• 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!

Judge rules Trump’s conviction withstands Supreme Court immunity decision

It is against the law to make illegal loans to a campaign to influence an election. Cohen was charged and convicted of this crime.

Which had nothing to do with Trump.
Correct if you are talking about Federal campaign law. Trump wasn't charged with Federal campaign violations.

Testimiony at trial was that Trump DID conspire with Cohen and Pecker to violate the law as part of establishing Trump's intent with the money laundering to hide Cohen's crime.

Testimony that Mr. Trump was not permitted to dispute - that is, that his actions did not violate federal election law.
Trump dosen't. Trump can accept or reject whatever he wants.

As to trying to retry a Federal case (Cohen's conviction) in state court, that is not allowed.

The guilty plea by Mr. Cohen was evidence against Mr. Trump.
And like all evidence a prosecutor might introduce, it can be challenged
The FEC person had no direct testimony concerning Trumps conspiracy with Cohen and Pecker. Cohen was convicted of Federal campaign fraud and Pecker cut a non-proseuction acreement to avoid his own indictment.

Sure he did- he can offer direct testimony that the theory that Mr. Trumps actions violated federal election law was false.

 


The cites pertains to elected officials using their official authority to meddle with elections.

It doesn't apply here (curious enough, somebody put up a post somewhere on DP that supposedly Jack Smith's legal team is worried they might face prosecution from the Trump Administration. I guess these cited laws would form the basis of such a prosecution.
Should the Trump admin apply the laws the same kind of way other laws were applied against Mr. Trump over the past few years, they would be right to be worried).
 
Which had nothing to do with Trump.

False. It has everything to do with Trump. Cohen's conviction was a result of the Cohen/Pecker/Trump conspiracy to illegally influence the election.

Cohen's conviction for Federal campaign fraud was the crime that Trump was attempting to hide when he illegally laundered the money through his private business.

Testimony that Mr. Trump was not permitted to dispute - that is, that his actions did not violate federal election law.

Correct, Trump doesn't get to retry a Federal conviction in state court since Trump was never charged with Federal campaign fraud, he was charged under state law with State felonious business fraud.

The FEC person has no expertise or relevant expertise in NY State business law.

The guilty plea by Mr. Cohen was evidence against Mr. Trump.

Correct, it went to establishing the crime that Trump was attempting to hide/aid as part of the Cohen/Pecker/Trump conspiracy and the later money laundering.

And like all evidence a prosecutor might introduce, it can be challenged

No, the fact that Cohen was convicted in Federal court cannot be challenged.

Sure he did- he can offer direct testimony that the theory that Mr. Trumps actions violated federal election law was false.

Trump wasn't charged under Federal campaign finance law, he was charged with New York Penal Code violations for felonious business fraud.

A Federal FEC person does not get to testify as an "expert" witness on New York Business law.

WW
 
The cites pertains to elected officials using their official authority to meddle with elections.
and did you look up other examples that does not include officials? thought not or you would have posted the links.
It doesn't apply here (curious enough, somebody put up a post somewhere on DP that supposedly Jack Smith's legal team is worried they might face prosecution from the Trump Administration. I guess these cited laws would form the basis of such a prosecution.
Should the Trump admin apply the laws the same kind of way other laws were applied against Mr. Trump over the past few years, they would be right to be worried).
If someone broke the law and the evidence shows the person most likely did, then by all means prosecute.

imo, Trump is guilty of violation of some laws. Just shows how money can get you out of some situations.
 
False. It has everything to do with Trump. Cohen's conviction was a result of the Cohen/Pecker/Trump conspiracy to illegally influence the election.

Mr. Trump was never charged with such a crime.
And since there is a solid argument that an NDA is not a campaign expenditure requiring reporting, he has a solid argument that he was not part of a conspiracy involving Cohen or Pecker.

Regardless of the opinions of Pecker or Cohen.
Cohen's conviction for Federal campaign fraud was the crime that Trump was attempting to hide when he illegally laundered the money through his private business.

The problem here continues that the charge Mr. Cohen pled to requires intent.
And the charge Mr. Trump was found guilty requires intent (as well as an intent to defraud).
And it requires that the actions Mr. Trump took was against the law.

But the FEC and DOJ never said Mr. Trumps actions violated the law.
Which makes the testimony that Mr. Trump intended to influence the election meaningless when applied to the state law.
Correct, Trump doesn't get to retry a Federal conviction in state court since Trump was never charged with Federal campaign fraud, he was charged under state law with State felonious business fraud.

Its not retrying a federal case.
It's arguing that the federal case does not apply here.
The FEC person has no expertise or relevant expertise in NY State business law.

The charges Mr. Trump was found guilty of involved him conspiring to, with an intent to defraud, conceal another crime.
A defense that the paying off Ms. Daniels in the manner that she was paid off was itself not a crime, nor was it concealing another crime, is quite reasonable.

Correct, it went to establishing the crime that Trump was attempting to hide/aid as part of the Cohen/Pecker/Trump conspiracy and the later money laundering.

And Mr. Trump is allowed to challenge whether in fact it's a crime.
Mr. Cohen and Mr. Pecker opinion that it was doesn't control that.
No, the fact that Cohen was convicted in Federal court cannot be challenged.

When used as evidence of a crime involving Trump, of course it can be.
Trump wasn't charged under Federal campaign finance law, he was charged with New York Penal Code violations for felonious business fraud.

A Federal FEC person does not get to testify as an "expert" witness on New York Business law.

WW

Without the allegation of a federal campaign law violation, there is no allegation of violating the state law.
 
But the rubes are still paying for the judgement against him...



 
Mr. Trump was never charged with such a crime.

Correct, Trump was not charged with a Federal crime. He was charged with felony business fraud.

And since there is a solid argument that an NDA is not a campaign expenditure requiring reporting, he has a solid argument that he was not part of a conspiracy involving Cohen or Pecker.

False. There is solid evidence that Cohen committed Federal campaign fraud. He was charged and convicted in Federal court.

Regardless of the opinions of Pecker or Cohen.

Cohen's conviction is not based on opinion. It's based on facts and evidence presented to the Federal court. The court is not allowed to accept a guilty plea unless the evidence supports such a conviction and both the Defense and Prosecution agree to the facts presented PRIOR to the guilty plea being accepted.

The problem here continues that the charge Mr. Cohen pled to requires intent.

Correct, and the Cohen/Pecker/Conspiracy shows intent for Cohen to commit Federal campaign fraud.

And the charge Mr. Trump was found guilty requires intent (as well as an intent to defraud).
And it requires that the actions Mr. Trump took was against the law.

Evidence was presented at trial showing Trumps intent to break the law with the conspiracy to hide/aid in Cohen's Federal crime. The prosecution demonstrated intent.

But the FEC and DOJ never said Mr. Trumps actions violated the law.

The FEC and DOJ don't get to decide if Trumps criminal actions violated State law. Trump was not charged with a Federal campaign crime, he was charged under the New York State Penal Code for business fraud in laundering the money through his business.

Which makes the testimony that Mr. Trump intended to influence the election meaningless when applied to the state law.

False, Cohen's action were relevant and not meaningless. Cohen was convicted of Federal campaign fraud. The State business fraud was about Trump committing business fraud to hide/aid Cohen.

Its not retrying a federal case.
It's arguing that the federal case does not apply here.

There is not argument under State law that a Federal crime that has resulted in a conviction didn't happen. Cohen's conviction is the Federal crime that Trump attempted to hide/aid in.

The charges Mr. Trump was found guilty of involved him conspiring to, with an intent to defraud, conceal another crime.
A defense that the paying off Ms. Daniels in the manner that she was paid off was itself not a crime, nor was it concealing another crime, is quite reasonable.

No it's not "reasonable", Cohen's Federal conviction is prima facia evidence that such crime DID occur.

And Mr. Trump is allowed to challenge whether in fact it's a crime.

He can challenge his businss fraud was not a crime, and he did.

He does NOT get to attempt to retry a Federal conviction.

Mr. Cohen and Mr. Pecker opinion that it was doesn't control that.

Agreed, Cohen and Pecker don't control that.

Federal prosecutors, the Federal Grand Jury, and the Federal judge DO get to control whether Cohen committed a crime. That is not "opinion" that is established fact.

Pecker wasn't an "opinion" of his own either. Once his lawyers found out about it they advised him to stop and to enter into an agreement to testify not to be prosecuted for his actions.

When used as evidence of a crime involving Trump, of course it can be.

Cohen's crime wasn't used to prove Trump's actions were a crime. Cohen's conviction was used as the crime Trump was attempting to hide/aid in.

Without the allegation of a federal campaign law violation, there is no allegation of violating the state law.

There is no allegation that Trump violated Federal campaign law.

Yes there is a violation of State law to launder the money through your business to hide/aid another in the commission of their crime.

WW
 
False. There is solid evidence that Cohen committed Federal campaign fraud. He was charged and convicted in Federal court.



Cohen's conviction is not based on opinion. It's based on facts and evidence presented to the Federal court. The court is not allowed to accept a guilty plea unless the evidence supports such a conviction and both the Defense and Prosecution agree to the facts presented PRIOR to the guilty plea being accepted.

That is correct. And Mr. Cohen made an argument as to how and why he violated federal campaign law.
And the prosecutor and the court agreed.


But... Mr. Trump is allowed to argue why Cohens argument is false.
And if it is indeed false, then there is insufficient evidence to say that Mr. Trump intentionally falsified documents with intent to defraud in order to conceal another crime.
Correct, and the Cohen/Pecker/Conspiracy shows intent for Cohen to commit Federal campaign fraud.

Nothing to do with Trump.
Just because Mr. Cohen and Mr. Pecker both said they were in a criminal conspiracy with Mr. Trump, it doesn't mean Mr. Trump was in such a conspiracy.
Evidence was presented at trial showing Trumps intent to break the law with the conspiracy to hide/aid in Cohen's Federal crime. The prosecution demonstrated intent.

But since an NDA is legal, and there is no federal requirement to report it as a campaign expenditure, it doesn't matter his intent.
No federal law was broken.
Thus, no state law can be broken.

That Mr. Cohen and Mr. Pecker thought there was a federal law broken doesn't change anything with respect to Mr, Trump.
Perhaps the feds would not have charged Mr. Cohen had he indicated that that he would contest the charges (he pled guilty here to get a reduced sentence for the tax crimes he had engaged in).
Perhaps Mr. Pecker was being overly cautious.
The feds, after all, never actually charged Mr. Trump, either civilly or criminally, for federal election law violations.

There is not argument under State law that a Federal crime that has resulted in a conviction didn't happen. Cohen's conviction is the Federal crime that Trump attempted to hide/aid in.


No it's not "reasonable", Cohen's Federal conviction is prima facia evidence that such crime DID occur.

Yep-- its evidence that Mr. Cohen broke the law.
But-- Mr. Trump was on trial here, not Cohen.

Mr. Trump counter to that evidence is that federal election law requires intent, and that an NDA doesn't violate the election law.
Thus, Mr. Trump could not have conspired to violate New York state law because he had no intention for Mr. Cohen to commit a crime.
Agreed, Cohen and Pecker don't control that.

Federal prosecutors, the Federal Grand Jury, and the Federal judge DO get to control whether Cohen committed a crime. That is not "opinion" that is established fact.

There was no jury for Mr. Cohen. He pled guilty violating the FECA in exchange for a reduced sentence on the tax charges he faced.
And it is indeed the opinion of these prosecutors and judges as to whether Mr. Cohen had committed a crime (he after all volunteered). Others might present better and stronger arguments.

But the feds chose NOT to proceed against Mr. Trump, as they were well aware he would contest their claims.
Pecker wasn't an "opinion" of his own either. Once his lawyers found out about it they advised him to stop and to enter into an agreement to testify not to be prosecuted for his actions.

Peckers lawyers are not experts in the field of campaign finance law.
Perhaps there would have been no charges filed (Trump after all was not charged).
Maybe Mr. Pecker would have beaten the charges had they been filed.

Or perhaps the lawyers simply advised its not worth taking the chance.

Either way, its a legal opinion about the FECA law.
And, as we know, Mr. Trump was not permitted to present an opinion that the concerns of Peckers lawyers were inflated.
Cohen's crime wasn't used to prove Trump's actions were a crime. Cohen's conviction was used as the crime Trump was attempting to hide/aid in.

And as per the state law, there has to be an intent to do so (along with an effort to defraud).
But if Mr. Trump did not commit a campaign law violation by his actions (and the feds do not say he did) then he can't have committed a state violation of the law.
Cohen saying Trump did doesn't control.
 
That is correct. And Mr. Cohen made an argument as to how and why he violated federal campaign law.
And the prosecutor and the court agreed.

Not how it works. The prosecutor presented evidence to a Grand Jury, the Grand Jury returned an indictment. The Prosecutor then turned over the evidence to the Defense. Cohen agreed to plead guilty based on the evidence.

Some random dude just can't go to court and plead guilty to a crime and the judge would be required to REJECT such a plea without the supporting evidence.

But... Mr. Trump is allowed to argue why Cohens argument is false.

Trump is not allowed to argue that a Federal conviction is invalid.

And if it is indeed false, then there is insufficient evidence to say that Mr. Trump intentionally falsified documents with intent to defraud in order to conceal another crime.

You are confusing the two. Cohen's conviction was evidence in fact.

Trump wasn't trying to argue that he didn't commit the actions to hide Cohen's actions. He was attempting to retry Cohen's Federal case in State court. That isn't allowed.

Nothing to do with Trump.

Cohen/Pecker/Trump conspiracy shows intent for Cohen to commit Federal campaign fraud.

Just because Mr. Cohen and Mr. Pecker both said they were in a criminal conspiracy with Mr. Trump, it doesn't mean Mr. Trump was in such a conspiracy.

Testimony is evidence at trial. That along with documents, texts, emails, and corroborating testimony are these things we call "evidence".

The final determiners of fact is the Jury, and from the evidence presented they did determine that Trump was part of the conspiracy to falsify business records hide Cohen's illegal activities.

But since an NDA is legal, and there is no federal requirement to report it as a campaign expenditure, it doesn't matter his intent.

#1 No one was charged with with making an NDA.

#2 Yes, expenditures in support of the campaign ARE required to reported under Federal Campaign finance laws. Which is way Trump laundered the money through Cohen and his business. Cohen made an illegal loan to the campaign, a crime.

No federal law was broken.

Cohen committed Federal campaign fraud. He was charged and convicted.

Thus, no state law can be broken.

Trump committed felonious business fraud by laundering money through his business to hide/aid Cohen in violation of the New York State Penal Code. He was charged and convicted by a jury.

That Mr. Cohen and Mr. Pecker thought there was a federal law broken doesn't change anything with respect to Mr, Trump.

It's not Cohen and Pecker throught. Cohen was charged and convicted of Federal campaign fraud. Pecker cut a non-prosecution deal so he wouldn't get charged with Federal campaign fraud. Both working in a conspiracy with Trump.

Correct, it doesn't change the fact that Trump's intent in committing State level felonies was to hide/aid Cohen's illegal actions.

Perhaps the feds would not have charged Mr. Cohen had he indicated that that he would contest the charges (he pled guilty here to get a reduced sentence for the tax crimes he had engaged in).

Perhaps deer carried guns hunters wouldn't hunt them.

That's about as useful a speculation.

Perhaps Mr. Pecker was being overly cautious.
The feds, after all, never actually charged Mr. Trump, either civilly or criminally, for federal election law violations.

From a federal perspective Trump is allowed to donate to his own campaign and report it to the FEC. Failure to do so is not a criminal action, it's a civil action.

Cohen on the other hand as not-a-candidate, had limits on his contributions, IIRC at the time it was around $2,700. So a $150,000 "loan" to the campaign was criminal campaign fraud.
Two different metrics.
 
Yep-- its evidence that Mr. Cohen broke the law.
But-- Mr. Trump was on trial here, not Cohen.

Evidence of the crime Trump was attempting to hide/aid.

Mr. Trump counter to that evidence is that federal election law requires intent, and that an NDA doesn't violate the election law.

Cohen wasn't charged with an NDA being illgal.

Thus, Mr. Trump could not have conspired to violate New York state law because he had no intention for Mr. Cohen to commit a crime.

Testimony was he did conspire with Cohen/Pecker to evade campaign laws.

He conspired to execute the business fraud and launder the money through his business.


There was no jury for Mr. Cohen. He pled guilty violating the FECA in exchange for a reduced sentence on the tax charges he faced.

Conviction doesn't require a jury.

And it is indeed the opinion of these prosecutors and judges as to whether Mr. Cohen had committed a crime (he after all volunteered). Others might present better and stronger arguments.

Other might have, but they didn't present anything at Cohen's conviction because he agreed the evidence was factual.

But the feds chose NOT to proceed against Mr. Trump, as they were well aware he would contest their claims.

Trump didn't commit a Federal crime that could be shown. Candidates can make large donations to their own campaign. Cohen could not.

Peckers lawyers are not experts in the field of campaign finance law.
Perhaps there would have been no charges filed (Trump after all was not charged).
Maybe Mr. Pecker would have beaten the charges had they been filed.

Or perhaps the lawyers simply advised its not worth taking the chance.

Perhaps, maybe, yada, yada.

You are now reduced to building phantasies.

Either way, its a legal opinion about the FECA law.
And, as we know, Mr. Trump was not permitted to present an opinion that the concerns of Peckers lawyers were inflated.

Trump wasn't going to call the FEC person regarding Pecker, Trump was going to call the FEC person to try to retry Cohen's conviction.

And as per the state law, there has to be an intent to do so (along with an effort to defraud).

There was intent as the testimony and evidence at trial showed.

But if Mr. Trump did not commit a campaign law violation by his actions (and the feds do not say he did) then he can't have committed a state violation of the law.
Cohen saying Trump did doesn't control.

My God, no one has charged Trump with Federal campaign violations.
Cohen committed the Federal campaign fraud and was charged and convicted for it.

WW
 
You know what.

We are just going around and around. You state falsehoods and what ifs not related to facts and reality.

So you can feel free to have the last word. Repeat your misinformation, lie about what Trump was charged with, lie about the trial not showing intent on the part of the Cohen/Pecker/Trump conspiracy to evade federal law and lie about Trump laundering the money to hide/aid Cohen's activities under New York business law.

Normally I post to correct your false statements so that others know what you are doing but since we're probably the last two people on the board reading the thread, have at it.

The last post is yours.

WW
 
Not how it works. The prosecutor presented evidence to a Grand Jury, the Grand Jury returned an indictment. The Prosecutor then turned over the evidence to the Defense. Cohen agreed to plead guilty based on the evidence.
Cohen gave the feds information about what was going and said he would plead guilty to election campaign violation in exchange for no prison for the tax problems he had.
Some random dude just can't go to court and plead guilty to a crime and the judge would be required to REJECT such a plea without the supporting evidence.

Since that plea is what you are saying makes Trump guilty of being in a conspiracy with Cohen, Trump can challenge that claim by Cohen and the feds in his trial that the actions was illegal campaign activity
Trump is not allowed to argue that a Federal conviction is invalid.

Yes he can.

You are confusing the two. Cohen's conviction was evidence in fact.

Yes- and Mr. Trump is allowed to challenge the facts which caused Cohen to plead guilty.
Trump wasn't trying to argue that he didn't commit the actions to hide Cohen's actions. He was attempting to retry Cohen's Federal case in State court. That isn't allowed.

He was going to argue that the actions did not violate the FECA law.
He can do that. Just because Bragg says the guilty plea by Cohen is the last word on the subject doesn't make it true.
Cohen/Pecker/Trump conspiracy shows intent for Cohen to commit Federal campaign fraud.

Cohen.
Testimony is evidence at trial. That along with documents, texts, emails, and corroborating testimony are these things we call "evidence".

Yep-- and if there is no requirement under the FECA law for an NDA to be disclosed, then all that testimony and texts are meaningless.
No law was violated.
The final determiners of fact is the Jury, and from the evidence presented they did determine that Trump was part of the conspiracy to falsify business records hide Cohen's illegal activities.

Yep the jury did.
#1 No one was charged with with making an NDA.

That was the 'fraud' that the state law requires. Keeping Daniels information from the public supposedly deprived people of making an informed choice in 2017.
#2 Yes, expenditures in support of the campaign ARE required to reported under Federal Campaign finance laws.

That is simply untrue.
The test the FEC uses is the 'irrespectability' test.
And what that test seeks to show is if the expense exists because of the campaign. If it exists irrespective of the campaign, It's not considered a campaign expense.

Which is way Trump laundered the money through Cohen and his business. Cohen made an illegal loan to the campaign, a crime.

That's Cohen, not Trump.
Cohen committed Federal campaign fraud. He was charged and convicted.

Yep. Cohen again.
Not Trump.
Trump committed felonious business fraud by laundering money through his business to hide/aid Cohen in violation of the New York State Penal Code. He was charged and convicted by a jury.

That was what the jury found, true.
Of course, the problem persists-- an NDA is not a campaign expense that needs to be reported.
An argument which Judge Merchan did not the permit the jury to hear, though he did permit the jury to hears Peckers thoughts on the law...
Correct, it doesn't change the fact that Trump's intent in committing State level felonies was to hide/aid Cohen's illegal actions.

As an NDA is not illegal, then there is no intent to commit the state crime.
Perhaps deer carried guns hunters wouldn't hunt them.

That's about as useful a speculation.

The witness testimony about his concerns is also
Cohen on the other hand as not-a-candidate, had limits on his contributions, IIRC at the time it was around $2,700. So a $150,000 "loan" to the campaign was criminal campaign fraud.
Two different metrics.
Cohen again.
 
Wait, how can this be? Haven’t many people here claimed the Supreme Court gave Donald Trump (and only Donald Trump) full immunity that covers everything?

For acts committed during the presidency for acts in the commission of his office. Which parts would fit your assertion?
 
Back
Top Bottom