34 Felony Counts Guilty

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 400
#331
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
Finally you get it.
I don't give a shit if Trump is innocent or guilty, but not charging him, yet calling it an "underlying crime" is beyond banana republic territory.  You're just making shit up just for the sake of government corruption.
It’s insane. I hope that if Biden or a prominent democrat was hit with equally absurd charges I would have the integrity to see it for what it is. “Yeah he’s guilty of falsifying business records to cover up another crime. Yes it was in a different jurisdiction. No that jurisdiction didn’t charge him lol.  No we aren’t qualified or allowed to interpret that jurisdictions laws but…well…he did it. Trust me bro.”
#332
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
They literally locked Cohen up just so Cohen could say the name "Trump" for the record. If that's how a person is decidedly in violation of the law, when a felon simply points a finger, says a name, and acts as a one-man judge and jury, then we have crossed over into the Salem witch trials.
#333
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
The law. There is a reason we have rules governing campaign finances.
that's like saying murder is ONLY a crime if you pay someone to murder
No, it's saying that there is a reason why we have campaign finance laws, so when you break them you will be held legally liable. Not that complicated.
the "reason" we have campaign finance laws

"to prevent corruption and ensure transparency in political funding"

these "reasons" don't apply to this case

this case hinges on the charge of "defrauding voters"

which boils down to

"lying to voters"

which has absolutely nothing to do with money


You're not arguing against prosecutors, the judge, or anyone else here. You're arguing that campaign finance laws shouldn't exist in the first place.
nope

i never suggested anything of the sort


Well you're entitled to that opinion, but that has little to nothing to do with any of the arguments I've made or the central point of this thread.
i'm ever so glad you think i'm entitled to some opinion you made up for me out of thin air

how generous of you
#334
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
So even if we assume that Trump played no role in the commission of this crime (he did), he at the very least falsified his business records to conceal it. And you don't get to claim the crime wasn't adjudicated when the primary actor in this scheme served 3 years in prison as a result.
In court Tuesday, Cohen told the judge, under penalty of perjury, that he knew he was committing a crime by making the payments. He said he did so “at the direction” of Trump — identified as “Individual-1" in court papers — “for the principal purpose of influencing the election.”


ok

so to frame this

mafioso is caught red-handed and admits everything was premeditated and they knew everything was 100% illegal (as part of a plea deal)

mafioso is convicted but says "my boss made me do it"

the prosecutor neglects to file a charge against the boss

why ?
#335
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@thett3
Because individual X pled guilty to a crime in jurisdiction A, jurisdiction B can use a crime that individual Y was never charged with much less convicted of as a predicate for their own charge in a different jurisdiction. Their prosecutors can tell jurors as a statement of fact that individual Y was guilty of a crime in jurisdiction A even though he was never even charged with a crime there.
jurisdiction matters
#336
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
mafioso is caught red-handed and admits everything was premeditated and they knew everything was 100% illegal (as part of a plea deal)
Yeah I didn’t want to get into that because it’s a whole different can of worms but the language of a statement accompanying a gullty plea is usually going to be favorable to the state. That’s part of the purpose of a plea bargain.

“Someone pled guilty to a crime, because of the language accompanying that guilty plea it’s therefore fair assume that a different individual would be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime he was never accused of, and its fair for a different jurisdiction to use that assumption as an “underlying crime” in their own charge” 
#337
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
Here is what you are saying: 

Individual X pled guilty to a crime in jurisdiction A. Individual Y was possibly implicated in that crime, and a complaint was lodged against him. The relevant authorities in jurisdiction A performed an inquiry and determined that no further investigation into individual Y was warranted.
No, this is your position, not mine. I’ve already corrected you more than once as to who the relevant authorities are and what they determined. At some point when being corrected as to what the other person is saying and continuing to put forward the same misrepresentations of it, it becomes clear you aren’t looking for a good faith conversation.

Because individual X pled guilty to a crime in jurisdiction A, jurisdiction B can use a crime that individual Y was never charged with much less convicted of as a predicate for their own charge in a different jurisdiction.
This is mostly accurate. We agree that a state cannot adjudicate federal law, therefore in order to use a federal crime as a predicate for increased severity of a state crime, the legality of that crime must have already been adjudicated at the federal level. What you are claiming is that this adjudication can only take place in the form of a conviction, I reject that position.

If the defendant pleads guilty there will never be a conviction because a jury at that point is not necessary. I find it absurd to suggest that the illegality of an act is established when the defendant declares they are innocent and fights the charges and loses, but not when the defendant himself, with advice of counsel says ‘don’t even bother, I’m guilty’.

Their prosecutors can tell jurors as a statement of fact that individual Y was guilty of a crime in jurisdiction A even though he was never even charged with a crime there.
The prosecutors made the case that he was guilty of that crime. Big difference.

Action X occurred and is a crime =/= Individual Y is guilty of crime X

The former is what the jury was instructed to accept as fact, because that had already been adjudicated in federal court. So what was left to adjudicate in state court is not whether Trump committed a federal crime, but whether Trump’s intent when falsifying his business records was to aid or conceal the commission of that crime.

In order to accomplish this they had to show that the crime (which did legally occur according to federal court), occurred at the very least with Trump’s knowledge and that he had a hand in falsifying his records, and they accomplished that via a unanimous jury verdict.

That’s what the trial was about. If you are going to continue arguing as to why the trial was inappropriate or worse, refute it for what it actually was.

Yeah they locked up Michael Cohen…and they determined that no investigation into Trump was needed. What it sounds like is that you disagree with that decision because you believe your interpretation of campaign finance law in superior to that of the FEC commissioners.
If that is seriously what you heard then you aren’t even trying to pay attention.

My point here had absolutely nothing to do with my interpretation of campaign finance laws and I couldn’t have made that any clearer. I even linked you to the commissioners statement of reasons where they explained exactly why they did what they did and I used their own words to make my point.

This is narrative is suspect due to your own extreme partisanship and your lack of expertise in the subject.
My lack of legal expertise and/or perceived partisanship has no bearing on the validity of my arguments. The fact that you assert this in the first place shows which one of us is being biased here.

you can be right that the decision not to go after Trump was an error, but that isn’t an error that’s reversible by New York!
That’s your opinion and is supposed to be the topic we are debating. But all you’ve offered are legal arguments based on legal technicalities, so if that’s all you’re going to offer that what I’m going to respond to. But then you scoff at me when I use legal technicalities to make my point.

So again, we can debate the legality of this trial or we can debate the morality/ethics of this trial. Pick one, but stop with this standard where you only need to present legal technicalities while I have to argue the legal and the moral/ethical at the same time leaving you with every opportunity to jumble them together to strawman my position, which is exactly what you’ve been doing this whole time.

#338
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
the "reason" we have campaign finance laws

"to prevent corruption and ensure transparency in political funding"

these "reasons" don't apply to this case

this case hinges on the charge of "defrauding voters"
What do you think transparency means?

which boils down to

"lying to voters"

which has absolutely nothing to do with money
What do you think political funding means?

#339
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
mafioso is convicted but says "my boss made me do it"

the prosecutor neglects to file a charge against the boss

why ?
Do you think the fact that the boss was the president is the United States might have something to do with that?

Or do you think that someone who coordinates with and directs the primary actor in a crime is not by definition guilty of taking part in that crime?
#340
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Or do you think that someone who coordinates with and directs the primary actor in a crime is not by definition guilty of taking part in that crime?
accused of

not convicted
#341
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
What do you think transparency means?
the primary aim of "transparency" is

to identify sources of funding

to insure a candidate is not a proxy for a foreign or criminal power

in this trump case

the source of funding in question

was trump

everyone agrees on this
#342
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
What do you think political funding means?
what do you think "defrauding voters" means ?
#343
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
This is mostly accurate. We agree that a state cannot adjudicate federal law, therefore in order to use a federal crime as a predicate for increased severity of a state crime, the legality of that crime must have already been adjudicated at the federal level. What you are claiming is that this adjudication can only take place in the form of a conviction, I reject that position. 

If the defendant pleads guilty there will never be a conviction because a jury at that point is not necessary. I find it absurd to suggest that the illegality of an act is established when the defendant declares they are innocent and fights the charges and loses, but not when the defendant himself, with advice of counsel says ‘don’t even bother, I’m guilty’.
A guilty plea is the equivalent of a conviction….the illegality of an act can be established by a trial or by a guilty plea. It can’t be established for individual Y because individual X pled guilty to something. You said it was an “egregious lie” when I stated “You’re literally pointing to someone else pleading guilty to a crime as legal proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” that a different person is guilty of a crime.” but then you just said: 

“We agree that a state cannot adjudicate federal law, therefore in order to use a federal crime as a predicate for increased severity of a state crime, the legality of that crime must have already been adjudicated at the federal level. What you are claiming is that this adjudication can only take place in the form of a conviction, I reject that position” 

Trump was never accused of anything at a federal level let alone convicted. So the only way for the state to use this as a predicate for their own charge is to either adjudicate it themselves, which you just said you don’t support, or to assume Trump is guilty because Cohen pled guilty to something and said that Trump was involved. And you’ve been arguing this whole time that Trump is definitely guilty because Cohen pled guilty. So it seems like rather than what I’m saying being an “egregious lie”, Trump being assumed guilty because of what happened with Cohen is something you support. 

That’s the fundamental disagreement here. That’s a violation of very basic due process and I would never ever agree to a system of justice where that type of practice is standard.

The prosecutors made the case that he was guilty of that crime. Big difference.

Action X occurred and is a crime =/= Individual Y is guilty of crime X

The former is what the jury was instructed to accept as fact, because that had already been adjudicated in federal court. So what was left to adjudicate in state court is not whether Trump committed a federal crime, but whether Trump’s intent when falsifying his business records was to aid or conceal the commission of that crime.
1) they’re not allowed to do that. They don’t have jurisdiction over federal law. The state is not qualified to tell a jury what is or isn’t a violation of federal law. Since there’s no conviction of this individual by the proper jurisdiction, the exact opposite of what you’re saying is the case. The assumption must be innocence, not guilt. 

2) that’s insane sophistry. We can decide if the individual was “concealing” a crime, but we can’t decide if the thing that was being concealed was actually a crime. It’s circular. Since the state isn’t qualified to determine what is or isn’t a federal crime, that also means they aren’t qualified to determine if a federal crime was being concealed

That’s your opinion and is supposed to be the topic we are debating. But all you’ve offered are legal arguments based on legal technicalities, so if that’s all you’re going to offer that what I’m going to respond to. But then you scoff at me when I use legal technicalities to make my point.
“Jurisdiction” “juror unanimity” “a fair an impartial judiciary” …an individual not being ASSUMED to have committed a crime without his day in court. These are not my “opinions” or “technicalities”, its basic process 
Topic's author
#344
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,919
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
@thett3
@3RU7AL
@Double_R
Unlike OGParrot, I  believe the jury's decision will not get thrown out on appeal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The jury is decider of truth, and judge is decider of the law.  Together these two led to 34 felony counts. 

A} Falsifying records occurred,

B} Cohen and Trump knew, suspected or unaware of any campaign violation being committed by reporting it as income to Cohen,

c} Judge { law } > lawyers { scenario } < Jury { truth } is the trinary set of justice USA system of criminal court.

Why would any jury think Trump would have intent rather than foolish or unaware?  I think this may go to a pattern of behavior --ergo the  Pecker AMI catch and kill story with McDougal--  info by a person { Trump in this case } See post #274

Jury decision is judgement of truth, based on all evidence presented to them. 

#345
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
accused of

not convicted
Irrelevant. You asked me why I thought the DOJ passed on charging Trump. My answer was a response to that question. 

Read the exchange in context.

What do you think transparency means?
the primary aim of "transparency" is

to identify sources of funding

to insure a candidate is not a proxy for a foreign or criminal power

in this trump case

the source of funding in question

was trump

everyone agrees on this
Correct, we agree on this… now… because Trump got caught. So the aim of the law - transparency - was purposefully defied. That makes his actions illegal.

Whether the primary concern that the law aimed to address (which I would argue this falls into) is irrelevant. It is up to the public to decide whether these are legitimate concerns. The assurances the public demands through campaign finance laws cannot be had when the funding is itself illegally concealed.

what do you think "defrauding voters" means ?
It means using large sums of money to conceal information from them which they might have found relevant to deciding whether they should hand over to you the nuclear codes.
#346
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
It means using large sums of money to conceal information from
"defrauding voters"

Convictions for "defrauding voters" typically involve criminal charges related to election fraud, such as submitting false voter registrations, tampering with ballots, or other actions intended to deceive or manipulate the electoral process. cases and outcomes vary by jurisdiction.
#347
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
the crime that michael cohen was convicted of

was "making an excessive campaign contribution" to stormy

the plea included "for the express purpose of influencing the outcome of an election"

which is obviously the goal of every campaign dollar spent

"for the express purpose of influencing the outcome of an election"

is not "defrauding voters"

and if it is somehow "defrauding voters" in this specific case

then why wasn't michael cohen charged and convicted of "defrauding voters" ?
#348
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
you’ve been arguing this whole time that Trump is definitely guilty because Cohen pled guilty.
Let’s start from the beginning. Micheal Cohen is the one who took out a personal loan from his house, then created a shell company to put those funds in, and then used those funds to pay off Stormy Daniel’s. Cohen was then charged by the DOJ who determined that this was an illegal campaign contribution. Cohen then plead guilty to it.

At this point it is Cohen and Cohen alone that is guilty. Donald Trump as far as the federal government is concerned is considered innocent.

The indictment did of course list “Individual 1” whom we all know for a fact to be Donald Trump as a co-conspirator in this crime, but that fact is only useful as a data point in a moral/ethical discussion about this, so for the sake of the legal debate that is set to the side as irrelevant.

What the Cohen plea establishes legally, is that the actions of Micheal Cohen were as a matter of fact, criminal.

That fact, and that fact alone is what gets carried over to the state trial. So far none of this has to do with Donald Trump.

In the state trial, Trump is accused of falsifying his business records with an intent of aiding or concealing the commission of a crime.

Did he falsify his business records? Yes, according to the jury.

Did he do so with the intent of aiding or concealing another crime? That’s what the trial was about.

The trial then puts forward the case by examining Trump’s role in this scheme which did by the way, take place almost entirely in NY. Through the evidence established in the trial, the prosecution proved that Trump was in fact, at the very least, involved in Micheal Cohen’s scheme.

So to recap, since Micheal Cohens scheme was in fact illegal, and since Donald Trump was found via the evidence presented at trial to be involved in it, that proves to the jury that when Donald Trump falsified his New York business records, that he did so with the intent to (at the very least) conceal another (Micheal Cohen’s) crime.

That is not an adjudication of federal law. That is not a determination of Donald Trump’s guilt in committing a federal crime. It is a determination as to what Donald Trump’s intentions were while he was violating NY criminal law. Because the reason you violate a law is relevant to how severe your violation is.

So do you understand how Cohen pleading guilty =/= Trump is guilty? Do you understand that Trump’s role in this scheme had to be proven at trial (the opposite of assumed) in order for that connection to be made? Do you understand how this is very different from “Cohen plead guilty, therefore you must all accept as fact that Trump is guilty”???

“Jurisdiction” “juror unanimity” “a fair an impartial judiciary” …an individual not being ASSUMED to have committed a crime without his day in court. These are not my “opinions” or “technicalities”, its basic process
Legal arguments, such as ‘the state must ignore what is established at the federal level to be a crime’ is not a moral/ethical argument sufficient to substantiate being for or against a moral/ethical charge (such as the justice system is being weaponized against Trump). That is the legal game attorneys must play to defend or convict a defendant through our system of rules that were put in place to protect the innocent.

If you want to keep playing that game that’s fine, but don’t confuse these two very different conversations.
#349
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
So to recap, since Micheal Cohens scheme was in fact illegal, and since Donald Trump was found via the evidence presented at trial to be involved in it, that proves to the jury that when Donald Trump falsified his New York business records, that he did so with the intent to (at the very least) conceal another (Micheal Cohen’s) crime.

That is not an adjudication of federal law. That is not a determination of Donald Trump’s guilt in committing a federal crime. It is a determination as to what Donald Trump’s intentions were while he was violating NY criminal law. Because the reason you violate a law is relevant to how severe your violation is.
I do see what you’re saying more now. You can indeed be guilty of trying to cover up a crime someone else committed as an accessory after the fact or party to a conspiracy or something like that. However that type of stuff is illegal at a federal level too—you’re still mixing up jurisdictions. If that’s truly what happened it begs the question of why the federal government didn’t pursue it. I think you’re still running into the issue of the state interpreting and enforcing federal law because if Trump was allegedly party to a conspiracy to cover up a campaign violation, the federal government is the one who gets to decide and enforce that. As I see it you’re just changing what the alleged offense is, but either way it’s federal and not state. Increasing the severity of a state charge because of a federal crime that’s never been proven at trial isnt right. At the end of the day the state is saying he did something wrong with regards to a federal issue, when the federal government didn’t pursue any allegation of wrongdoing. Jurisdiction issue. 

Btw even the FEC commissioners who did want to investigate Trump didn’t allege anything like that, but instead said that he may have knowingly accepted an illegal campaign contribution from Cohen. Which gets into questions about what he could reasonably be expected to know, etc.

I know you think it’s just pure bias by the FEC but there actually are a lot of issues with proving something like that beyond a reasonable doubt, it was probably a prudent decision not to move forward. And if it wasn’t, well, that’s still not New York's bone to pick 

Legal arguments, such as ‘the state must ignore what is established at the federal level to be a crime’ is not a moral/ethical argument sufficient to substantiate being for or against a moral/ethical charge (such as the justice system is being weaponized against Trump). That is the legal game attorneys must play to defend or convict a defendant through our system of rules that were put in place to protect the innocent.
Sorry but no. Due process is in fact a system of morals and ethics that evolved through centuries of common law to create the optimal system. When it’s done correctly our legal system actually is pretty close to perfect and beautifully balances the interests of all morally relevant stakeholders. A due process violation is an extremely serious issue. A DA who hinted at “dealing with” a defendant when he was trying to get elected, who lowers 2/3rds of violent misdemeanors into felonies but zaps a non-violent long past the statute of limitations misdemeanor into a felony (selective prosecution), a judge who donated to the defendants political opponent, jurisdictional issues, the juror unanimity issue, the indictment being so vague that the defendant himself doesn’t know fully what the “secondary crime” he committed was, etc etc. There were tons of problems here. 

You’re not gonna move me on this lol. I’m a mix of Anglo and Jewish, my people invented obsessing over due process 
#350
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
Even shifting the goalposts to "Cohen said Trump was guilty!"

Cohen isn't a judge or a prosecutor. Unless he was Federally charged for being an accessory, Trump remains innocent.
#351
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
In the state trial, Trump is accused of falsifying his business records with an intent of aiding or concealing the commission of a crime.
how is paying cohen back

"concealing"

cohen's "excessive campaign contribution" ?


i mean, if trump pays for cohen's "excessive campaign contribution"


doesn't that make the payment a de facto trump to trump "campaign contribution" making it no longer "excessive" ?


basically erasing the original charge of "excessive campaign contribution" ?
#352
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
As I see it you’re just changing what the alleged offense is, but either way it’s federal and not state. Increasing the severity of a state charge because of a federal crime that’s never been proven at trial isnt right.
Well now we’ve gotten to the heart of the debate.

Let me start by just saying that neither I nor NY changed anything, these are the laws and these are Trump’s actions, not our fault that it seems to fit.

The jurisdictional issue is a reasonable legal debate to be had to which neither of us are qualified to weigh in on any further and neither of us really seem interested in. It makes perfect sense to me legally and you don’t seem to think so. I’m fine with that.

Now whether it’s right… that’s a much deeper and politically relevant question. There are many ways to look at this. At the outset I will just acknowledge that we both know what happened here… the feds passed on prosecuting Trump for this and NY prosecutors decided that it was incumbent on them to take it up. Maybe they thought so for the right reasons, maybe it was pure politics. Neither of us know so that’s a useless conversation. We will both view this through our own moral/ethical lenses, so let’s just focus on that.

To me, I think the facts of the matter here are beyond clear -  no honest person can claim Cohen did this on his own. We know Trump was involved and we know why. What I find absolutely amazing is the idea that Trump’s personal attorney would serve three years in jail for a crime he committed “in coordination with and at the direction of” Trump, while Trump doesn’t even get charged. At the outset, I wonder why the morality/ethics of this trial is even in dispute?

Moreover, you continue to float as an argument that Trump wasn’t charged, as if that supprts your point. I think it makes the opposite point. The DOJ obviously thought Trump was a co-conspirator or they wouldn’t have put it in their charging documents, so the fact that they didn’t charge him speaks to the DOJ making political decisions… in Trump’s favor.

It is also notable that the federal prosecutors who were originally working on this case resigned in protest because they had the evidence but the lead prosecutor refused to act. The decision to not charge Trump itself was clearly political, so I am hardly sympathetic to those who claim it was political to indict him. It’s Trump, no decision involving him could possibly be about anything other than politics. That’s Trump’s explicit strategy, so it’s infuriating to watch it work over and over again as if we as a country are just too dumb to see what he’s doing here.

So anyway, my position on this trial is actually that I wish it was never brought. Not because I don’t think he should be put in prison for his flagrant violations of the law and his ability to walk through the raindrops for years, but because of all the charges against him these were by far the least serious and easiest to obfuscate and manipulate people with, and it’s clearly working. The J6 cases and the Mar-a-Lago cases are far more serious and far more clear, but by the time anyone hears those cases (if anyone ever will) they will already have been propagandized to believe the justice system has been weaponized against him and will tune out, which would be a shame.
#353
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
We know Trump was involved and we know why.

It's too bad the DOJ never charged Trump for that crime then. Maybe they could have saved democracy and the judicial system in one fell swoop. Too bad.
#354
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
the plea included "for the express purpose of influencing the outcome of an election"

which is obviously the goal of every campaign dollar spent
Which is why we have campaign finance laws that tell candidates what they are and are not allowed to do.

"for the express purpose of influencing the outcome of an election"

is not "defrauding voters"
It is, by definition, when the money was spent in order to conceal information from the voters.

and if it is somehow "defrauding voters" in this specific case

then why wasn't michael cohen charged and convicted of "defrauding voters" ?
You’d have to ask the DOJ that. I don’t see how that’s relevant here. 

I would point out to you that the charge against Trump for defrauding voters came from NY election law, so of course the feds were not going to charge Cohen for that.
#355
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
doesn't that make the payment a de facto trump to trump "campaign contribution" making it no longer "excessive" ?
If it were disclosed in accordance with the law then probably. Too bad they decided to hide the payment with the clear intention of ensuring no one finds out they were violating campaign finance laws.

Do you believe people who knowingly violate the law should be punished?
#356
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
It's too bad the DOJ never charged Trump for that crime then
Agreed. It’s too bad that the DOJ was stuck with longstanding policy that they are not allowed to indict a sitting President, and by the time he was no longer the sitting President that means he gets to claim that any prosecution against him is the weaponization of the justice system to lock up political opponents. Heads I win, tails you lose.

This is why people like myself warned in 2016 that Trump was such a danger to the country. For all of Nixon’s egregiousness, at least when push came to shove he knew when to quit and put the well being of the country first. Donald Trump is incapable of that.
#357
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
and by the time he was no longer the sitting President that means he gets to claim that any prosecution against him is the weaponization of the justice system to lock up political opponents.
So a rogue state judge would seem more legitimate prosecuting a federal crime than SDNY. Clown world logic.
#358
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe people who knowingly violate the law should be punished?
i'd actually take this two steps further

i believe every violation should be punished equally regardless of "intent" (all laws should be enforced 100% without bias or exception)

by increasing punishment for "intent"

you are basically criminalizing intelligence

and rewarding stupidity
#359
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
It is, by definition, when the money was spent in order to conceal information from the voters.
can you please post a link to that definition ?
#360
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
i believe every violation should be punished equally regardless of "intent"
That’s an absurd proposal. Intent isn’t just the most basic element of most crimes, it it also the central notion that we assess in everyday life as we determine whether someone’s actions are morally wrong. Intent is the difference between a mistake and malice. It’s the difference that tells us whether someone is trustworthy vs untrustworthy. It is the difference between someone who is a danger to society vs someone who is not.

If you really don’t think intent should be an element of our laws then forget the Trump trial, we need to start at the very beginning. Perhaps the question of how you go about teaching your kids right from wrong and how you assess whether they are leaning those lessons is a more appropriate conversation.

It is, by definition, when the money was spent in order to conceal information from the voters.
can you please post a link to that definition ?
You don’t need me to explain to you what “fraud” means, you are capable of googling that yourself.