A Thread for the Mueller Investigation Results and Outcomes (Part 1)

[DesertDog]

@VinylTurnip

Sort of a Gish Gallop of graft and criminality.

I am so stealing this.

[Northern_Piper]

@RickJay

Of course the accused must know they were committing the crime. They do not need to know it was a crime. Even regarding errors in campaign finance laws, the distinction is not “Bill knew/did not know hiding the payments was a crime.” The distinction is whether or not Bill acted deliberately to do something that was against the law.

To use an example, structuring - deliberately making financial transactions to avoid triggering transaction reporting law - is a crime. If I am unaware structuring is against the law, but I make deposits intending to avoid reporting requirements, I have committed an offense; the fact I didn’t know it was a crime is irrelevant. Howqever, if I make a number of deposits that are essentially identical to structuring deposits, but did so with no intention of avoiding reporting requirements - let’s suppose I just had a series of lucky days at the casino - I am not guilty of an offense.

No, this isn’t right. Some financial offences require the knowledge that it’s a crime; others just require that the person intentionally committed the acts that added up to a crime.

For an example of the second type, it’s possible for someone to commit a fraud without knowing that they are committing fraud. As long as they intentionally commit all of the acts that add up to a fraud, they’ve committed fraud. The fact that they didn’t know that what they did was fraudulent is irrelevant to guilt.

But other financial offences do require knowledge that they’re committing an offence. The example of money laundering is one such offence. Here’s the provision of the US Bank Secrecy Act:

No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, the reporting or record keeping requirements imposed by any order issued under section 5326, or the record keeping requirements imposed by any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 of Public Law 91–508—[…] (3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions.

So someone can intentionally deposit money under the $10,000, and as long as it’s not for the purpose of evading the reporting requirement, they’re not committing an offence

Suppose it comes to the IRS’s attention that someone has been regularly making deposits of $9,666 every week. They go interview the person. He admits that he is intentionally making the deposits of that exact amount, and even if he has more cash to deposit, he doesn’t. Is that structuring?

They ask him why he does it. He says: “I believe in numerology. I’ve been consulting a numerologist for years. He’s advised me that $9,666 is the best number I can use for financial transactions and I should try to do so whenever I can. Here’s his report. Ever since then, I’ve been trying to use that number for all cash deposits.”

And they do more checks, and his story checks out. He’s been a believer in numerology for over a decade, and has been consulting the numerologist, and has taken the numerologist’s advice on other things, like getting a particular number for his phone, buying a house with a particular street number, and so on.

Is that structuring? He’s not doing it for the purpose of evading the reporting requirement, but because it’s part of his belief in numerology, and he is consistent in relying on numerology in other matters. I think the IRS would have a hard time with that prosecution on those facts.

The campaign finance law is similar. 52 USC § 30109(d) provides:

(d) Penalties; defenses; mitigation of offenses
(1)(A) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this Act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure—

(i) aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or

(ii) aggregating $2,000 or more (but less than $25,000) during a calendar year shall be fined under such title, or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

So to make out an offence, it’s not enough to show that the person did so intentionally. It has to be for the purpose of evading the campaign law. That’s why the argument about Trump trying to keep it from Melania is important. He could admit that he instructed Cohen to make the payments of hush money, but that they were for the purpose of keeping Melania from finding out about his affairs. That potentially is a defence, even if he admits to instructing Cohen to make the payments.

[Channing_Idaho_Banks]

Assume candidates are instructed in some level of campaign Finance violation so that they don’t make mistakes during their campaign. I don’t think, “I didn’t read the campaign Finance violation instructions” is a defense.

[Colibri]

@Knowed_Out

while the theme to the Andy Griffith show is whistled in the background.

Drunkenly.

[enipla]

@Channing_Idaho_Banks

Assume candidates are instructed in some level of campaign Finance violation so that they don’t make mistakes during their campaign. I don’t think, “I didn’t read the campaign Finance violation instructions” is a defense.

Nor should “I didn’t understand, or listen to the campaign finance violation instructions”. Which is probably closer to the truth in Trumps case.

He’s been a crook all his life. It’s all he knows. He thought being King would make him immune to all those pesky laws. No need to pay attention to them.

[Fiveyearlurker]

You gotta appreciate the chutzpah of the man who came to fame as America’s mayor who prosecuted minor crimes for broken windows and illegal squeegee men stating that these crimes aretoo small to worry about:*

“Nobody got killed, nobody got robbed… This was not a big crime,” Giuliani told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. He added, sardonically, “I think in two weeks they’ll start with parking tickets that haven’t been paid.”*

[Colibri]

@Fiveyearlurker

You gotta appreciate the chutzpah of the man who came to fame as America’s mayor who prosecuted minor crimes for broken windows and illegal squeegee men stating that these crimes aretoo small to worry about:*

“Nobody got killed, nobody got robbed… This was not a big crime,” Giuliani told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. He added, sardonically, “I think in two weeks they’ll start with parking tickets that haven’t been paid.”*

But it’s absolutely hilarious that he seems to be admitting they were crimes. Rudy can’t open his fucking mouth without putting his foot in it up to the knee.

[Dag_Otto]

@Northern_Piper

He could admit that he instructed Cohen to make the payments of hush money, but that they were for the purpose of keeping Melania from finding out about his affairs. That potentially is a defence, even if he admits to instructing Cohen to make the payments.

That would be a good defence if the payments were made 10 years ago. Make them right before an election and it’s not so believable.

[Johnny_L.A]

@Snowboarder_Bo

This is prolly gonna upset Trump: Pelosi says House Dems will start seeking Trump tax returns.

According to PoliticusUSA, ‘Mueller Has Had Trump’s Tax Returns From Day One.’

Chuck Rosenberg said on MSNBC’s Deadline: White House, “No question in my mind from day one, Nicolle. The first thing white-collar prosecutors do — Dan knows this, and I was one — is you get tax returns and you get credit reports and the reason you get those two things — and they’re not hard to get, you get tax returns with an order from a federal judge, you get credit reports with a grand jury subpoena, is because those are the documents that give you leads. They tell you where the money is coming from and going and they tell you who to talk to to get more leads. So does Mueller have Trump’s tax you bet.”

So some dude says he thinks Mueller has the tax returns. That’s a statement without evidence, claimed on a site whose stories I tend to fact-check before I believe them. (I believe MSNBC much more than I do Fox ‘News’, but I still feel they need checking.) Nevertheless, I would not be surprised if Mueller already has the evidence. If I were Little Donnie Fail-Fail, I would be worried. Very worried.

[Aspenglow]

@Johnny_L.A

According to PoliticusUSA, ‘Mueller Has Had Trump’s Tax Returns From Day One.’

So some dude says he thinks Mueller has the tax returns. That’s a statement without evidence, claimed on a site whose stories I tend to fact-check before I believe them. (I believe MSNBC much more than I do Fox ‘News’, but I still feel they need checking.) Nevertheless, I would not be surprised if Mueller already has the evidence. If I were Little Donnie Fail-Fail, I would be worried. Very worried.

Do you know who Chuck Rosenberg is? Among his many accomplishments in addition to being a very seasoned US Attorney, he served as Counsel to the Director of the FBI in the Mueller years, and also as Chief of Staff to both Comey and Mueller. He’s probably in a pretty good position to say exactly how they operate as investigators.

I can also tell you that it’s completely routine for an investigator to immediately subpoena tax returns as a starting place for an investigation into white collar crimes. I’ll go further than Rosenberg did: Not only did Mueller have Trump’s tax returns on Day One, he inherited them from Comey – who had subpoenaed them in July of 2016.

[Aspenglow]

@Dag_Otto

That would be a good defence if the payments were made 10 years ago. Make them right before an election and it’s not so believable.

The endless attempts to obfuscate and conceal the activity don’t argue very much in favor of the “Oh, my goodness, I had no idea this was a crime!” defense, either.

[Gyrate]

@enipla

Nor should “I didn’t understand, or listen to the campaign finance violation instructions”. Which is probably closer to the truth in Trumps case.

I seem to recall someone else advocating a similar defense once:

@Steve Martin

You… can be a millionaire… and never pay taxes! You can be a millionaire… and never pay taxes! You say… “Steve… how can I be a millionaire… and never pay taxes?” First… get a million dollars. Now… you say, “Steve… what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, ‘You… have never paid taxes’?” Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language: “I forgot!” How many times do we let ourselves get into terrible situations because we don’t say “I forgot”? Let’s say you’re on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, “I forgot armed robbery was illegal.” Let’s suppose he says back to you, “You have committed a foul crime. you have stolen hundreds and thousands of dollars from people at random, and you say, ‘I forgot’?” Two simple words: Excuuuuuse me!!

[Johnny_L.A]

Aspenglow: I was trying to be sardonic. It doesn’t seem to work well on a message board.

Yes, I know who he is.

[JohnT]

Paul Manafort advised White House on how to attack and discredit investigation of President Trump.

Hmmm…

Paul Manafort, who served as the manager for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, provided advice to the president and senior White House officials on the FBI’s Russia investigation during the earliest days of the Trump administration. He gave guidance on how to undermine and discredit the FBI’s inquiry into whether the president, his campaign aides, and family members conspired with the Russian Federation and its intelligence services to covertly defeat Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign, according to government records and interviews with individuals familiar with the matter. Manafort himself was under criminal investigation by the FBI during this same time, a fact then known to the White House.

[Aspenglow]

@Johnny_L.A

Aspenglow: I was trying to be sardonic. It doesn’t seem to work well on a message board.

Yes, I know who he is.

Johnny L.A., please accept my apology. You’re correct that humor/sarcasm often doesn’t come through on this board – I’ve been on the receiving end of that misunderstanding enough times myself. :o

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Greathouse

Out of curiosity…

I doubt Trump ends up in jail, despite how much I would enjoy seeing that. But let’s say he does end up in prison. It is my understanding that former presidents get SS protection forever (at least that’s what the movies tell me). If this is true, would they have to protect him in prison? Would he be in solitary? I’m wondering how it would work.

Previous thread: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=854688

[OttoDaFe]

@Fiveyearlurker

You gotta appreciate the chutzpah of the man who came to fame as America’s mayor who prosecuted minor crimes for broken windows and illegal squeegee men stating that these crimes aretoo small to worry about:*

“Nobody got killed, nobody got robbed… This was not a big crime,” Giuliani told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. He added, sardonically, “I think in two weeks they’ll start with parking tickets that haven’t been paid.”*

Unlike fnord BENGHAZI!!!

[Sherrerd]

@Northern_Piper

…So to make out an offence, it’s not enough to show that the person did so intentionally. It has to be for the purpose of evading the campaign law. That’s why the argument about Trump trying to keep it from Melania is important. He could admit that he instructed Cohen to make the payments of hush money, but that they were for the purpose of keeping Melania from finding out about his affairs. That potentially is a defence, even if he admits to instructing Cohen to make the payments.

@Dag_Otto

That would be a good defence if the payments were made 10 years ago. Make them right before an election and it’s not so believable.

@Aspenglow

The endless attempts to obfuscate and conceal the activity don’t argue very much in favor of the “Oh, my goodness, I had no idea this was a crime!” defense, either.

As Dag Otto and Aspenglow have pointed out, ‘Trump told Cohen to make the payments to keep Melania from learning about his affairs’ is an extraordinarily weak argument, given:

**The timing: a decade after the affairs ended, which happened to be mere days before the Presidential election, and

**The lies about the payoffs, which provide evidence that Trump understood that the payoffs put him in legal jeopardy. Remember, the news of the affairs had broken—so Melania knew (!)–but Trump kept on lying.

Additionally:

**Trump, historically, has not tried to conceal his affairs from his wives. In fact he appears to have used his wives’ knowledge of his affairs to keep his wives ‘in their place,’ much as he uses his open insults and criticisms of those who work for him to keep them in their places.

I believe that enterprising investigators–whether law-enforcement personnel, or journalists–will find evidence that Melania was well aware of the affairs for which payoff money was disbursed (in 2016), years ago, and that Trump knew Melania knew.

And that will completely explode the ‘Trump did it to keep Melania from knowing’ defense.
eta: bolding in first quotation is mine

[UnwittingAmericans]

Cohen should have listened to Trump when Trump told him to pay off Pecker with cash.

[digs]

@UnwittingAmericans

Cohen should have listened to Trump when Trump told him to pay off Pecker with cash.

But Trump thought “Cash For Pecker” was a buy-back program, like what cops do with guns.