• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proof of Guilt!

ecofarm said:
It appears you are correct, those charges do not include conspiracy. Then what is finger pointing doing in his guilty plea?
Click to expand...

Someone who pleads guilty pleads to the facts as alleged by the government, that is, the physical acts or omissions the government says the person. Those facts must obviously amount to violation of the crimes being charged, to which the person is pleading. But you don't just plead guilty to a statement "so and so violated this statute: 11 USC 1111(a)"

If Cohen made the payment to Daniels in coordination with Trump, why would it be odd for him to plead guilty to the physical acts that made up that transaction? I don't see why the fact that what Cohen plead to might also implicate Trump is somehow odd or objectionable; happens all the time. An entire body of constitutional law ("Bruton" issues) arose specifically to deal with what happens in the trial of the one who didn't plead guilty when the government tries to offer the confession of the one who did.

I don't see why the fact Trump hasn't been charged with anything (yet) changes that. Cohen plead to a violation of campaign finance laws among other things, and the acts that made that up were carried out with Trump / at his direction, so naturally that will end up in the plea.

:shrug:




If that's not convincing, then consider the fact that it would be almost certain that Alan Dershowitz would be going on about it if it were odd, yet all he says to Fox is:

Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, a frequent defender of the president, made a similar argument. “You have to show that it’s a crime,” he told “Fox & Friends.” He said it’s “not a crime” for a candidate like Trump to contribute to his own campaign, and probably not even a crime to direct someone else to contribute if he plans to pay that back. Further, Dershowitz said, “The only evidence that the president did anything that might be unlawful … comes from a man who’s admitted to be a liar.” “There are a lot of barriers,” he said, “We’re far away from [an] impeachable offense or a criminal offense on the part of the president.”

Legal experts clash on whether Cohen plea threatens Trump | Fox News
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
Someone who pleads guilty pleads to the facts as alleged by the government, that is, the physical acts or omissions the government says the person. Those facts must obviously amount to violation of the crimes being charged, to which the person is pleading. But you don't just plead guilty to a naked charge.

If Cohen made the payment to Daniels in coordination with Trump, why would it be odd for him to plead guilty to the physical acts that made up that transaction? I don't see why the fact that what Cohen plead to might also implicate Trump is somehow odd or objectionable; happens all the time. An entire body of constitutional law ("Bruton" issues) arose specifically to deal with what happens in the trail of the one who didn't plead guilty when the government tries to offer the confession of the one who did.

I don't see why the fact Trump hasn't been charged with anything (yet) changes that. Cohen plead to a violation of campaign finance laws among other things, and the acts that made that up were carried out with Trump / at his direction, so naturally that will end up in the plea.
Click to expand...

Cohen didn't plead to conspiracy. How is Trump relevant to his guilt? It's someone getting busted and saying "he made me". Need proof.
 
ecofarm said:
I must imagine there's evidence for Mueller
Click to expand...

Southern district of New York.

ecofarm said:
to allow the claim in the guilty plea. It doesn't make sense to allow someone to accuse someone else in their own guilty plea.
Click to expand...

Especially if the evidence confiscated from Cohen supports it.

ecofarm said:
But we only have Cohen's word at this point.
Click to expand...

And a mountain of evidence seized from Cohen.

ecofarm said:
There needs to be proof that Trump knowingly ordered illegal actions.
Click to expand...

The plot thickens. :)

Let me save you the effort of responding. Trump has acted and behaved as guilty as can be from the moment he was told that the Justice Department had evidence that Russia involved itself in our election. You can keep claiming that there is no proof in spite of all the evidence to the contrary … but … IMHO … eventually you will be disappointed.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Cohen didn't plead to conspiracy. How is Trump relevant to his guilt? It's someone getting busted and saying "he made me". Need proof.
Click to expand...

FFS. Seriously, eco?

I'd expect this from some of our other residents.



I generally explained what happens in plea deals to you. You seem to have simply ignored what I said and just repeated yourself at me. If you think you know enough about plea deals to make a specific case, then do it. Saying that it's "odd" or repeating something like "need proof" is completely meaningless in context of your wondering why one person's plea deal might incriminate someone else unless YOU can actually demonstrate that it is in fact odd.

I am telling you.... oh **** it. I already did type it out. It's still there. This happens all the damn time. This isn't "odd".
 
Mr Person said:
FFS. Seriously, eco?

I'd expect this from some of our other residents.



I generally explained what happens in plea deals to you. You seem to have simply ignored what I said and just repeated yourself at me. If you think you know enough about plea deals to make a specific case, then do it. Saying that it's "odd" or repeating something like "need proof" is completely meaningless in context of your wondering why one person's plea deal might incriminate someone else unless YOU can actually demonstrate that it is in fact odd.

I am telling you.... oh **** it. I already did type it out. It's still there. This happens all the damn time. This isn't "odd".
Click to expand...

I've long said, since yesterday when this started, that I'm not an attorney but that seems untoward.

I guess it's weird for people to see someone who is most certainly not a Trump fan unimpressed by Cohen's claim. We'll see.
 
ecofarm said:
I think it's wrong for him to let Cohen point fingers in a guilty plea and then not provide the proof. Is this a tv show teaser?
Click to expand...

If Trump is not charged, it's a moot point. Court docs are not written for public consumption.

If he is charged, it will be argued, evidence given, corroborating witnessed called, or not, etc., during the due process of law.
 
OscarLevant said:
If Trump is not charged, it's a moot point. Court docs are not written for public consumption.

If he is charged, it will be argued, evidence given, corroborating witnessed called, or not, etc., during the due process of law.
Click to expand...

Charged or not, flat proof means possible impeachment.
 
ecofarm said:
Charged or not, flat proof means possible impeachment.
Click to expand...

I think there is sufficient grounds for impeachment currently, but the republicans who control the house and senate do not.
 
OscarLevant said:
I think there is sufficient grounds for impeachment currently, but the republicans who control the house and senate do not.
Click to expand...

When some people speak of proof, they mean undeniable, congressional action requiring proof. Not he said. Not she said. Undeniable, flat out proof.

There's a reason some of us want that and are not satisfied by a scumbag claiming whatever.

There's a bigger picture here, and I'm not gonna lose sight of it because scum claims something.
 
ecofarm said:
When some people speak of proof, they mean undeniable, congressional action requiring proof. Not he said. Not she said. Undeniable, flat out proof.

There's a reason some of us want that and are not satisfied by a scumbag claiming whatever.

There's a bigger picture here, and I'm not gonna lose sight of it because scum claims something.
Click to expand...

But the evidence for grounds of impeachment are in full plain view.

Dereliction of Duty to the point of being a threat to National Security, egregious conduct Unbecoming, violation of the Constitution, strategic decision-making without the cooperation of the strategic departments and done in secret ,pathological lying on a daily basis, Reckless management of security and cyber-security and on and on
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
But the evidence for grounds of impeachment are in full plain view.

Dereliction of Duty to the point of being a threat to National Security, conduct Unbecoming, and on and on
Click to expand...

That's why congress is moving forward, right?


Real, undeniable proof. Bring it or spare me.
 
ecofarm said:
That's why congress is moving forward, right?


Real, undeniable proof. Bring it or spare me.
Click to expand...

This Congress would not move forward if this President shot somebody on 5th Av.
 
jnug said:
This Congress would not move forward if this President shot somebody on 5th Av.
Click to expand...

Once again, not interested in fantasies.

And I'm not gonna get all excited because scum (Cohen) says something.
 
ecofarm said:
Once again, not interested in fantasies.

And I'm not gonna get all excited because scum (Cohen) says something.
Click to expand...

Not even when scum Cohen says something about scum Trump?
 
ecofarm said:
Once again, not interested in fantasies. And I'm not gonna get all excited because scum (Cohen) says something.
Click to expand...
I agree it's not that exciting, I mean, any more than every day is nuts in Trump-land. And no one in their right mind will move on impeachment before Mueller concludes, it would be premature. 2/3 vote of Senate to remove him..and he will pardon everyone on the way out, and Pence will pardon Trump...I see no justice being served there even if they have grounds to get 2/3 senate to remove him.

However, it's not "Just something Cohen says". It's the prosecutions claims, backed by their evidence. Cohen just so happened to agree, as a witness (and defendant), that they were correct.

From the court proceedings:
With respect to Counts Seven and eight,... the government would prove the defendant caused an illegal corporate contribution of $150K to be made in coordination with a candidate or campaign for federal office, and ...$130K in coordination with the campaign or a candidate for purposes of influencing the election.

The proof of these counts at trial would establish that these payments were made to ensure...

We would submit records obtained from the search of Cohen's premise:
hard copy documents,
electronic devices
audio recordings
text messages
messages sent over encrypted apps,
phone records
emails
additional records obtained via subpoena, including corporation records (from AMI)
testimony of witnesses, including witnesses involved in the transaction in question.
Click to expand...
(I bulleted the last i was tired of typing word for word)

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/22/polit...lea/index.html
 
Mach said:
I agree it's not that exciting, I mean, any more than every day is nuts in Trump-land. And no one in their right mind will move on impeachment before Mueller concludes, it would be premature. 2/3 vote of Senate to remove him..and he will pardon everyone on the way out, and Pence will pardon Trump...I see no justice being served there even if they have grounds to get 2/3 senate to remove him.

However, it's not "Just something Cohen says". It's the prosecutions claims, backed by their evidence. Cohen just so happened to agree, as a witness (and defendant), that they were correct.

From the court proceedings:

(I bulleted the last i was tired of typing word for word)

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/22/polit...lea/index.html
Click to expand...

We'll see.
 
ecofarm said:
That's why congress is moving forward, right?


Real, undeniable proof. Bring it or spare me.
Click to expand...

It's been going on in plain view since he took office. Open your eyes. A right wing congress has no spine.


Even Melania hates Trump. If he were not president, no doubt she would divorce him, as she should. He's a despicable human being not worthy of the presidency, and it's sad you are unable to grasp a simple thing as that, for evidence that is right in front of you.
 
OscarLevant said:
It's been going on in plain view since he took office. Open your eyes. A right wing congress has no spine.
Click to expand...

I need to open my eyes, huh? I guess I just don't have the education or experience to see things proper.


Even Melania hates Trump.
Click to expand...

That's low class and petty. You need to open your eyes and see that.
 
There is nothing to debate here. The topic is based on a false premise. Cohen admitting to a crime, is not proof of a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom