Ben Shapiro’s latest prognostication is that we should buckle up for a bumpy two years. And I think he might be right. There’s enough here to twist the screws on Trump, which will stoke partisan divide further. Our lives are in the hands of the moderates, wherever they are.
There is no real partisan divide anymore, IMO. You’re either on the side of the law or you’re not. You’re either on the side of a broad representative democracy or you’re not. For the next two years, IMO, there is no “partisan” divide.
Former SDNY federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has an article out today which describes what I was saying on Wednesday:
"Because Cohen never challenged the legal sufficiency of the charge, Judge Pauley never ruled on it. …all Judge Pauley did in Cohen’s case was accept guilty plea. Without ruling on the matter, he assumed that the charge was legally adequate. In a guilty plea, the defendant typically waives his right to challenge legal and factual issues on appeal. The most we can say, then, is that the matter is settled as to Cohen, but that’s because of the waiver, not because the judge made a ruling on the pertinent question.
The bottom line is that the issue is not settled as to President Trump. The fact that Cohen pled guilty to two ostensible felonies does not establish that they actually are felonies (except as to Cohen, because he has forfeited the right to contest that point)."
(Emphasis mine)
Yes, in a legal sense it has not been established, which is why Trump is not currently jail.
In a colloquial sense, we have someone going to jail for 3 years because of a crime he admits he did, and he also says that Trump is guilty of that same crime, and he further says that he handed over plenty of evidence of Trump’s guilt to federal prosecutors. It has been established that the payment was made in violation of campaign finance laws for all practical purposes. If you want to caveat that with some qualifier, fine, but I don’t see the need to do so in a casual conversation. Continuing to hang your hat on the sliver of hope that Trump wasn’t complicit, or the fact that Trump hasn’t had his day in court, is sort of missing the point.
[quote=“Dacien, post:5347, topic:782799”]
… The fact that Cohen pled guilty to two ostensible felonies does not establish that they actually are felonies
[QUOTE]
Amazing at how Trump supports are so desperate to grasp at straws.
They must admit at some point that the cute fox they invited into their home is actually a rabid raccoon. But some still can’t do it.
This is really text book stuff. Amazing study of human nature.
I’m not so concerned with whether Trump is or is not guilty, per se, but rather the idea that steronz posited, which was that a confession meant that a crime had been established. Which isn’t so.
No, let’s back up. The reason we’re quibbling over the word “established” is because you posted links to legal analyses by pundits who say that there’s a high bar for campaign finance convictions because prosecutors need to prove intent. What we’re saying here is that the bar is not that high for Trump anymore, because the government’s star witness has already admitted the necessary intent and is singing like a canary.
When you say a crime hasn’t been established you’re implying that prosecutors need to prove this wasn’t a clerical error. I’m saying, sure, but all they need to do for that is put Cohen on the stand and make him read his plea agreement. The “not a clerical error” aspect of the charge has, for all intents, been established.
I think your bet is safe.
An indicator of increasing tensions: the Ukrainian (Orthodox) church has cut ties with the Russian (Orthodox) church:
If no crime had been “established”, there would have been no opportunity for a confession. You can march into court and confess to killing Abraham Lincoln, and you might well be restrained, but not arrested.
The Edwards case is very different from Trump’s. John Edwards mistress gave birth to his child and his argument that he was simply providing financial support to his child and her mother actually stands up pretty well.
Nothing criminal will happen to President Trump. He’s a good at deflecting time. Plus, he’s got Article 2 protections/powers that he’ll use.
Vote in 2020.
While he’s sitting in office, sure; Even if he did something straight-up illegal like rob a bank, the evidence would be handed over to the legislative branch and it would be up to them to determine whether he should be impeached or not. After he’s left office he’s fair game, if the statue of limitations has not taken effect.
And yes, he’s good at deflection but that’s because up to now his battery of lawyers were sufficient to wear down anything thrown at him. When he became President, the level of scrutiny reached a whole new league. Some Christians have used the phrase, “Your arms are too short to box with God.” Same goes for the DOJ no matter who Donny Two-scoops thinks they work for, and there are various state attorneys who’d like a shot as well.
And the state attorneys are going to be key, I think. If rumor becomes truth, Trump will resign with 10 minutes left in his term, and Pence pardons him. But a presidential pardon only applies to federal crimes. The state attorneys would still be free to indict Trump, and Trump/Pence would be unable to stop them.
Of course, if Trump takes a pardon, he also loses his ability to plead the 5th Amendment. I’m no expert on the law, but that could also be a huge deal going forward.
“Flynn’s lawyers have asked the court for a probation term of no more than one year, with minimal conditions of supervision, and 200 hours of community service. They said he deserved leniency because he was not warned before the meeting with FBI agents that it was a crime to lie to the agents.”
Get the fuck outta here!!!
:smack::smack::smack:
Which is funny, because he told the judge today that “he was aware” lying to the FBI is a crime. Pretty impressive to have a defendant and his counsel contradicting themselves in the same hearing.
The judge seemed to take a dim view of that.
Sullivan knew what Flynn’s defense team was doing (which was simultaneously claiming leniency for remorse and cooperation and also claiming that he was duped into pleading guilty) and took steps to mitigate it by putting Flynn back under oath and asking him questions about his understanding of what actually happened. Flynn had a choice to either stick with the defense’s sentencing memo story about being duped and perjuring himself or telling the truth and contradicting the sentencing memo. He chose to limit his own exposure, and the judge delayed sentencing to give Flynn time to make up his mind if he actually knew anything else he wanted to tell Mr. Mueller.
I suspect the judge also gave the sentencing extension to cool off - dude was pissed at Flynn and the defense team!
Judgement from the case of the mystery subpoena:
Apparently it was against a company that is controlled by a foreign country - so a nationalized business of some form. The company claimed sovereign immunity and the court has decided against them.
Gazprom? Some Saudi company? Hard to say.
Reporting now on CNN: Flynn ordered to surrender passport and stay within 50 miles of Wash. D.C.