I really hasn’t been established at all. Cohen pleaded out. The campaign finance charge against Cohen never faced any kind of scrutiny in a court, Cohen simply folded in the face of decades in prison. That doesn’t mean what he did was a crime, only that he agreed to have it categorized as one to avoid a possible longer sentence if convicted in court. People plead out to dubious charges all the time under similar pressure.
To use an outlandish example, let’s say an elderly woman is arrested for shoplifting. A pack of gum fell off the candy rack and into her purse at the checkout line while she had her back turned. Under pressure from the authorities, facing charges, she agrees to admit that she tried to steal the gum to avoid prosecution.
“It’s been established that a crime has been committed” would be an erroneous statement.
Now, if her nephew were there, charged as a co-conspirator for helping put the gum in her purse, he could absolutely fight the case. Find witnesses, pull surveillance video, win the case.
Trump isn’t immediately thrown into jail because if Cohen’s plea. He would be given a trial. But the plea wouldn’t just be trivia that the prosection throws into the fray, reading it from a piece of paper real quick. Cohen made a legal pronouncement that it was a criminal endeavor. If they haul him into court, he has to maintain that viewpoint or risk an additional charge of perjury to go on his sentence. So he’ll get up and testify that it was criminal, it was knowingly criminal, and they undertook it for all the criminal reasons that the the statute was written for. And then he’ll point out that he’s genuinely in jail for it, so it’s not like he’s kidding.
The jury isn’t bound to go with Cohen. But it’s a much harder argument to make that it was all above board when your compatriot in the crime is in jail and saying directly the jury that it was all real real bad.
If your former lawyer, who is now in jail, says that you murdered your wife based on a plan that the two of you cooked up to get her inheritance, I’d suggest that you’re probably boned. Maybe you aren’t guilty, but that’s not what the jury will decide.
The symbol of the Trump presidency is a red baseball cap with “NO ADMISSION OF WRONGDOING” written on it in white.
Couldn’t he go with nolo contendere, for old-timey nostalgia?
It also doesn’t help his case that “somebody on Twitter” effectively admitted in a tweet that the payments were done with his knowledge and direction. But it was okay because if he shouldn’t have done that, it was all his lying lawyer’s fault.
??
Not sure what your point is? Are you saying Trump is an old lady and he stole the election when it accidentally fell into his purse?
And IANAL, but I’m pretty sure that a guilty plea serves to establish that a crime was committed. I’ve seen enough Judge Judy to know that when a defendant in a civil case tries to claim that their guilty plea in the related criminal case doesn’t mean that they are guilty, she will laugh at them and tell them how wrong they are.
The twisting and turning is remarkable.
I hope for many reasons that Trump ends up in prison. But one of the top reasons will be to hear how Fox News and Trump supporters will try to twist it into a Trump-ositive.
Probably some thing like. Trump isn’t actually guilty of any crimes. He just plead guilty to avoid dividing the country, unlike that rotten no good Obama. Or maybe it’ll go full QAnon. Like he’s lulling his opponents into a false sense of security before he springs forth and smites the Deep State ™(c)(r). Or maybe, he’s not in prison, he’s just doing a close, personal, long term inspection of conditions to make sure they’re suitable for American criminals.
So… Is this likely what happened here? Does this likely have any relationship to what’s happening here? This is a bit like saying, “Sure, he was tried and convicted, but the jury was biased against him” - sure, it’s not impossible, but you should offer a damn good reason for saying so rather than simply throwing out an argument that you could use literally every time someone pleads guilty to a crime. It’s especially funny given things like this, or the fact that Trump has been lying about the hush payments for the better part of a year.
While a perfect analogy is identity, this one is flawed. $130,000 was accidentally placed in Ms Daniel’s account? It’s more like a child (limited agency) was accused of shoplifting the gum and her father is seen in the cameras encouraging her to so.
It’s not just Cohen admitting to wrongdoing. American Media Inc. (publishers of the National Enquirer) have also admitted to paying hush money to "suppress the woman’s story” and “prevent it from influencing the election.”
Obviously, we don’t know what the Daily Beast’s sources are, but they are saying that:
- Mueller has been investigating Middle Eastern influence on the 2016 election and Team Trump. (I don’t remember if I called that in this thread at any point in time, but I did a few days ago on my personal blog.)
- He’s going to start releasing info and rounding up crooks on this end starting in early 2019.
They’re part of the deep state! What’s the world come to when you can’t trust shady fixers and the tabloids?
In reality, they almost always plead nolo contendere in my experience.
But funny thing, there is a plea option called an Alford plea, designed for the situation where a defendant does not wish to admit guilt but concedes that if the evidence possessed by the prosecution were presented to a judge or a jury, it would likely result in a judgment of guilt.
By using the Alford plea, a defendant is saying that he/she is only entering the plea of guilt because it minimizes his/her exposure to punishment and will receive a lesser sentence, but that they continue to assert their innocence.
(IANAL.)
Well, she sounds focused…
(Incoming NY Attorney General)
"James campaigned on passing a bill to change New York’s double jeopardy laws with an eye on possible pardons coming out of the White House. James told NBC News she wants to be able to pursue state charges against anyone the president were to pardon over federal charges or convictions and whose alleged crimes took place in the state. Under current New York law, she might not be able to do that.
“I think within the first 100 days this bill will be passed,” she said, adding, “It is a priority because I have concerns with respect to the possibility that this administration might pardon some individuals who might face some criminal charges, but I do not want them to be immune from state charges.”
Butina’s plea agreement:
Doesn’t contain much information. She and Erickson were nefarious - no other non-Russians mentioned except very abstractly like, “Hosted a dinner for members of the political party.”
I mean, I’m sure that makes a few people poop their pants, but hard for us to know who to keep an eye on.
Facial expressions, the sort most commonly associated with a sudden and massive onset of shock, horror, and dismay. You’re welcome.
Based on the contents of Butina’s plea, it sounds like they’re supposed to deport her as a general course of events.
Given the extreme level of secrecy in the plea (not even risking redactions) and its mentions of “information already given”, I feel like she must have already given them something good.
I feel like either she did something that they discovered which would have gotten her into trouble with Russia, and so she had to cut a plea and give them information so as to not risk getting deported, or she’s decided that she really does love Erickson and living here.
But so, I suspect that they are holding deportation over her. Basically, she’s dead or she’s losing her greatest love, if she doesn’t behave well.
On the counter, I assume that they’re offering asylum + witness protection of some form.
Erickson has been visiting her regularly. Given that he betrayed his country for her, I think it’s reasonable to assume that if she’s in on pleading, he is as well.
I’d be curious whether they bother indicting him, or if they just figure that they’ve already hooked him, so why mess with the courts?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that Ms. Butina has fired her last gun.
There is no conceivable level of court scrutiny greater than a guilty plea.