Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

Nah, I won’t do the gaslighting part that makes youze guys so simpatico. I’d rather just tell the truth and not have to remember a story to keep straight. If a client ever directs me to conspire to commit a felony, I would end the representation on the spot. 

Well you got the skills if you ever change your mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 21.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's 7:00am, maybe, it could be 8:00am. It's hard to tell. The electricity has been off for, well, a very long time. The sun is starting to rise over the horizon with the red mist slowly lifting to li

Jack, I think you actually believe this. That's kind of scary, because it shows just how effective propaganda can be.  The dossier has not been disproven, administration and campaign officials ha

Posted Images

19 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Who says they might lose?  We are talking about AMURKIKA!

I read that some pollster (538?) moved those two races from solid red to leans red. IDK if continued publicity or increased DCCC investment will flip those districts blue, but it's certainly a higher probability than a week ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

I’ll leave the gaslighting to youze guys. How many convictions is the Witch Hunt up to now?  Drip drip drip. 

Only the best witches. Everybody says so. Belief me.

 

image.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RKoch said:

I read that some pollster (538?) moved those two races from solid red to leans red. IDK if continued publicity or increased DCCC investment will flip those districts blue, but it's certainly a higher probability than a week ago.

The GOP is party of corruption.  These characters are right out of central casting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dog said:

It means that the question of whether a campaign finance law has been violated has not been contested.

Not what the post was telling you. It was telling you, correctly, that the judges involvement and acceptance of the plea means it was adjudicated.

adjudicate: (verb)

  • make a formal judgement on a disputed matter.
  • act as a judge in a competition.
  • pronounce or declare judicially.

 

10 hours ago, Dog said:

You can not take Cohen's plea deal as proof that a violation of law has been established and that therefore that Trump is implicated in that violation of law.

One can take the judge's acceptance of his confession as evidence that the actions confessed to are a violation of the law. One cannot confess to picking one's nose and the judge agree that meets the needs for a murder plea deal. One has to confess to actions that constitute a crime. Cohen did so. The judge adjudicated that confession and accepted it met the requirements of the charges in the plea deal. 

You're wrong, Dog. Man up and move on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

Cohen's guilty plea does not establish that a campaign finance crime has even been committed for the purposes of any other prosecution.

Well, duh. For the purposes of any other prosecutions, that will be up to the jury to decide or the accused to cop a plea. If you hadn't been so Dog-gone stubborn in refusing to back down from the earlier, less evolved talking point - you might have been able to spin that as always having been your argument. Unfortunately, you went off half-cocked and tried telling everyone (and a practicing lawyer) what a guilty plea didn't mean.

Best option you got on this one is ti shut your trap, give it a month, and then start acting like Sol is verballing you again. Most people (Tom Dogballs excluded) don't have the desire to dig through month old posts to quote your bullshit, but if you keep trying to weasel out of your words now - they'll keep being quoted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

Are you a sleaze bag lawyer like Cohen? You certainly got the smear part down.

Bla bla bla.

Small minds discuss people.

 

You are your own parody, Dog.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

Anyway..the point is moot because Trump now says he paid the money to shut these women up.

Well, of course he did. He's on tape and Cohen has stated he's cooperating fully with the investigation. He can't count on witness loyalty to get him out of this, so he needs to count on voter loyalty to allow him to get away with it.

"You'ze guys have a nice base of voters there. It'd be a shame if someone burnt it down. Whaddayasay?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Anyway..the point is moot because Trump now says he paid the money to shut these women up.

Doesn't matter the money source. The hush money was to help his campaign, and it's an illegal campaign expenditure. Plus it wasn't declared on his campaign expense filings (naturally). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The danger is..the "So What" factor. Trumps sounding all so reasonable ..--so what?, I didn't pay them with campaign funds, it was my own money..

actually sounds very reasonable to people who cant see anything wrong with paying hush money in general.

Congress has to impeach him ?? good luck with that.

They are not going to move until Trump's found in bed with 12 year old..and only then if he's Mexican 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure Mueller already has a nice little paper trail courtesy of some fine Forensic accountants.

What is disturbing is the level of shit already out there that would topple any other politician and Donnie shrugs "So What." Like its actually normal

It is obvious the man is a Super-narcissist and is mentally delusional.

With the Republican ranks filling rapidly with Nazis and Pedophiles what could possibly go wrong.

They might promote him to President for Life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, daddle said:

Next up: Trump "funneled" $50,000 to Cohen for Hacker.

Probably an attempt Hillary's emails?

Cohen paid a mysterious tech company $50,000 'in connection with' Trump's campaign



 
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, daddle said:

Next up: Trump "funneled" $50,000 to Cohen for Hacker.

Probably an attempt Hillary's emails?

Holy shit. I thought this was a joke until somebody posted the link.

What a corrupt piece of shit.  And it will seriously take re-education camps to de-program his supporters like Dog and Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

  And it will seriously take re-education camps to de-program his supporters like Dog and Jack

They'll just double their meth intake and drink heavily until their liver gives up. Redhats can only handle two-steps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Violence ... good call. 

thanks -

simply raw justice, actually. you can't be a human wrecking ball and expect that your ass is safe from certain reactions. see how that works?

the world would be a better place without some of these parasites. fact.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The actions they've take w/r/t the EPA are intended to reign in an agency that has over-stepped the boundaries of their authority.   You can call it "gutting" if you want, but, I disagree with that.  

Because clean air and water is SO over-rated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Dog said:

Nonsense...Campaign finance laws exist but that does not mean the actions that Cohen admitted guilt to would, if contested, be found to constitute a violation of those laws. He struck a plea, presumably he got some consideration for not contesting the charge....get it?

Used to be that a conviction was evidence of a crime in the Dog Standard. Seems to have been modified to no crime unless the perp pleads not guilty before being convicted. I got that right? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

So what Impeachable Outrage is it today?  The emotional roller coaster for the left never ends.

Maybe you should all take a week off to rest the outrage center in your brains.

gotcha_web.thumb.jpg.5b7d394d11fc5cf5ce3940abb235ba52.jpg

it's not just the lame ass democRats who are pushing for accountability ya freakshow, it's the remainder of the rest of the world minus the 'murican reich-wing and a few dirty russians.

the demographic of which you're a part of is a hopelessly outnumbered asinine anomaly which should go the way of a fart in the wind according to overwhelming global consensus.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

thanks -

simply raw justice, actually. you can't be a human wrecking ball and expect that your ass is safe from certain reactions. see how that works?

the world would be a better place without some of these parasites. fact.

That  come within a whisker of an assassination threat directed at the president of the united states. .

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Navig8tor said:

I'm sure Mueller already has a nice little paper trail courtesy of some fine Forensic accountants.

What is disturbing is the level of shit already out there that would topple any other politician and Donnie shrugs "So What." Like its actually normal

It is obvious the man is a Super-narcissist and is mentally delusional.

With the Republican ranks filling rapidly with Nazis and Pedophiles what could possibly go wrong.

They might promote him to President for Life.

More disturbing are the followers who keep lowering their personal bars of expectations to excuse everything he does. They treat his behavior as normal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

That  come within a whisker of an assassination threat directed at the president of the united states. .

no assassins here that I'm aware of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Used to be that a conviction was evidence of a crime in the Dog Standard. Seems to have been modified to no crime unless the perp pleads not guilty before being convicted. I got that right? 

"We put Flex Seal to the ultimate test, and coated Dog's principles with a healthy shell of our state of the art Flex Seal flexible liquid polymer coating.  Unfortunately, due to the election year, we finally found something too flexible for Flex Seal, but you can cut your boat in half and glue it back together with this stuff.  It's strong as shit."

Flex-Seal-Liquid-e1451971123684.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course the GOP lines up behind the traitor.

Republicans Stick With Trump Despite Major Legal Trouble For Ex-Top Aides

gettyimages-1020872102senategop_wide-930

Congressional Republicans stuck by President Trump Wednesday, one day after one of his former top associates was convicted on federal charges and another pleaded guilty to eight criminal counts, implicating Trump in payoffs to two women in the lead up to the 2016 election.

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/22/641042629/republicans-stick-with-trump-despite-major-legal-trouble-for-top-aides

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bhyde said:

And of course the GOP lines up behind the traitor.

Republicans Stick With Trump Despite Major Legal Trouble For Ex-Top Aides

gettyimages-1020872102senategop_wide-930

Congressional Republicans stuck by President Trump Wednesday, one day after one of his former top associates was convicted on federal charges and another pleaded guilty to eight criminal counts, implicating Trump in payoffs to two women in the lead up to the 2016 election.

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/22/641042629/republicans-stick-with-trump-despite-major-legal-trouble-for-top-aides

did you expect anything else?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

More disturbing are the followers who keep lowering their personal bars of expectations to excuse everything he does. They treat his behavior as normal. 

Trumps behavior is normal to Hapless Jack.  Particularly the constant lying, although the stupidity and illiteracy too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One juror prevented jury from convicting Manafort on all 18 counts

Source: The Hill

A juror who sat on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's case said on Fox News Wednesday night that only one juror prevented a ruling on all 18 counts against Manafort 

Paula Duncan, who said she is a Trump supporter and that she had hoped Manafort would not be found guilty, said one juror could not come to a guilty verdict on 10 charges, ultimately leading T.S. Ellis III to declare a mistrial on 10 of Manafort's 18 counts. 

Duncan said the deliberations were heated, evening bringing some jurors to tears. 

A jury convicted Manafort on Tuesday of eight counts of tax and bank fraud.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/news/403197-manafort-juror-one-holdout-prevented-ruling-on-all-18-counts
 
 
im guessing mueller is going to retry this, though it'll have to be after the upcoming second trial. Probably right during the elections.
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, RKoch said:

One juror prevented jury from convicting Manafort on all 18 counts

Source: The Hill

A juror who sat on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's case said on Fox News Wednesday night that only one juror prevented a ruling on all 18 counts against Manafort 

Paula Duncan, who said she is a Trump supporter and that she had hoped Manafort would not be found guilty, said one juror could not come to a guilty verdict on 10 charges, ultimately leading T.S. Ellis III to declare a mistrial on 10 of Manafort's 18 counts. 

Duncan said the deliberations were heated, evening bringing some jurors to tears. 

A jury convicted Manafort on Tuesday of eight counts of tax and bank fraud.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/news/403197-manafort-juror-one-holdout-prevented-ruling-on-all-18-counts
 
 
im guessing mueller is going to retry this, though it'll have to be after the upcoming second trial. Probably right during the elections.

It may be the rocket docket but I’d be shocked if they could clear a spot for another trial that soon. I think he has to flip at this point anyway. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

That  come within a whisker of an assassination threat directed at the president of the united states. .

bullshit.

Simply pointing out that "out there" there are people with guns/knives/fists etc that wish to do harm to any sitting President and would do so if given the chance, is simply stating the bleeding obvious...it's why your president is surrounded by Secret service agents day and night..(even if he does say they kind of hold him back and he might leave them behind):rolleyes:.

It's also bleeding obvious that there's hundreds of thousands or even millions of people that would cry only crocodile tears.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just about sums up Yesterday

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/23/politics/donald-trump-manafort-cohen-republicans-politics-fallout/index.html

After one day where truth and facts triumphed, America is back to its alternative realities.

The convictions of two close associates of President Donald Trump in a mind-bending double-header drama in two cities on Tuesday were a moment of clarity in the legal morass that has thickened around the White House over the last 19 months.
Yet anyone who thought that being implicated in a crime in one of the most sensational political moments of recent history would soon temper Trump's behavior, stop his White House peddling untruths or reshape the political terrain that sustains his presidency is being disappointed -- at least for now.
Certainly, in years to come that tumultuous hour on Tuesday could turn out to be the moment when the Trump presidency began to unravel and the Teflon armor that shielded the President from scandals and outrages that would doom normal politicians was finally penetrated.
After all, months of obfuscation and attacks on Robert Mueller could not halt the legal process that's likely to send former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and the President's former fixer Michael Cohen to jail for years. And the real meat of the special counsel's investigation into alleged collusion with Russia is yet to be revealed.
But in the immediate term at least, it seems nothing has changed in Washington.
The White House is back to peddling narratives that defy fact, attacking the media and lifting talking points from conservative opinion hosts. Trump is making new assaults on legal propriety. Republicans are dodging reporters in the Capitol to avoid being called to account for the President's latest transgression. Democrats, owing to the GOP's power monopoly in Washington, can only stir outrage and fire blanks -- at least until the midterm elections.

'What in the world are we going through?'

Trump's defenders can still argue that although Cohen and Manafort, and the already disgraced Trump acolytes Rick Gates and Michael Flynn, have been felled by Mueller, the President has not been charged or been proved to have colluded with Russia or obstructed justice.
But his attitude on Wednesday hardly fit the profile of someone who had done nothing wrong or who is convinced the legal process should be allowed to play out to its conclusion.
He made up a legal loophole to argue that the hush money paid to women before the 2016 election who alleged they had affairs with him -- payments Cohen said were made at his direction -- did not break the law since it did not come from campaign funds.
"They didn't come out of the campaign and that's big," Trump said in an interview with Fox News. "It's not even a campaign violation."
Trump is also again brazenly tearing at the boundaries of presidential decorum, dangling the possibility of a pardon before Manafort, who might just be tempted to cooperate with Mueller, now that he's probably going to jail for most of the rest of his life.
"I feel very badly for Paul Manafort and his wonderful family. 'Justice' took a 12 year old tax case, among other things, applied tremendous pressure on him and, unlike Michael Cohen, he refused to 'break' - make up stories in order to get a 'deal.' Such respect for a brave man!" Trump tweeted.
 
Former Watergate special prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste bemoaned the possibility that the President might be considering a pardon for a man convicted of massive tax fraud and called on political leaders to come together to head off a moment of national peril.
"What in the world are we going through in this country?" Ben-Veniste told CNN's Erica Hill.
At the White House, press secretary Sarah Sanders held a previously unscheduled briefing to press home the President's counterattack.
She dismissed the notion that Trump was in legal trouble at all over Cohen's accusation, which effectively boiled down to the sitting President of the United States being accused of a crime.
"As the President has said and we've stated many times, he did nothing wrong. There are no charges against him and we've commented on it extensively," she said.
When asked by a reporter whether Trump's now-discredited statement on Air Force One that he knew nothing about the payment to former porn star Stormy Daniels, she attacked the messenger:
"I think that's a ridiculous accusation. The President, in this matter, has done nothing wrong."
Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, are stuck in their perpetual dance, tiptoeing around Trump's latest misadventures in fear of his Make America Great Again base. House Speaker Paul Ryan, once seen as the moral conscience of the GOP, is nowhere to be seen nor heard.
"I'm not very happy about it," said Utah's Sen. Orrin Hatch, who earlier this year said the current presidency could be the greatest in history, but he added Wednesday that Trump should not be blamed for his staff.
Louisiana's Sen. John Kennedy said he didn't see what the fuss was about in the Cohen and Manafort convictions.
"You know, I'm sorry. I don't see any deeper meaning in this other than you have to pay your taxes and you can't lie on a loan application," he told reporters.
South Carolina's Sen. Lindsey Graham, a sometime Trump golf partner, punted.
"Rather than answer a bunch of hypotheticals, I'll do what I did in the Clinton -- when Ken Starr issued his report. I read it, I'll make a decision," he said.
Democrats are gamely repurposing the latest Trump crisis in their almost certainly futile bid to scuttle the President's Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, but are limited by their purgatory in the minority.
Hawaii's Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono nixed a meeting with Kavanaugh, to bolster Democratic calls for the nomination to be put on hold given Tuesday's events.
But Democrats are also still wary of using the "I" word, partly to avoid giving Trump a rallying issue that could motivate his supporters in the midterm elections.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi told The Associated Press on Wednesday that impeachment is still "not on the table" even though some liberals believe that if Trump did conspire with Cohen in the way it appears from his court testimony, he may have already committed a high crime or misdemeanor that is the standard for House of Representatives action against a President.

A 'reckoning' will come

It's become a cliché that nothing -- insulting war hero Sen. John McCain, cozying up to Russian leader Vladimir Putin or elevating white supremacists -- derails Trump. Tuesday's events could become just another data point in that trend. And if the special counsel finds no evidence of collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice, Trump will be able to credibly assert that his name is clear.
But no one knows where Mueller's probe will lead, if Trump or his campaign is guilty of collusion or obstructing justice. Presidencies can take years to unravel, as the varied experiences of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter show.
There's also little doubt that Tuesday's legal stunners, and the news that White House Counsel Donald McGahn testified to Mueller for 30 hours, have seeded new dark clouds around the President that could manifest themselves in ways impossible to predict right now.
And while Democrats are currently powerless, they could cripple Trump's presidency and make his life a misery with incessant investigations if they win the House in November
A Democratic rout would prompt Republicans to consider whether sticking with Trump and a strategy solely reliant on his base is wise in the 2020 election.
So while it may seem that Trump's political and legal luck is holding, it may erode over time and the furor surrounding Tuesday's convictions could be a major reason why.
Some Trump opponents are still optimistic that the President is set for a demise.
"I believe in the wisdom and the good faith of the American people," Norm Eisen, White House ethics czar during the Obama administration, said on CNN International.
"Let's let it unfold. He is going to meet his day of reckoning."
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mark K said:

Used to be that a conviction was evidence of a crime in the Dog Standard. Seems to have been modified to no crime unless the perp pleads not guilty before being convicted. I got that right? 

In America laws are made by the legislature not by plea deal. As much as Lanny Davis would like us to believe it, Cohen's copping to campaign finance violations as part of a plea deal does not establish that the hush payments were illegal campaign contributions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

In America laws are made by the legislature not by plea deal. As much as Lanny Davis would like us to believe it, Cohen's copping to campaign finance violations as part of a plea deal does not establish that the hush payments were illegal campaign contributions.

It's true, Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, and you'd still find a way to support him.

Even though you didn't vote for him...

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Not what the post was telling you. It was telling you, correctly, that the judges involvement and acceptance of the plea means it was adjudicated.

adjudicate: (verb)

  • make a formal judgement on a disputed matter.
  • act as a judge in a competition.
  • pronounce or declare judicially.

 

One can take the judge's acceptance of his confession as evidence that the actions confessed to are a violation of the law. One cannot confess to picking one's nose and the judge agree that meets the needs for a murder plea deal. One has to confess to actions that constitute a crime. Cohen did so. The judge adjudicated that confession and accepted it met the requirements of the charges in the plea deal. 

You're wrong, Dog. Man up and move on.

Nonsense...When has a plea deal ever been taken as legal precedent?

Lanny let the cat out of the bag as to the motivation behind that particular provision of the plea deal when he said...

“If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn't they be a crime for Donald Trump?”

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:

In America laws are made by the legislature not by plea deal. As much as Lanny Davis would like us to believe it, Cohen's copping to campaign finance violations as part of a plea deal does not establish that the hush payments were illegal campaign contributions.

No, what establishes his actions as illegal campaign contributions is the judge accepting his confessed actions as being illegal. The judge cannot accept his actions were illegal without the law being clear that those actions are illegal. 

You really should have waited for the new talking points. Now you're stuck defending a moronic position, contrary to established law, because you're too stupid to just let it go. Man up and move on, Dog. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dog said:

Nonsense...When has a plea deal ever been taken as legal precedent?

Your understanding of how precedent is set and at what level of judicial review plea deals are accepted needs work, Dog. You should really sort that out before you embarrass yourself further.

 

Quote

Lanny let the cat out of the bag as to the motivation behind that particular provision of the plea deal when he said...

“If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn't they be a crime for Donald Trump?”

When has Lanny been in any position to dictate or have an objective insight into the FBI's motivations for this plea deal? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

No, what establishes his actions as illegal campaign contributions is the judge accepting his confessed actions as being illegal. The judge cannot accept his actions were illegal without the law being clear that those actions are illegal. 

You really should have waited for the new talking points. Now you're stuck defending a moronic position, contrary to established law, because you're too stupid to just let it go. Man up and move on, Dog. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Bullshit...What establishes whether the hush payment were illegal or not is the statute.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

Bullshit...What establishes whether the hush payment were illegal or not is the statute.

Exactly, and the judge's acceptance that Cohen's confession meets the provisions of the statute is an adjudication his actions were illegal. If they were not, the judge could not accept the guilty plea.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

Exactly, and the judge's acceptance that Cohen's confession meets the provisions of the statute is an adjudication his actions were illegal. If they were not, the judge could not accept the guilty plea.

Not true... If the judge had heard and decided the case you would have a point, the judge didn't decide the case, the judge accepted a guilty plea.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

Not true... If the judge had heard and decided the case you would have a point, the judge didn't decide the case, the judge accepted a guilty plea.

Incorrect. The judge doesn't need to "hear the case". They heard a confession of Cohen's actions and accepted that those actions constituted a breach of the law in question. That stated acceptance of his actions being illegal is, by definition, an adjudication that his actions were illegal. You're wrong, Dog. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bent Sailor said:

Incorrect. The judge doesn't need to "hear the case". They heard a confession of Cohen's actions and accepted that those actions constituted a breach of the law in question. That is, by definition, an adjudication that his actions were illegal. You're wrong, Dog. 

You're getting there, the judge "accepted" Cohen's guilty plea, the judge did not decide the case. That's the point of copping a plea, the courts do not need to render a decision. And plea deals with all their attendant motivations and compromises do not establish legal precedent.

 As much as you would like it to be otherwise, Michael Cohen does not get to make the law in this country by striking a deal with prosecutors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

You're getting there, the judge "accepted" Cohen's guilty plea, the judge did not decide the case. That's the point of copping a plea, the courts do not need to render a decision. And plea deals with all their attendant motivations and compromises do not establish legal precedent.

Wrong. The courts do render a decision because judges can, and do, reject plea deals when the facts confessed to do not constitute the crime being plead to. The judge, and therefore the courts, decide whether or not the facts confessed to constitute a crime according to the statutes and, by accepting them, make an adjudication on the illegality of those actions.

The law in this case is not set by court precedent, as you stated above. It is set by the statute and the judge has rendered a decision on that, whether you have the balls to accept that or not.

 

Just now, Dog said:

As much as you would like it to be otherwise, Michael Cohen does not get to make the law in this country by striking a deal with prosecutors.

Never said or implied that Cohen had that power. That's all a figment of your imagination. I agree that the statute is what defines that law in your country. The judge decided that Cohen's actions were breaking that law and made an adjudication on that by officially accepting his confession & guilty plea.

You're wrong Dog, no matter how often you repeat nonsense trying to weasel out of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bent Sailor said:

Wrong. The courts do render a decision because judges can, and do, reject plea deals when the facts confessed to do not constitute the crime being plead to. The judge, and therefore the courts, decide whether or not the facts confessed to constitute a crime according to the statutes and, by accepting them, make an adjudication on the illegality of those actions.

The law in this case is not set by court precedent, as you stated above. It is set by the statute and the judge has rendered a decision on that, whether you have the balls to accept that or not.

 

Never said or implied that Cohen had that power. That's all a figment of your imagination. I agree that the statute is what defines that law in your country. The judge decided that Cohen's actions were breaking that law and made an adjudication on that by officially accepting his confession & guilty plea.

You're wrong Dog, no matter how often you repeat nonsense trying to weasel out of it.

If the courts "decided" plea deals there would be no point in having them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

If the courts "decided" plea deals there would be no point in having them. 

Plea deals don't get decided. In your attempts to weasel out of the corner you painted yourself into, you're not even speaking English anymore. :rolleyes:

Cohen decides what actions he will confess to. The judge decides whether those actions constitute a crime. The judge cannot accept a plea deal if they decide the actions do not constitute a crime according to the statutes. The judge stating the court accepts the plea deal is an adjudication on the validity of the confession. By definition.

You're wrong, Dog. Next time wait for better talking points. You're just embarrassing yourself by doubling down on this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

Plea deals don't get decided. In your attempts to weasel out of the corner you painted yourself into, you're not even speaking English anymore. :rolleyes:

Cohen decides what actions he will confess to. The judge decides whether  accepts that those actions constitute a crime. The judge cannot accept a plea deal if they decide the actions do not constitute a crime according to the statutes. The judge stating the court accepts the plea deal is an adjudication on the validity of the confession. By definition.

You're wrong, Dog. Next time wait for better talking points. You're just embarrassing yourself by doubling down on this one.

And you were so close. When a defendant enters a guilty plea the courts proceed directly to sentencing, they do not hear or decide the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting how supposedly principled and moral folks, who loudly decried the moral failures of Bill Clinton, now find it perfectly acceptable for a President to pay hush money to a porn star with whom he denies having an affair.  He never had an affair, but now claims he made sure to use personal funds to pay her off, after previously denying knowing anything about it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dog said:

And you were so close. When a defendant enters a guilty plea the courts proceed directly to sentencing, they do not hear or decide the case.

And you're still nowhere near close. Courts first decide whether or not to accept the guilty plea by the judge deciding whether or not the actions confessed to constitute a crime and whether the proposed sentencing deal is fair for the crime confessed to. That decision comes before sentencing. That decision is, by definition, an adjudication.

You're wrong, Dog.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

I find it interesting how supposedly principled and moral folks, who loudly decried the moral failures of Bill Clinton, find it perfectly acceptable for a President to pay hush money to a porn star with whom he denies having an affair.  He never had an affair, but now claims he made sure to use personal funds to pay her off, after previously denying knowing anything about it.

 

Don't confuse a legal arguement with a moral arguement. That Trump is a cad is a given.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

And you're still nowhere near close. Courts first decide whether or not to accept the guilty plea by the judge deciding whether or not the actions confessed to constitute a crime and whether the proposed sentencing deal is fair for the crime confessed to. That decision comes before sentencing. That decision is, by definition, an adjudication.

You're wrong, Dog.

Ignore the filings in the case. Ignore the citations to statutes violated. Ignore the admission of violating statutes. 

Truth isn’t truth. 

Dog’s on duty. Simple Jack has the afternoon shift this week. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

And you're still nowhere near close. Courts first decide whether or not to accept the guilty plea by the judge deciding whether or not the actions confessed to constitute a crime and whether the proposed sentencing deal is fair for the crime confessed to. That decision comes before sentencing.

You're wrong, Dog.

That may be, the judge can consider a variety of factors before accepting a plea deal. But the judge does not consider all the details necessary to render a verdict like for example whether the actions confessed to are true. The judge does not decide whether the defendant is guilty, the judge accepts that the defendant is guilty.

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

That may be, the judge can consider a variety of factors before accepting a plea deal. But the judge does not consider all the details necessary to render a verdict like for example whether the actions confessed to are true. The judge does not decide whether the defendant is guilty, the judge accepts that the defendant is guilty.

The judge "accepts that the defendant is guilty" of what?

A crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dog said:
26 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I find it interesting how supposedly principled and moral folks, who loudly decried the moral failures of Bill Clinton, find it perfectly acceptable for a President to pay hush money to a porn star with whom he denies having an affair.  He never had an affair, but now claims he made sure to use personal funds to pay her off, after previously denying knowing anything about it.

 

Don't confuse a legal arguement with a moral arguement. That Trump is a cad is a given.

Specifically, where in my post do I make mention of the law?

But, since you brought it up, in saying he made the payment from his personal funds may not be the "out" he is looking for.  I've heard a few legal scholars (they know far more about the law than you or me) sharing it isn't just the source of the funds, but the intent with which it was used, that puts him in jeopardy for having broken the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

The judge "accepts that the defendant is guilty" of what?

A crime.

Correct, The judge does not determine that a crime was committed. I don't think we want Michael Cohen deciding what constitutes a crime.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Correct, The judge does not determine that a crime was committed. I don't think we want Michael Cohen deciding what constitutes a crime.

If I am not mistaken, Michael Cohen was charged with several crimes.  By attorneys.  Who know the law.

And, in pleading guilty, admitted to breaking those laws.  His plea was evaluated and accepted.  By a judge.  Who knows the law.

He will be sentenced, using guidelines drawn up specific to the crimes to which he pled guilty.

That sounds like we have established a crime has been committed.

I will take that over your interpretation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

If I am not mistaken, Michael Cohen was charged with several crimes.  By attorneys.  Who know the law.

And, in pleading guilty, admitted to breaking those laws.  His plea was evaluated and accepted.  By a judge.  Who knows the law.

He will be sentenced, using guidelines drawn up specific to the crimes to which he pled guilty.

That sounds like we have established a crime has been committed.

I will take that over your interpretation.

And you would be wrong. We have accepted that a crime was committed. We have taken Michael Cohen's word (whatever that's worth) for it. 

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dog is being pedantic and doesn’t really care about “truth” anymore than lawyers do. He’s arguing to distract and enjoy himself. 

The facts are that a plea deal results in a criminal conviction which has all its inherent implications for the defendant as a conviction preceded by a trial.

It has the same implications for co-named conspirators as well. A trial would still need to prove Trump’s guilt or innocence if Cohen’s guilt was decided at trial, so Dog’s basic argument is meaningless.

The point is, Mueller has a much stronger case after Cohen’s guilty plea, and Trump appears to be less worthy of his honor, privilege and responsibilities every day.

Patriots don’t like maladministration, and Trump hiring practices reveals a dismal judge of character. He hires criminals. Say what you want; our President is an incompetent manager. The criminal convictions plaguing his inner circle make that self evident.

Link to post
Share on other sites