• 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!

Dershowitz: I Don't See Any Crimes in Mueller Memos.

Athanasius68 said:
But who is left? PapaD, Cohen... All the guys who for the past two years we have been told will flip, they never did. Mueller himself agrees the guys have nothing with respect to Trump and Russia colluding to throw the election.
Click to expand...

Cohen has been cooperating quite nicely with Mueller, thank you.

Could you please reproduce the statement from Mueller staying what you just claimed in your post?
 
Fletch said:
The facts are 100% on my side as not one person has been charged by Mueller with any sort of collusion with Russia. So yes, the wet dream analogy applies.
Click to expand...

Are you in the practice of declaring the official winner of a ball game when a good deal is still to be played? That would seem both rash and foolish since the league officially does not award a victory until the game has officially ended.
 
pinqy said:
Red Herring. Since there is no such crime as “collusion,” then it’s not possible for anyone to be charged with such a crime.

So to say no one has been charged with collusion is as meaningful as saying no one has been charged with making an electronic transfer of money. Meaningless.
Click to expand...

Of course its meaningful to say Mueller has not charged anyone in the Trump campaign with collusion, conspiracy, whatever desired term to be used, of working with Russia to throw the 2016 election. Investigating the Trump campaign was the purpose of his appointment. That he is not finding much of anything along these lines, and declining to charge when he does, is of course relevent.
 
haymarket said:
Cohen has been cooperating quite nicely with Mueller, thank you.

Could you please reproduce the statement from Mueller staying what you just claimed in your post?
Click to expand...

The guilty pleas of PapaD and Cohen and also Flynn. No charges were filed over PapaD meeting with the professor or Flynn with the ambassador. It was the perjury which tripped them up.
 
Fletch said:
Have you ever hired a lawyer? How would a lawyer respond if you 'directed' him to do something illegal?

Cohen pled guilty to felonies that he might have won aquittal for in order to get a better deal. That doesnt mean Trump is guilty of anything.
Click to expand...
If he responded by committing the crime, as Cohen did, he'd be guilty of conspiracy - as would I.
 
vesper said:
With Cohen's money then reimbursed with money Trump gave to his own campaign? That isn't a crime. And good luck proving it otherwise.
Click to expand...
It's SDNY that's calling it a crime, Vesper. I'm only the messenger (though I think I may agree with their analysis).

I suspect this will all get resolved in 2020, if Trump does not get re-elected, and we'll see how it plays out..
 
Excon said:
That is because the actions are not actual felonies regardless if Cohen pleads to them or not.
It has been previously laid out by Dershowitz how they are not crimes.


No he didn't, regardless of Cohen pleading to the actions.
That is an agreement between Cohen and the Prosecutor. That is all.




Misleading headline, thus Fake news.
You and CNN are reading into it what you want it to mean.

Cohen pleading to such activity, does not prove Trump did, or that the acts are actually a crime.
So it is an allegation made by the accused in an agreement between him and the prosecution.
It means nothing other than that.






No. He already knows that the behavior Cohen is pleading to isn't actually a crime.
Click to expand...
If Cohen committed felonies under Trump's direction, Trump is guilty of conspiracy.
 
trouble13 said:
I respect that and would normally agree with you. I am a firm believer that the people in charge of making and enforcing laws should be held to the highest standard.

However I think it's unfair to hold trump to a higher standard and more rigid level of accountability than they hold others. Campaign finance laws are a fairly common violation because they are so complex that nobody really understands them. They are typically resolved as a civil matter.

Obama was found in violation of them from his 2000 campaign to the tune of 340k. It was handled as a civil matter and nobody suggested he be impeached over it or indicted criminally after he left office. Seems kind of unfair to expect trump to be subjected to a more severe level just because some people dont like him.

Further more if we do go down that road I certainly will expect that everyone is held to this same standard from here on out. If not it's just partisan prosecution and there really will be a constitutional crisis taking place.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I mostly agree. This is usually not such a big deal. What makes it a big deal though, is the magnitude of deception and consciousness-of-guilt it took to pull-it off. It was a very elaborate scheme.

I suspect Trump may face SDNY charges come 2020, just as John Edward's did, if he does not get re-elected.
 
MovingPictures said:
This POS is going to have hell waiting for him when he's a civilian again, which is poetic justice for the rest of us.
Click to expand...
The ultimate irony here, is Trump will be running in 2020 to stay out of jail! :doh
 
Chomsky said:
I mostly agree. This is usually not such a big deal. What makes it a big deal though, is the magnitude of deception and consciousness-of-guilt it took to pull-it off. It was a very elaborate scheme.

I suspect Trump may face SDNY charges come 2020, just as John Edward's did, if he does not get re-elected.
Click to expand...
John Edwards used money that was donated to his campaign. Donald Trump used his personal money so its s little bit different but even in Edwards case he was not convicted of a crime.

The fact that you brought up that it was politically damaging to him is telling. Imo that what this is about, politically damaging Trump. They are not going to be able to convict trump for this and they know it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Athanasius68 said:
The guilty pleas of PapaD and Cohen and also Flynn. No charges were filed over PapaD meeting with the professor or Flynn with the ambassador. It was the perjury which tripped them up.
Click to expand...

patience. Show some and all we be granted before the end.

The last things that will happen in this process are the final filing of charges against members of the Trump crime family and the Mueller report. And both will come very very close together because Mueller knows either or both will cause Trump to go absolutely berserk and possibly - eve likely - fire him and dissolve the effort.

So be patient.
 
trouble13 said:
John Edwards used money that was donated to his campaign. Donald Trump used his personal money so its s little bit different but even in Edwards case he was not convicted of a crime.

The fact that you brought up that it was politically damaging to him is telling. Imo that what this is about, politically damaging Trump. They are not going to be able to convict trump for this and they know it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Trump has to report and is restricted with personal campaign donations, too. A campaign is a separate legal entity, like a corporation.

But no, I wasn't alluding to this hurting Trump politically. I was speaking to the 5 year statute of limitations. If Trump is re-elected, they run out. If not, he can be charged by SDNY. Since they (SDNY) made the claim in the charge document, I suspect they will go after him in 2020 if they can.
 
Chomsky said:
Trump has to report and is restricted with personal campaign donations, too. A campaign is a separate legal entity, like a corporation.

But no, I wasn't alluding to this hurting Trump politically. I was speaking to the 5 year statute of limitations. If Trump is re-elected, they run out. If not, he can be charged by SDNY. Since they (SDNY) made the claim in the charge document, I suspect they will go after him in 2020 if they can.
Click to expand...
What Trump did (paying off women) isn't a campaign expense. He can use his money to do that. Its separate from the campaign.

If not it would be the same as trump using his campaign funds to buy expensive jewelry for his wife and say it was so she looked good on the trail next to him. He did it for his campaign image. They dont allow things that are for a person's image to be bought with campaign funds. They come out of personal expenses.

Trump hiding an affair is the same thing. If he used donations to pay them it would be a violation and it still would be a civil matter. He would forced to pay the money back out of his pocket.

Mark my words, in the legal sense, this is going nowhere. Politically however it will be used to damage him in 2020

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
What Trump did (paying off women) isn't a campaign expense. He can use his money to do that. Its separate from the campaign.

If not it would be the same as trump using his campaign funds to buy expensive jewelry for his wife and say it was so she looked good on the trail next to him. He did it for his campaign image. They dont allow things that are for a person's image to be bought with campaign funds. They come out of personal expenses.

Trump hiding an affair is the same thing. If he used donations to pay them it would be a violation and it still would be a civil matter. He would forced to pay the money back out of his pocket.

Mark my words, in the legal sense, this is going nowhere. Politically however it will be used to damage him in 2020

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
This is a reasonable argument, and may well be Trump's defense. But what will define whether it's a 'like kind' contribution, will be whether Trump paid-off the women for personal reasons, or for campaign reasons. That will determine whether there's a violation.
 
Chomsky said:
This is a reasonable argument. But what will define whether it's a 'like kind' contribution, will be whether Trump paid-off the women for personal reasons, or for campaign reasons. That will determine whether there's a violation.
Click to expand...
That's exactly right and herein lies the problem. There are many reasons separate from running that he may of paid them women off, like he didnt want his wife to know.

Now campaign finance law is complicated so take this all with a grain of salt but as I understand it, the litmus test of what is a campaign expense is anything that there can be no other reason for it.

Say Trump goes out and buys a new suite special to campaign in. He can not claim it as a campaign expense even though it is one because he could of bought a new suit for many reasons unrelated to his campaign. He has to pay for it from his pocket. His travel expenses to Iowa for the caucus however is covered if it's the only reason for him going there. That's where I think it gets complicated. It becomes the judgement of the commission if it was only for his campaign or if all the expenses along the way were explicitly created by running for office.

Say your making a commercial which is clear cut campaign expense but you buy a coffee from Starbucks while your on set. Is that coffee s campaign cost or a personal one. If you get your shoes shined right before a convention is that a campaign expense? It gets really ticky tacky and that's why it's not normally criminal.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
That's exactly right and herein lies the problem. There are many reasons separate from running that he may of paid them women off, like he didnt want his wife to know.

Now campaign finance law is complicated so take this all with a grain of salt but as I understand it, the litmus test of what is a campaign expense is anything that there can be no other reason for it.

Say Trump goes out and buys a new suite special to campaign in. He can not claim it as a campaign expense even though it is one because he could of bought a new suit for many reasons unrelated to his campaign. He has to pay for it from his pocket. His travel expenses to Iowa for the caucus however is covered if it's the only reason for him going there. That's where I think it gets complicated. It becomes the judgement of the commission if it was only for his campaign or if all the expenses along the way were explicitly created by running for office.

Say your making a commercial which is clear cut campaign expense but you buy a coffee from Starbucks while your on set. Is that coffee s campaign cost or a personal one. If you get your shoes shined right before a convention is that a campaign expense? It gets really ticky tacky and that's why it's not normally criminal.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Not trying to debate your general point, but just want to clarify that expenses have to be over $2,700.00, or they need not be considered or to need to be recorded or concerned. Coffee & shoes need not be considered.
 
haymarket said:
patience. Show some and all we be granted before the end.

The last things that will happen in this process are the final filing of charges against members of the Trump crime family and the Mueller report. And both will come very very close together because Mueller knows either or both will cause Trump to go absolutely berserk and possibly - eve likely - fire him and dissolve the effort.

So be patient.
Click to expand...

Its not a question of being patient. Nothing has been established by Mueller. Thats the point. All we have is some people pleading guilty to perjury and some others to crimes which have nothing to do with collusion or whatever term you wish to use.
Are you suggesting there are yet others waiting in the wings?
 
Chomsky said:
Not trying to debate your general point, but just want to clarify that expenses have to be over $2,700.00, or they need not be considered or to need to be recorded or concerned. Coffee & shoes need not be considered.
Click to expand...

Neither does avoiding personal embarrassment.
 
trouble13 said:
What Trump did (paying off women) isn't a campaign expense. He can use his money to do that. Its separate from the campaign.

If not it would be the same as trump using his campaign funds to buy expensive jewelry for his wife and say it was so she looked good on the trail next to him. He did it for his campaign image. They dont allow things that are for a person's image to be bought with campaign funds. They come out of personal expenses.

Trump hiding an affair is the same thing. If he used donations to pay them it would be a violation and it still would be a civil matter. He would forced to pay the money back out of his pocket.

Mark my words, in the legal sense, this is going nowhere. Politically however it will be used to damage him in 2020

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Cohen borrowed $130,000 from his HELOC, washed it through a bogus corporation, paid Stormy Daniels. Then he went back to the Trump Organization, submits a bill for campaign expenses. He also submitted a $50,000 bill for campaign related IT expenses. The company then pays him $180,000, rounds it up so he breaks even on taxes (to $360,000), THEN kicks in a $60,000 bonus for $420,000. To disguise the nature of the payment - one massive payout in an illegal campaign contribution from Trump Organization - they break it up into multiple payments distributed over the year of $35,000 each. This is conspiracy, money laundering, campaign finance violations, fraud and, depending on the accounting, tax fraud.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Its not a question of being patient. Nothing has been established by Mueller. Thats the point. All we have is some people pleading guilty to perjury and some others to crimes which have nothing to do with collusion or whatever term you wish to use.
Are you suggesting there are yet others waiting in the wings?
Click to expand...

Mueller has not issued his report nor has completed indictments. Again, patience is a virtue.
 
Chomsky said:
Not trying to debate your general point, but just want to clarify that expenses have to be over $2,700.00, or they need not be considered or to need to be recorded or concerned. Coffee & shoes need not be considered.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that correction. I'm now a little bit smarter on that topic.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
I hope I dont regret trying to have a civil conversation with you but here it goes...

Tanngrisnir said:
Cohen borrowed $130,000 from his HELOC, washed it through a bogus corporation, paid Stormy Daniels.
Click to expand...
So far no crime

Then he went back to the Trump Organization, submits a bill for campaign expenses. He also submitted a $50,000 bill for campaign related IT expenses.
Click to expand...
This could be a crime depending on if it came out Trumps finances or his campaign fund.

The company then pays him $180,000, rounds it up so he breaks even on taxes (to $360,000), THEN kicks in a $60,000 bonus for $420,000. To disguise the nature of the payment - one massive payout in an illegal campaign contribution from Trump Organization - they break it up into multiple payments distributed over the year of $35,000 each.
Click to expand...
If this was wrong the only thing required is for him to pay the money back. It's not criminal.
This is conspiracy,
Click to expand...
It's not illegal
money laundering,
Click to expand...
Not even close. The money is legal. They are hiding what it's for but it's no crime
campaign finance violations
Click to expand...
If it is it's a civil matter not criminal
, fraud and, depending on the accounting, tax fraud.
Click to expand...
It's not tax fraud unless possibly if trump tries to claim it as a deduction. Which would be a real stretch to criminally charge.

This isnt going to be a criminal case. It is a political problem for him.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I hope I dont regret trying to have a civil conversation with you but here it goes...


So far no crime


This could be a crime depending on if it came out Trumps finances or his campaign fund.


If this was wrong the only thing required is for him to pay the money back. It's not criminal.

It's not illegal

Not even close. The money is legal. They are hiding what it's for but it's no crime

If it is it's a civil matter not criminal

It's not tax fraud unless possibly if trump tries to claim it as a deduction. Which would be a real stretch to criminally charge.

This isnt going to be a criminal case. It is a political problem for him.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Lulz. Again, your wishful thinking won't magically replace what's actually beeen alleged.

Odd thing, having to pretend to oneself that what they did wasn't illegal.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Lulz. Again, your wishful thinking won't magically replace what's actually beeen alleged.

Odd thing, having to pretend to oneself that what they did wasn't illegal.
Click to expand...
Yup I knew it would be a waste of time engaging you.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Yup I knew it would be a waste of time engaging you.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's always a waste of time when someone who doesn't know what he's talking about tries to engage me.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about, relying solely on magical thinking.

Good luck with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom