Andrew C. McCarthy: Why Trump is likely to be indicted by Manhattan US Attorney

[sangha]

OK then let the impeachment process take its course. How dare anyone try to keep an NDA undisclosed?

It has nothing to do with any NDA Trump was a party to. It involves the NDA Ms McDougal, the playmate, signed with David Pecker

BTW, Pecker is cooperating with Mueller in exchange for immunity

Equally significantly, Cohen was not charged with merely making illegal donations. He was charged in the first campaign finance count with causing a company to make illegal donations.

This was the offense centering on Playboy model Karen McDougal. It involves David Pecker, a longtime friend of the president and of Cohen. Pecker runs American Media, Inc., which controls the National Enquirer.

According to prosecutors, Pecker arranged with Cohen that the Enquirer would buy McDougal’s story for $150,000 and bury it. Although it was contemplated that Cohen would reimburse Pecker (and then be reimbursed by Trump), the reimbursement did not happen.

Cohen, therefore, pleaded guilty not to making his own excessive contribution but to causing a third party to make an illegal contribution.

Cohen says he was operating at Trump’s direction. Logically, then, if this is true and Cohen caused the third-party illegal contribution, so did the president.

Notably: prosecutors have given Pecker and another American Media executive, Dylan Howard, immunity from prosecution. Do you think prosecutors did that to tighten up the case against Cohen? I don’t.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It has nothing to do with any NDA Trump was a party to. It involves the NDA Ms McDougal, the playmate, signed with David Pecker

BTW, Pecker is cooperating with Mueller in exchange for immunity

Yep, Trump must be guilty of stuff that he was not a party to.

 

[sangha]

Yep, Trump must be guilty of stuff that he was not a party to.

Trump is guilty of not being a party to the NDA. He caused Cohen to commit a criminal act - causing a third party, Pecker -- to make an illegal contribution, which is a criminal act. Trump is guilty of causing Cohen to commit a criminal act, which is itself a criminal act.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Trump is guilty of not being a party to the NDA. He caused Cohen to commit a criminal act - causing a third party, Pecker -- to make an illegal contribution, which is a criminal act. Trump is guilty of causing Cohen to commit a criminal act, which is itself a criminal act.

Wow! Thank you for clearing that up for me. It's just like when Timmy caused Tommy to steal Freddy's bicycle because if Tony, whose mother's cousin once spoke to a Russian, didn't threaten Jimmy then he would not have promised to help pay Timmy to beat up Tommy if he didn't take Freddy's bike.

 

[GDViking]

Right. That's what McCarthy said.
The overall point he was making is that he sees what's going on and where it's going.
He also sees that despite the one charge the SDNY looks to be going for is not conclusive anyway because of the nature of campaign finance laws ... and Trump has a possible defense.

However ... I might add that simply the threat, or a leaked claim that if he weren't President he'd be indicted, will be enough for the usual suspects to claim "See, we told you. Impeach 45".
Even though it has nothing to do with the original purpose of the probe, when that's all that's left that'll be used.

Was Clinton being investigated for getting a blow job.

Probable cause begins investigations, then they develop a life of their own and uncover any and all crimes that come up.

 

[humbolt]

Trump is guilty of not being a party to the NDA. He caused Cohen to commit a criminal act - causing a third party, Pecker -- to make an illegal contribution, which is a criminal act. Trump is guilty of causing Cohen to commit a criminal act, which is itself a criminal act.

Trump made me do it! I'm not buying that, but I will buy into us even saying "criminal act" is a criminal act. And no, I'm not surrerendering myself. I figure I can blame someone else for making me say it.

 

[Gaius46]

Wrong

It only means that he will not be indicted until after he leaves office

I kind of did say that in my response. One line up from the one you bolded.

And welcome back. Long time no see - though that may just be because I haven't been overly active here in recent months.

 

[bubbabgone]

Was Clinton being investigated for getting a blow job.

Probable cause begins investigations, then they develop a life of their own and uncover any and all crimes that come up.

That was too obscure for me. If you care to, can you clarify for me?

 

[sangha]

Wow! Thank you for clearing that up for me. It's just like when Timmy caused Tommy to steal Freddy's bicycle because if Tony, whose mother's cousin once spoke to a Russian, didn't threaten Jimmy then he would not have promised to help pay Timmy to beat up Tommy if he didn't take Freddy's bike.

If Timmy caused Tommy to steal, he would be guilty of a crime.

So would Tony

 

[sangha]

Trump made me do it! I'm not buying that, but I will buy into us even saying "criminal act" is a criminal act. And no, I'm not surrerendering myself. I figure I can blame someone else for making me say it.

If you ever end up on the jury, what you do and do not buy will matter.

 

[sangha]

I kind of did say that in my response. One line up from the one you bolded.

My bad. Sorry

And welcome back. Long time no see - though that may just be because I haven't been overly active here in recent months.

Thanks. I havent been around much lately. Interacting with deep state conspiracists is not my cup of tea.

 

[sangha]

That was too obscure for me. If you care to, can you clarify for me?

I doubt it

 

[apdst]

What you need is a tape that shows Trump telling Cohen the hush money had to be paid because of his candidacy. What we all heard and what Cohen agreed to say in his plea wasn't that.
Without it Trump's side could always say, "Yeah, we're used to paying hush money. We've been doing that since puberty."
And on the tape, when Cohen said they should set up a company to pay for it Trump said “Pay with cash.” That's important.

Even then, it wouldn't be illegal, if it was done with President Trump's private money.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If Timmy caused Tommy to steal, he would be guilty of a crime.

So would Tony

All could be found guilty, but the way the system usually works is Tommy's crime would be pinned on Timmy and Tony while Tommy gets a plea deal.

 

[bubbabgone]

Even then, it wouldn't be illegal, if it was done with President Trump's private money.

That's why I mentioned that he said to pay with cash instead of a corporation because that would imply it was his own money.
But if Trump clearly intended it for purposes of the campaign it would have been a campaign finance violation not to have reported it even if it was his own money.
So far the only people suggesting it was clearly for the campaign are the Feds and their only corroboration is what they had Cohen repeat in his plea.

 

[USViking]

This animus is the true "dual justice system" that has taken root in the USA. It goes all the way down to the local level. A white kid steals a car, gets probation. A black kid does and he gets juvie, then probation. It's just that now the Republicans are new (insert rap lyrics here).

The Republicans are the new black kids???

That's a good one!

What's in that cigarette of yours?

 

[trixare4kids]

They had a tape of Cohen and Trump discussing the McDougal payment. Cohen was the one that told Trump he had to pay, not the other way around. That's on tape we've all heard already and it directly contradicts Mueller's assertion that Trump directed Cohen to make the payments.

Good memory, you have there.
I had forgotten this until you mentioned it above.

 

[Acadia]

Good memory, you have there.
I had forgotten this until you mentioned it above.

Is this how brazen Trump's haters have become? They just disregard facts already in evidence? I remember when that tape story hit. They were all like, "We got him!!"

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

It has nothing to do with any NDA Trump was a party to. It involves the NDA Ms McDougal, the playmate, signed with David Pecker

BTW, Pecker is cooperating with Mueller in exchange for immunity

 

[sangha]

That's why I mentioned that he said to pay with cash instead of a corporation because that would imply it was his own money.
But if Trump clearly intended it for purposes of the campaign it would have been a campaign finance violation not to have reported it even if it was his own money.
So far the only people suggesting it was clearly for the campaign are the Feds and their only corroboration is what they had Cohen repeat in his plea.

No, this is not a case of He Said, She Said.

From Muellers Sentencing Statement for Cohen

The information he has provided has been credible and consistent with other evidence obtained in the SCO’s ongoing
investigation.

The information provided by Cohen about the Moscow Project in these proffer sessions is consistent with and corroborated by other
information obtained in the course of the SCO’s investigation

From the SDNYs sentencing statement

With respect to Cohen’s provision of information to this Office, in its two meetings with
him, this Office assessed Cohen to be forthright and credible, and the information he provided was
largely consistent with other evidence gathered

This Office’s understanding is that the information
Cohen provided was useful only to the extent that he corroborated information already known to the NY
AG.

 

[sangha]

They had a tape of Cohen and Trump discussing the McDougal payment. Cohen was the one that told Trump he had to pay, not the other way around. That's on tape we've all heard already and it directly contradicts Mueller's assertion that Trump directed Cohen to make the payments.

Wrong. Cohen did not tell Trump that he had to pay. He told Trump that he had to pay with a check, and not with cash as Trump had already suggested

 

[bubbabgone]

No, this is not a case of He Said, She Said.

From Muellers Sentencing Statement for Cohen




From the SDNYs sentencing statement

You're not understanding this at all, are ya.
Whatever connection there is to Trump, i.e. the alleged campaign finance violation by Cohen, depends entirely on whether or not ...
a) the hush money was a campaign finance violation,
b) if Trump believed the hush money was a campaign finance violation, and
c) if Trump acknowledged that to Cohen and told him violate the campaign finance Law

From the OP ...

There is, furthermore, a significant legal question about whether the hush-money payments here qualify as “in-kind” campaign contributions. There is nothing illegal per se in making a non-disclosure agreement; they are quite common. The criminal law comes into play only if the non-disclosure payment is deemed a donation for purposes of influencing a political campaign.
Arguably, the payment is not a donation if it was made for an expense that was independent of the campaign – that is, money that would have had to be paid even if there were no campaign.
Cohen chose to plead guilty and forfeited the right to contest this point. That concession is not binding on Trump. If the president is charged, I expect he would vigorously argue that the payment was not a campaign contribution.​

iow, Cohen pled guilty even though the particulars had never been adjudicated as a crime.

 

[sangha]

You're not understanding this at all, are ya.
Whatever connection there is to Trump, i.e. the alleged campaign finance violation by Cohen, depends entirely on whether or not ...
a) the hush money was a campaign finance violation,
b) if Trump believed the hush money was a campaign finance violation, and
c) if Trump acknowledged that to Cohen and told him violate the campaign finance Law

All are true and Mueller can corroborate it.

From the OP ...

There is, furthermore, a significant legal question about whether the hush-money payments here qualify as “in-kind” campaign contributions. There is nothing illegal per se in making a non-disclosure agreement; they are quite common. The criminal law comes into play only if the non-disclosure payment is deemed a donation for purposes of influencing a political campaign.
Arguably, the payment is not a donation if it was made for an expense that was independent of the campaign – that is, money that would have had to be paid even if there were no campaign.
Cohen chose to plead guilty and forfeited the right to contest this point. That concession is not binding on Trump. If the president is charged, I expect he would vigorously argue that the payment was not a campaign contribution.​

SO what if Cohens plea is not binding on Trump. The law is

iow, Cohen pled guilty even though the particulars had never been adjudicated as a crime.

I will add adjuticated to the List of Words Right Wingers do not understand

 

[bubbabgone]

All are true and Mueller can corroborate it.


SO what if Cohens plea is not binding on Trump. The law is

I will add adjuticated to the List of Words Right Wingers do not understand

What's the corroboration?

Ouch. You just embarrassed yourself challenging a proper usage of the word "adjudicated". Such things are easily avoided.

 

[sangha]

What's the corroboration?

In Mueller and the SDNYs sentencing statement, which you obviously did not read

Ouch. You just embarrassed yourself challenging a proper usage of the word "adjudicated". Such things are easily avoided.

Try reading what the dictionary says