-->
@spacetime
After more than a year, it has found nothing to that effect.
Are you privy to the everything Mueller is privy to in order that this declaration has any veracity?
Manafort and Cohen
Posts
Total:
50
Interesting tidbit I just found, of the 10 out of 18 counts that Manafort avoided conviction on, it turns out that the only reason there weren't convictions was because of one holdout juror who may have been a Trump supporter that did not want to believe the evidence: https://www.yahoo.com/news/one-holdout-kept-jury-convicting-paul-manafort-counts-035045990.html
That means that Manafort was just one juror away from being found guilty on ALL 18 counts he was charged with.
The ruling of a mistrial on those 10 counts means that a new trial could be made all over again to reevaluate those charges the previous jury could not reach a verdict on. I read somewhere that the charges Manafort was already convicted of can carry a max combined sentence of 80 years, so he will essentially be f*cked from seeing the light of day again assuming he doesnt get a pardon.
-->
@Imabench
Being voted out of office for lack of disclosure of an expenditure? Ignoring that the expenditure itself isnt a crime, and ignoring that such an expenditure could easily be argued as a personal expenditure... Obama campaign violated disclosure laws too, to the tune of tens of millions, was not voted out. But a couple hundred thousand? Yeah sure, that's way worse 🤔.
On Manafort, not sure if Trump will pardon, or not. Methinks he probably won't. One of the pardons he gave was Dinesh D'Souza, sure, but D'Souza was sent to prison for 20k in excessive contributions unbeknownst to his friend who was running for state or local office, can remember which. When excessive contributions has not been sentenced with jail time unless that excessive contribution was made in exchange for a benefit of some kind the candidate can impart once in office. A pardon/commuting of crime was more than merited. Its not with Manafort 🤔
-->
@Buddamoose
You keep comparing this to Obama's campaign, but they were only ever in violation of civil law, not criminal law. Do we agree that committing an actual crime, a felony, is drastically different than a civil infraction that warrants only a fine?
-->
@drafterman
Ok, let me lay this out for you:
Cohen committed a crime of excessive donation to a campaign. But Cohen =\= Trump, and Cohen committing a crime =\= Trump committing one even if Cohen acted on his behest.
At worst regarding Trump his offense is violating disclosure laws. The same laws the Obama campaign violated. Now, as you pointed out, its generally treated as an offense that merits only a fine. Secondly, failure to fully disclose campaign contributions and expenditures, is a crime.
Now, if there were disclosure violations in a campaign, its reasonably to assume there were individuals who committed those offenses within that campaign. Those individuals were never charged, again, it was treated as only worthy of a fine upon the entire campaign.
Basically, you pushing that failure to disclose campaign contributions and expenditures as magically not being a crime, is utterly false. It is a crime, its not considered a serious offense. Same as excessive contributions, they arent treated as a serious offense with jail time except in rare circumstances.
That you push lack of disclosure as a civil offense and not a criminal one that falls under jurisdiction of the FEC is farcical 🤔. It is a criminal offense, its just rarely punished with any more than a fine, and those fines are rarely collected in full.
And to ignore that past determinations like this don't play a factor, is absurd. Of course they do. The only way Cohen even could be charged with the crime of excessive contribution is if he was never reimbursed. That hes being charged is clear indication he wasn't. Which leads to the question:
Was it at Trumps behest, or his own?
If yes? Crime, but not a serious one.
If no? No crime
It's that simple
That Cohen was even charged is and only can be because he was never reimbursed. But if a pattern of hush agreements followed by reimbursement can be established(and like previous lets be honest, that would prolly be easy), it will most likely, for Trump, be considered a personal expenditure, and that lack of reimbursement be viewed as unintentional.
And this beyond, that usually in these cases if it can be shown that said contribution or expenditure lacked criminal intent(like bribery of a public official) then usually those individuals are allowed to properly reimburse, or be reimbursed their excessive contribution and *voila* no crime committed anymore 🤔
-->
@drafterman
The average special counsel investigation is over 3 years long. This one is still in its childhood.
Considering this investigations purview was to determine how our election were meddled with, what was done, and who did it, that this investigation has strayed so far from that purview is cause for questioning whether the investigation should continue.
Not to mention that the investigation regarding Trump was predicated on a farce of a dossier, and plenty of shady actions from prosecutors at the time. I doubt the investigation ends, but i also don't doubt a special investigation of the investigation is going to happen too.
Which do you think will uncover the most dirt? My guess would be one the investigation of the incestigation considering Bruce Ohr was mighty afraid something that shouldn't be found, would be found, if the investigation was itself investigated. The more that comes out regarding the inner workings of said investigation, the more it looks like a hack job that is filled with issues 🤔
-->
@Buddamoose
Firstly, I want to just note that you came out of the gate mentioning Trump and Obama. So you came into the conversation with the presumption of some link in both of those regards.
its generally treated as an offense that merits only a fine.
That would involve some sort of analysis of how these violations have been treated over time. I don't have that information. If you do, I'd be interested in reading about it. As it is, the Obama campaign entered into a conciliation agreement with the FEC resulting in a "civil penalty" $375,000. In fact, the FEC is only authorized to seek civil remedies. Any criminal violation of the act is handled, naturally, by the Justice Department.
The primary difference (based on my reading) is "knowing and willful" violations of the act.
That you push lack of disclosure as a civil offense and not a criminal one that falls under jurisdiction of the FEC is farcical 🤔. It is a criminal offense, its just rarely punished with any more than a fine, and those fines are rarely collected in full.
Budda, you just admitted that the Obama Campaign was "never charged [with a crime]." If they were never charged with a crime, then they can't have committed a "criminal offense." A violation of the same law/act can be criminal or civil depending on the circumstances and provisions of the act.
For the Obama Campaign, they entered into a concilliatory agreement with the FEC who used its authority under the act to issue a civil penalty.
Cohen, however, was charged with, and pled guilty to, with criminally violating the act, which can merit a fine and/or prison time. It's a felony. It's on his record.
-->
@Buddamoose
Also, it took a while to verify, since the FECA was renumbered between Obama's campaign and Trump's, but the exact violations levied against each were different. Obama's campaign were cited as violating 30104(a)(b) and 30116(f) of the act while Cohen, in charge eight, pled guilty to 30116(a)(1)(A), 30116(a)(7), and 30108(d)(1)(A).
-->
@drafterman
Again, Cohen =\= Trump. Of course Cohen violated different statute, his violation from excessive donation. Obama campaign is lack of disclosure.
But again, when it comes to Trump, any potential violation of his would fall under disclosure laws, if even deemed to be a campaign expenditure and not personal.
So yes, Cohens crime is different, but as established, Cohen =\= Trump. Trump, the individual who was the candidate of the campaign, can give as much as he wants to his own campaign, with zero limitations. Its not possible in other words, to charge Trump with excessive contribution, any violation is necessarily one of lack of disclosure. The same type of crime committed by the Obama campaign. One that resulted in zero jail time for any individual within the campaign, and but a fine of 370k, which as is the usual case, was a fine that hasnt been wholly enforced 🤔
not being charged with a crime =\= a criminal offense has been committed. That it was treated as a civil matter just reinforces my point, that lack of disclosure in campaign finance is not treated as a criminal matter except in rare circumstance.
Which again, given the nature of the charge pled to by Cohen, places this squarely as a potential violation of disclosure laws by Trump, and not really much anything else. Cohen pled guilty to a crime, I'm not saying Cohen didnt commit one with excessive contribution. What I'm saying is the charge pled to in the deal itself gives clear indication the situation as a whole is going to run right into the result that Trump either isnt charged criminally, and its handled as a civil matter, or the Trump campaign is found to not have violated disclosure laws by merit of the expense being personal and not a campaign expenditure 🤔
-->
@Buddamoose
Again, Cohen == Trump.
I'm not saying they are. I never said they are. Why do you keep repeating this point, what, exactly, are you responding to?
But again, when it comes to Trump, any potential violation of his would fall under disclosure laws, if even deemed to be a campaign expenditure and not personal.
I just don't think anyone that isn't the prosecutor is in a position to talk knowledgeable about what the potential violations of Trump are.
Trump, the individual who was the candidate of the campaign, can give as much as he wants to his own campaign, with zero limitations. Its not possible in other words, to charge Trump with excessive contribution, any violation is necessarily one of lack of disclosure.
Do you have a citation for this? I don't see where in the act it exempts the candidate themselves from these requirements.
The same type of crime committed by the Obama campaign. One that resulted in zero jail time for any individual within the campaign, and but a fine of 370k, which as is the usual case, was a fine that hasnt been wholly enforced 🤔
The determining factor is not what specific elements of the act they break, but their knowingness and willingness (https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download, page 4). There is no stipulation, for example, that says section X is a civil penalty whereas section Y is a criminal penalty.
To establish why most expenditures mid campaign are not classified as campaign expenditures, consider that a qualifier of "political significance" is not a valid criteria for a "campaign expenditure."
For example, during the campaign Trumps habit of eating McDonalds and having his steak prepared well done was a story for a short time during the campaign. It held political significance, even if to a limited extent. Are we to consider all food expenses campaign expenditures now? And a lack of disclosure regarding ones expenditures when eating to be a violation of campaign laws? I would think not as it's facially ridiculous.
So, "it had political significance" isnt held as criteria for what is and is not a campaign expenditure.
"Do you have a citation for this? I don't see where in the act it exempts the candidate themselves from these requirements."
they're not exempt strictly speaking. However, they are exempt in that a candidate can loan their own money to their campaign with zero limits, to be repaid at the end of the campaign. However, that candidate can simply forgive the entirety of that debt with zero repercussions.
Individuals are exempt not necessarily because the statute exempts them specifically, but that the statute lays out a clear path for individuals to use their own personal wealth to fund their campaign.
This is then where past decisions come into play.
You can't name one person that has been charged with excessive contribution in the use of their own money for their own campaign. This in part because of the aforementioned, but also because the point of campaign finance laws are to act as a preventative measure to public officials being beholden to rich donors, in essence, bribery.
Being that its facially absurd that a person is potentially bribing themselves, the purpose of the statutes, the act they are trying to monitor and prevent, is not present.
So though candidates are not specifically exempted, they are exempted via provisions laid out for how they can use their own finances in their own campaign through self-loans.
The FEC lays out the skinny in the link below
-->
@Buddamoose
Re: Manafort: There are probably other charges Mueller is holding in his pocket. This trial was purely to get him on some white collar crimes to get him jail time and a criminal record. This is kind of an anti-pardon measure, because if Trump pardons him in the next week he'll probably have to do it again a year from now.
The Cohen charge is small beans. Nobody is getting impeached over an illegal campaign finance issue. But I'll probably guess that this will just be used as one of several charges thrown at Trump (and maybe Pence, since this was campaign season) when the time comes - presumably just to make his life more difficult trying to defend himself from all of them.
But being that Cohen himself has pled to the excessive contribution, this is irrelevant. As i said, this automatically makes it a matter of a potential lack of disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures regarding the Trump campaign.
Cohen can be found to have excessively donated, while at the same time, Trump can be found to have been making a personal expenditure. This isnt contradictory even though facially it seems so. Because the specific charges pled guilty to be Cohen did not actually involve it being at the behest of anyone in specific, depsite Cohen claiming this beforehand 🤔
-->
@drafterman
The determining factor is not what specific elements of the act they break, but their knowingness and willingnessThere is no stipulation, for example, that says section X is a civil penalty whereas section Y is a criminal penalty.
I agree, ive brought up intent myself. And i agree, on statute there is no exceptions. The exceptions come into play when examining how past cases have been prosecuted. This plays into the principle of stare decisis. That if X crime has overwhelmingly except in rare cases, been prosecuted(or not) in a certain manner, subsequent cases adhere to that precedent set. As said, failure to disclose campaign expenditures/donations is a criminal offense, but one that is rarely treated seriously and rarely prosecuted as a crime unless there is an inherent criminal nature(ex. bribery) to the expenditures or donations not being disclosed
NDA's and hush money for extramarital affairs are not illegal 🤔
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
If Trump wanted to he could give him a blanket pardon for the crimes he's committed, and any and all crimes committed in direct or indirect relation. I doubt Manafort gets a pardon tho, because unlike say Dinesh D'Souza, Manaforts charges almost always come with a prison sentence if convicted. 🤔.
Cohen is actually the one that potentially could be pardoned, but being that the weasel flipped to try to save his own skin, the chances of that happening are effectively zero 😂.