Cohen's guilty plea

[Mountain Man]

As many of you have probably figured out by now, Cohen's guilty plea is a nothing-burger as far as Trump is concerned.

----------

The Michael Cohen plea agreement (full pdf here) is a total of eight counts claimed by the SDNY as unlawful activity. However, one count is entirely political and not supported by the Federal Election Commission. Guess which one the media focus on?

...

This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.

Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.

Despite the media hype it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.

♦The issue of the Cohen payment being an “in kind” campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.

There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am “in kind” campaign contribution.

There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.

The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...e-media-focus/

----------

Also significant is the fact that Cohen's court statement, which was written by the prosecution, went to absurd lengths to avoid accusing Trump by name.

[whag]

As many of you have probably figured out by now, Cohen's guilty plea is a nothing-burger as far as Trump is concerned.

----------

The Michael Cohen plea agreement (full pdf here) is a total of eight counts claimed by the SDNY as unlawful activity. However, one count is entirely political and not supported by the Federal Election Commission. Guess which one the media focus on?

...

This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.

Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.

Despite the media hype it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.

♦The issue of the Cohen payment being an “in kind” campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.

There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am “in kind” campaign contribution.

There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.

The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...e-media-focus/

----------

Also significant is the fact that Cohen's court statement, which was written by the prosecution, went to absurd lengths to avoid accusing Trump by name.

Imagine if Obama had done this: Democrats would be doing exactly what you’re doing, while you’d be calling it a something burger with all the fixins and a pint of cold beer.

[Mountain Man]

Imagine if Obama had done this: Democrats would be doing exactly what you’re doing, while you’d be calling it a something burger with all the fixins and a pint of cold beer.

But it is a nothing-burger. There was no violation of the law even if Cohen was suckered into pleading guilty to a crime he never committed. It's a classic Mueller gambit to ruin people's lives over bogus charges -- and yes, I know this was tried by the state of New York, but Mueller's grimy prints are all over this one.

[Starlight]

You're amusing MM. It's a clear crime. Cohen's going to do several years in prison for this crime. He says Trump told him to do it, which would be a crime for Trump. And Cohen's team leaked tapes a month or so ago of Trump talking to Cohen about the issue. If Trump wasn't President, he would go to prison alongside Cohen for this crime.

[JimL]

But it is a nothing-burger. There was no violation of the law even if Cohen was suckered into pleading guilty to a crime he never committed. It's a classic Mueller gambit to ruin people's lives over bogus charges -- and yes, I know this was tried by the state of New York, but Mueller's grimy prints are all over this one.

The crime to which Cohen pled, is corroborated to in the phone call between himself and Trump. Apparently you were watching Fox News or reading Breitbart at the time, so missed it. They discussed the whole scheme and how he was going to go about it in order to keep it under cover. And btw, Cohen is an attorney, I think he would know better than you if he commited a crime.

[whag]

But it is a nothing-burger. There was no violation of the law even if Cohen was suckered into pleading guilty to a crime he never committed. It's a classic Mueller gambit to ruin people's lives over bogus charges -- and yes, I know this was tried by the state of New York, but Mueller's grimy prints are all over this one.

First, it’s not nearly over, so you’re jumping the gun assuming you know everything that’s being discussed. Like Clinton, with Trump there’s always a new thing to be exposed. He lies for no reason when simply telling the truth from the get-go—especially if it’s not illegal to cheat on your wife and pay off your mistresses—would have been smarter.

Second, Cohen’s a lawyer with a team of lawyers, so he isn’t going to plead guilty to something he hasn’t done. A legal expert assisted by a team of legal experts doesn’t do that. You’re not even a legal expert and you wouldn’t do that. So...there’s that.

Again, it’s not lost on me how funny we are. Democrats would be defending Obama if he were embroiled in this mess, and you’d be crowing about how sleazy Obama and his associates were if the tables were turned. You’re lying to yourself if you deny that.

[seer]

Imagine if Obama had done this: Democrats would be doing exactly what you’re doing, while you’d be calling it a something burger with all the fixins and a pint of cold beer.

You mean like this:

Obama Campaign Fined Big for Hiding Donors, Keeping Illegal Donations

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles...egal-donations

[JimL]

First, it’s not nearly over, so you’re jumping the gun assuming you know everything that’s being discussed. Like Clinton, with Trump there’s always a new thing to be exposed. He lies for no reason when simply telling the truth from the get-go—especially if it’s not illegal to cheat on your wife and pay off your mistresses—would have been smarter.

Second, Cohen’s a lawyer with a team of lawyers, so he isn’t going to plead guilty to something he hasn’t done. A legal expert assisted by a team of legal experts doesn’t do that. You’re not even a legal expert and you wouldn’t do that. So...there’s that.

Again, it’s not lost on me how funny we are. Democrats would be defending Obama if he were embroiled in this mess, and you’d be crowing about how sleazy Obama and his associates were if the tables were turned. You’re lying to yourself if you deny that.

Not necessarily, not this mess, and Obama wouldn't ever be in this mess in the first place.

[whag]

You mean like this:

Obama Campaign Fined Big for Hiding Donors, Keeping Illegal Donations

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles...egal-donations

Boy, did you miss the point. Two years into Trump’s presidency, Trump’s freaking out over Twitter about something that literally has nothing to do with him, right?

Imagine if Obama did that, you’d be wringing your hands about the meltdown. He who protests too much is likely hiding something.

[whag]

Not necessarily, not this mess, and Obama wouldn't ever be in this mess in the first place.

I meant the extreme left would defend him, because extremists are stupid and almost religiously devoted to their leaders of choice. MM is extreme in the other direction.

[Mountain Man]

[Cohen] isn’t going to plead guilty to something he hasn’t done.

Of course he would, especially when it results in a massively reduced sentence (from something like 60-years down to 3 or 4). The whole point of the 8th charge was to peg Trump even if the actual charge is bogus. That was almost certainly part of the agreement. "Give us something we can use against Trump, and you'll get a better sentencing deal." Even the former chairman of the FEC says there was no violation of the law.

[whag]

Of course he would, especially when it results in a massively reduced sentence (from something like 60-years down to 3 or 4).

Um...what? No one takes a plea deal if there’s a mass of evidence corroborating their innocence.

[Littlejoe]

Um...what? No one takes a plea deal if there’s a mass of evidence corroborating their innocence.

He's taking a deal to get the other verified charges of tax evasion reduced...by "rolling" on Trump. It all comes down to if Cohen used campaign funds to pay off the mistress. I haven't seen the evidence yet so, I'm withholding judgement.

Cohen cheating on his taxes has nothing to do with Trump. To say otherwise is silly.

[whag]

He's taking a deal to get the other verified charges of tax evasion reduced...by "rolling" on Trump. It all comes down to if Cohen used campaign funds to pay off the mistress. I haven't seen the evidence yet so, I'm withholding judgement.

Cohen cheating on his taxes has nothing to do with Trump. To say otherwise is silly.

Trump should have no fear of being “rolled on” if there’s nothing there. One needn’t lambast former associates over Twitter if the former associates are lying or there’s nothing to implicate them. You see why that’s stupid and manufactures the appearance of guilt, right?

Moreover, Mueller’s swift enough to know that he’d need solid evidence not simply payments to mistresses that come out of Trump’s own pocket.

[Mountain Man]

Um...what? No one takes a plea deal if there’s a mass of evidence corroborating their innocence.

If you read the article in the OP, this is explained: 6 of the 8 charges against Cohen for tax avoidance and bank fraud have teeth. He's screwed on those no matter what. The 7th charge is less solid but still viable. It's the 8th charge of "making excessive campaign contributions" that is BS, but it was almost certainly a necessarily part of his plea agreement in order to get sentencing for the other charges reduced.

Put yourself in Cohen's shoes: you're looking at decades of prison time, but the prosecution comes to you and says, "Look, if you plead guilty to this one additional charge, we'll reduce your sentence from 60-years to 3 or 4." What would be your answer?