Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 19:46:54 GMT -5
1) The fact that prosecutors allowed Cohen to take that plea demonstrates that they thought there was evidence of the crime Cohen admitted to.
2) again, I point you to the fact that Cohen is going to get about 1/20th of the time he could have gotten in prison for his crimes. The only reason that's happening is because Cohen is going to be sharing a buttload more evidence with them--they are going to get a much bigger fish in return for that guilty plea.
3) no, the timing really doesn't make sense except as it relates to the election. It really doesn't. Trump knew he had that affair with Stormy a dozen years ago -- obviously, it wasn't a big deal to him if it came out during that decade. Why did it suddenly matter in the autumn of 2016?
4) and no, it's not a bit like Edwards. The timing and Edward's wife's cancer matters a lot. And Cohen's plea and admission is icing on the cake of the timing.
By Markesq's earlier like, I gather our resident prosecutor agrees.
I have zero hesitancy in saying that this is really, really, really, really bad for Trump. The only thing shielding him is that he is currently president.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 22, 2018 20:11:57 GMT -5
My fear/expectation is that, unfortunately, even if evidence of criminal wrongdoing is piled a mile high and laid bare at the Republicans' feet with a cherry (or Bible, I guess) on top, they will still do nothing.
It'll likely take a huge blue wave in November for the Congressional landscape to change enough for anything to happen to him. I'm holding out hope but certainly not holding my breath.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 20:22:30 GMT -5
I don't disagree, Opty.
The thing is, though, Trump won't be president forever, so somewhere down the line, this will hit him in the face.
And there's an excellent shot of the blue wave, especially if I'm right that this is just the beginning. I don't see gobs of Republican reps and Senators rushing to defend Trump and pooh-pooh this -- I think there will come a tipping point for many of them. Especially if it's hurting Republicans politically. Especially if the economy slumps. How many reps and Senators do you think truly love Trump and think he's awesome? I think damn few. If they feels he's hurting them more than helping...
This could play out like Nixon, too--at some point, Trump may feel it's the smarter game to resign and take a Pence pardon.
But whether it is now or a few years from now, it would surprise me greatly if Trump came out unscathed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 20:44:22 GMT -5
by the way, can we just spend one moment contemplating what would be happening if this were President Hillary Clinton and this happened with her personal attorney and campaign manager?
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Aug 22, 2018 20:55:07 GMT -5
The thing is, though, Trump won't be president forever, so somewhere down the line, this will hit him in the face. That's the key. Anything to do with campaign finance violations will have to wait until Trump is out of office. Mueller won't touch it as he has stated previously that such a thing is outside the scope of his mandate. Congress won't move to impeach because impeachment is pretty much reserved for acts committed while in the office. I'm pretty sure not much would change outside the fact that the right tends to be more vocal with their outrage than the left.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 22:10:05 GMT -5
Republicans would have impeachment papers drafted. And I'm betting some democrats would have joined them. Impeachment is a political thing; IMO it would not be at all difficult to find sufficient hooks to hang impeachment on for this president IF it were inclined -- and Mueller isn't done yet. But as for the stuff relating to Cohen's plea not being an impeachable offense... www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/us/politics/offense-impeachable-constitution.html#click=https://t.co/Nzh2bZxUapMore at link. But to be clear, I don't think this lot of congresscritters will impeach...at least not yet. That does not mean Donnie doesn't have a lot -- A LOT -- to worry about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 22:30:45 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 22:34:43 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 23:08:47 GMT -5
Only. The. Beginning.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 23, 2018 6:46:02 GMT -5
1) The fact that prosecutors allowed Cohen to take that plea demonstrates that they thought there was evidence of the crime Cohen admitted to. 2) again, I point you to the fact that Cohen is going to get about 1/20th of the time he could have gotten in prison for his crimes. The only reason that's happening is because Cohen is going to be sharing a buttload more evidence with them--they are going to get a much bigger fish in return for that guilty plea. 3) no, the timing really doesn't make sense except as it relates to the election. It really doesn't. Trump knew he had that affair with Stormy a dozen years ago -- obviously, it wasn't a big deal to him if it came out during that decade. Why did it suddenly matter in the autumn of 2016? 4) and no, it's not a bit like Edwards. The timing and Edward's wife's cancer matters a lot. And Cohen's plea and admission is icing on the cake of the timing. By Markesq's earlier like, I gather our resident prosecutor agrees. I have zero hesitancy in saying that this is really, really, really, really bad for Trump. The only thing shielding him is that he is currently president. On 1), the prosecutors thought they could make out the charge for sure. On 2), while I'm sure Cohen is sharing more info, I also think it's highly likely that they already had Cohen nailed on other stuff as well that would have been worse than what he pleaded to, but obviously this is all about the bigger fish. On 3), if Stormy Daniels waited until the autumn of 2016 to hit him up for a payoff, than that's the "why" behind the timing, no? I'm not saying this is the only way to see things, but it is a viable way. On 4), I disagree soooo much. I think the attempt to justify Edwards' non-conviction as somehow "different" is truly pathetic. "Trump is guilty and Edwards was too" is--again--completely consist. Edwards was indicted after all. If one thinks this sort of stuff violates campaign finance laws, why excuse Edwards? Beyond that, I don't think any of this is good for Trump, at all. It's all bad. But I also don't think that Cohen's admission, in and of itself, makes Trump automatically guilty of the same thing in a court of
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Aug 23, 2018 9:10:08 GMT -5
Just to try and catch up, Cass is right that the testimony of a co-conspirator alone is not enough to obtain a conviction. The way it works is that if the only testimony a prosecutor has is from a co-conspirator, with no additional corroborating evidence, that testimony is inadmissible. However, under state law at least, the corroborating evidence need not amount to much to render the co-conspirator's testimony admissible. Trump has now admitted the money came from him, and I'd wager Mueller has a paper trail confirming at least part of Cohen's testimony. And that, I am confident, would be more than enough to get him on the witness stand. Also to address 3) above: it wouldn't matter that Stormy waited until 2016 to hit him up. If Trump's intent was to silence her to influence the election, that's all that matters (legally). On Edwards, I'm inclined to agree with Rob. The fact that Edwards was able to conjure up non-election reasons for a pay-off, enough to convince a jury, doesn't remove him from the shadow of a campaign violation. He was guilty, I think, but found not guilty. Happens sometimes...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2018 9:36:13 GMT -5
Oh, to be clear, I think Edwards is pond scum. I always disliked him. And I actually agree that one of his motives, at least, was the election.
BUT-- he got off the hook because there was at least some room to doubt whether keeping it from his cancer-suffering wife wasn't the primary motive. I actually don't disagree that that might have been the wrong result, but that's how it happened.
Here, there is no such yuuuuge personal factor like a cancer suffering wife. Instead, you have a ten year old affair and the same wife now as you did then with no big intervening event in the marriage like a deadly cancer diagnosis.
what you have is one yuuuge intervening event in Trump's life: the election. And the payments coming just before it. He probably never would have given a crap about the news coming out at any previous point, but the timing just then, before the election, on the heels of the access Hollywood tape, would have been potentially disastrous.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 23, 2018 10:42:38 GMT -5
Alan Dershowitz doesn't think this is a slam dunk by any stretch. I know Cass doesn't like him, but I bring up his opinion because he's not only a legal scholar but a Hilary supporter. thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/403072-did-president-trump-violate-campaign-finance-lawsIt seems one of the sticking points which I'm reading the courts have struggled with, is that lots of things can help a campaign even if the purpose was a private, personal life benefit, so it's hard to prove that certain things (like paying hush money to these women) is actually a campaign expenditure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2018 13:08:29 GMT -5
No one said the mere fact of Cohen pleading guilty standing alone was a "slam dunk" to either put Trump in jail or impeach him. We said it's really, really, really bad for Trump, and moreover is likely only the tip of the iceberg because there is excellent reason to believe prosecutors have solid evidence supporting Cohen's statements. Moreover, it is not a slam dunk that Trump can't be impeached over all this. (or, really, any number of other things, but that's another thread). We will have to wait and see.
On the "this is just the beginning" front --
Get out the popcorn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2018 13:13:47 GMT -5
Just curious -- taking aside how this plays out politically and legally --
Does anyone here now doubt that Trump had affairs with Stormy and McDougal?
Does anyone here now doubt that Trump, in collaboration with Cohen, made payments to keep those women silent?
Taking aside for a moment whether there is definitive proof, do you truly doubt in your heart of hearts that the chief reason Trump wanted to silence the women was the election?
If you do genuinely doubt it, what is your explanation for why Trump was seemingly unmotivated to make such payments until just before the election? Keep in mind that historically Trump has not only been pretty oblivious to scandal, but actively helped cultivate his image as a philanderer and womanizer. He actually called tabloids about his own exploits. He didn't start worrying about his image in that direction until, lemme see, it became necessary to court evangelicals.
|
|