Trump: UnPerson Guilty of UnCrime?

Original Content | 8/24/2018 | By Laz A. Mataz

[Lazamataz]

In the prescient novel '1984', George Orwell envisioned a society ruled by an all-powerful State that imposed its rule with both force and psychological manipulation. One such manipulation was the molding of the speech of its citizens by imposing "NewSpeak", a form of language that limited ideas and political innovation.

In this language, there was a word -- "UnPerson" -- whose definition was someone that was so hated by the State that their very existence was erased from all official history. The daily barrage of negative stories about President Donald Trump shows that the News Misleadia so despises him, that they would erase him if given the chance. To them, Trump is an UnPerson.

Yet, now, we can add a new word to the '1984' lexicon: UnCrime. The definition of an UnCrime is "something that is not a violation of the law, or in any way an actual crime, yet is prosecuted and punished as if it was."

The prosecution of Michael Cohen had him plead guilty to an UnCrime. Witness:

• Many women across the political landscape make claims of sexual indiscretions with men in power. Sometimes these claims are false, and intended only to force the powerful man to settle out of court -- or be dragged through the courts. Many of these men consider it a cost of doing business, and make the payment.
• Michael Cohen said Tuesday that the payments were intended to influence the election, making them a violation of campaign-finance laws, and that he had done so at the direction of the candidate. But that is his opinion. For this to be a campaign violation, we must know the mindset of then-candidate Trump. Did he make these payments with the guilty mindset (or mens rea, in legal jargon) of influencing the election? Or was his intention to protect his family from the scandal that would swirl around such allegations? Or was his intention to simply prevent himself from being dragged through the courts, and that this would be considered, in his mind, the cost of doing business?
• Michael Cohen has no way of knowing the President's mindset, unless he specifically stated, "Michael, you know what? I am making these payments to influence the election, and I am purposefully refusing to report these payments to the FEC, in violation of Campaign Finance regulations."
• Yet, Michael Cohen plead guilty to these unprovable charges. He plead guilty to an UnCrime.

I admit that I am rather impressed with the prosecutions machinations, given that the sole intent of this series of charges (unspoken, of course) was to try to harm President Trump. They charged Cohen with many serious and provable crimes, but offered a plea deal in which he plead guilty to an UnCrime, and stated that President Trump commanded him to commit the UnCrime. It was an interesting and convoluted tactic. Get the defendant to plea to a non-existent crime, thus giving the appearance that the action was actually criminal. Then, tie President Trump to that action. Then, impeach President Trump for a non-existent crime. Of course, it fits their Modus Operandi: The Russian collusion is also non-existent.

Lanny Davis, one of the slimier denizens of Washington DC, had this to say: "It's not about evidence. It is definitive, indisputable that Donald Trump's lawyers said in a letter to the special counsel that President Trump directed – the same word that Michael Cohen used in court yesterday under oath – directed Michael Cohen to make illegal payments. It's not a dispute. It's not about credibility. His own lawyers used the word directed.”

Mr. Davis, I have underlined and bolded the one word you interjected into your narrative that is false: "illegal". Just because your client plead guilty to a charge that is in great dispute as to the legality, and can only be a crime if the candidate Trump had one-of-three mindsets: To specifically and purposefully violate a rather hazy FEC law. You, sir, are assuming facts that are not in evidence.

Furthermore, this law is quite vague, indicating that a personal expense is reportable if it benefits the campaign. Allow me to apply Reducto Ad Absurdium, which will clarify the point:

• Candidate buys an expensive silk tie.
• Candidate appears on TV wearing that tie.
• Candidate looks good in that tie.
• THAT TIE PURCHASE BENEFITED THE CANDIDATE. IT BETTER BE DECLARED!

The same goes for eating breakfast, buying gasoline, paying car insurance...you name it.

The law is vague and open to interpretation. Perhaps it is intentionally so.

[Lazamataz]

Thanks, red-dawg!

[Lazamataz]

I appreciate it!

[Nifster]

Oh yeah....no extreme bias there at all. Kind of like reading the old Spotlight

[Madame Dufarge]

Further, I assert that Cohen -- who most certainly signed an agreement not to appeal as part of his plea -- can still get the charges vacated because it can be demonstrated that there is no crime.

But would the open running sore known as Cohen have the guts to do it?

Excellent essay as usual.

[poconopundit]

Real nice comment, henkster… they would have recognized the society we live in. They were prophets.

[freedumb2003]

Of course his drink is....

The un-cola!!! This Un's for you, Laz:

[proud American in Canada]

Excellent opinion piece.

I am still trying to figure out what crime he apparently committed. He used his own money to pay women who were basically extorting him.

However I am not familiar with election law.

[nwrep]

I am reading That there are claims that the prosecutors now actually have this corroborating material that describes just such a purpose for making these payments that is to say, influencing the election. This is from articles that quote the Southern District of New York prosecutors.

[Lazamataz]

Please produce citations of such a thing.

Your post made me curious, so I went hunting. I found this, in Politico (who is no friend of President Trump):

But as a lawyer, Cohen could be assumed to have some familiarity with federal election law. Prosecutors may well have proof in emails or other documents that he regularly discussed compliance with such statutes.

Proving that Trump knew at the time that the payouts were intended to influence the presidential race, and that he knew they were illegal, could be much harder. Perhaps such records exist, or maybe Cohen is prepared to say that he told Trump the way they were handling it was illegal, but the lawyer never said that in court on Tuesday.

“In order to prove criminal intent, you have to point to evidence that the actors knew or had reason to know what they were doing was illegal,” said Baran, the GOP campaign finance lawyer.

In short, what this article says is, that directing these payments is not illegal. Knowing the regulations around campaign laws is not illegal. The only thing that is illegal would be a willful and purposed violation of campaign laws. That is a very high bar.

As I said, he would have to make some pretty damning admissions in a recorded media. Cohen's testimony won't cut it.

And if Donald Trump is THAT unwise, maybe he NEEDS to be impeached.

[nwrep]

Here is the relevant information, from the Business Insider, with links to the actual filings by SDNY prosecutors:

Directing Cohen to commit such a crime would make Trump a co-conspirator, legal experts say. Prosecutors wrote that they could back up Cohen's admissions through evidence obtained from the FBI's April raids on Cohen's home, office, and hotel room. The evidence, they wrote, included documents, electronic devices, audio recordings made by Cohen, text messages, messages sent on encrypted apps, phone records, and emails.

That is damning, and then if you look at the link to the SDNY filing, here , that is also damning since it is a felony to even coordinate expenditure with a federal candidate for more than $2700 per McCain-Feingold.

[nwrep]

To clarify my last statement above, what Cohen did (coordinate, funnel, contribute, etc.) was clearly illegal, but I am not sure whether it would be illegal for Trump to direct such activities.

[Lazamataz]

To clarify my last statement above, what Cohen did (coordinate, funnel, contribute, etc.) was clearly illegal,

Nope.

[nwrep]

Doesn’t a simple reading of the law (page 11 of the filing) lead to that conclusion? Isn’t this a coordinated contribution in excess of the stipulated maximum?

[Lazamataz]

I read that page, just now. No, this is not a coordinated contribution to a campaign. This is a private transaction between two parties, unrelated to an election.

[SaveFerris]

That must have been a long, long time ago.

[nwrep]

Your argument is not unreasonable. I’ll leave it at that. Thanks for indulging me.