen said it was.
Trump's current lawyer told Sean Hannity on live TV it was.

“However. Imagine if that came out on October 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton. Cohen didn’t even ask. Cohen made it go away. He did his job.”

No it wasn't. If the expenditure was made for an event that occurred not as a result of the campaign it is not a campaign expenditure. The law defines a campaign expenditure as an expenditure that is "solely for campaign activity," the event with Daniels occurred ten years earlier. The payment was made to save himself and his wife the embarrassment of a public disclosure of infidelity. Because the motivation is more than just a campaign consideration it is legal. The fact that this issue came up when it did is a glaring indicator Trump was being blackmailed as well.

Too bad both of Trump's lawyers say it was done to protect the campaign.

The president has not been declared an unindicted co-conspirator.

Except by Cohen and the tape of the two of them conspiring.

Every one of you insist on missing the legal point of this. As Rightguide is repeatedly telling you, the personal motivations for the expenditure of funds in a political campaign IS NOT the determining factor that renders that expenditure a legitimate campaign expense under law.

RG is making a specious argument. Cohen plead guilty to violating campaign finance law. He violated the law because it was done for the campaign and because it exceeded the allowed limits. The Trump campaign violated the law because it wasn't reported.
If he had kept within the limits of the law it would have been perfectly legal.

 

[about_average]

Except you cannot point to any presidential criminality.

Not reporting the expenditures was illegal.
Conspiring to violate the law is illegal.

 

[about_average]

No longer speculative and not quite as poorly founded.

I would say it's well founded considering two of Trump's lawyers say Cohen broke the law.
Also, Trump didn't help his case by saying he didn't know about the payments when it's been proven he did.
He's already lied about it on several occasions, why would a jury believe him in court?
Add to that just in general Trump is a demonstrable liar.
He is probably the least credible witness in history.

 

[Adre]

Anyone else remember that eight year period when no one connected to the President went to jail?



(But, but, but Hilary in 5,4,3....)

 

[KeithD]

I would say it's well founded considering two of Trump's lawyers say Cohen broke the law.
Also, Trump didn't help his case by saying he didn't know about the payments when it's been proven he did.
He's already lied about it on several occasions, why would a jury believe him in court?
Add to that just in general Trump is a demonstrable liar.
He is probably the least credible witness in history.

Yes, anyone still defending Trump's "innocence" (on practically anything) is, him/herself, a nut job. No one is as revealing of guilt as Trump himself is. We, as individuals here, aren't on a jury. We're free to acknowledge the obvious and to rely on commonsense.

 

[070276]

...there's no serious doubt now that he has engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors...

Good thing you're only fabricating lord over your own OPINION, eh putz?

 

[about_average]

Yes, anyone still defending Trump's "innocence" (on practically anything) is, him/herself, a nut job. No one is as revealing of guilt as Trump himself is. We, as individuals here, aren't on a jury. We're free to acknowledge the obvious and to rely on commonsense.

Since Cohen didn't specifically say "Donald Trump" I'm surprised the Trump apologists aren't trying to claim the payments were done at the behest of Hillary Clinton.
It would make as much sense.


On another note, I see that Cohen has said outright that he would refuse a pardon from Trump.
Maybe he's had a Come-to-Jesus moment, saying he doesn't want any further association with someone so corrupting of the oval office.