Trump: UnPerson Guilty of UnCrime?

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

[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.