The Trump Card...

[ATeam]

This trial has everything to do with Trump. If if didn't, then Rosenstein would have recommended prosecution of Manafort years ago when he was in charge of the FBI investigation into Manafort for the very crimes Manafort has been charged with. But Rosenstein recommended against prosecuting Manafort. As the judge in the trial suggested, this trial is more about a Trump impeachment than prosecuting Manafort for alleged crimes. From the early morning raid at Manafort's home to the laughably heavy-handed overcharging of Manafort, to holding him without bail, all point to someone being squeezed to coerce them into flipping, into singing, if not even composing.

Jury verdicts are often surprising, but I think Manafort has a far better chance of being found not guilty of all charges than he does of being found guilty of all charges. I'll be surprised if the jury finds Manafort guilty of more than 4 or 5 of the 18 charges.

I have not been following the trial as closely as you. Nor do I know much about Manafort beyond the occasional headline I see. One thing you did not mention is the evidence that seems to exist. It's also the case that Manafort has been represented by competent attorneys. The judge did not order him to jail on a whim. That question was argued by both sides and decided by the judge.

Unlike some, I still believe that the court is a legitimate and competent entity. I like it when a case of great public interest goes to court because more is required there than headline grabbing and political posturing. The rule of law still matters in court. And if a corrupt judge or jury or prosecutor or defense attorney is found, remedies exist to address those.

Having served on a jury, I know better than to try to predict what they will decide. The case has been made. The defense had its say. All we can do at this point is wait to see what the jury concludes. They have been sitting in the courtroom for weeks listening to every word. The last thing I am going to do is suggest what they should decide based on what I hear via the press.

When I served on a jury, we based our decision mostly on something we saw in the evidence that was never mentioned by either side. Had those proceedings been covered by the press, no mention of that item would have been reported on TV or in print.Yet that item was major point on which our decision was made.

We have no idea how the jurors will interpret what they saw and heard in the courtroom. And we don't know how much of what actually happened in the courtroom was actually reported by the press. I'm content to wait to hear what the jury decides.

My personal view of Manafort is negative. That's because the guy made a living representing shady political figures. But I'm not going to prejudge him relative to the specific charges that he faces in this court case. I don't have to. He is innocent until proven guilty and a jury is considering the case now.[/QUOTE]

 

[Moot]

I like it when a case of great public interest goes to court because more is required there than headline grabbing and political posturing.

Kinda like the trial of that guy in California that allegedly stabbed his ex-wife and her waitperson friend to death?

 

[Turtle]

It seems the more high profile a trial is, the more the prosecution overreaches and tries to male a big splash, and ends up doing a belly flop.

I was lucky enough (or unlucky enough) to be able to watch every minute of the OJ trial, and even though there is no doubt in my mind that he did it, if I were on that jury I'd have acquitte him, too, because the prosecution screwed the pooch and didn't make the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I, too, have a negative opinion of Manafort, but the only thing that matters is whether or not the prosecution made their case.

 

[ATeam]

...the only thing that matters is whether or not the prosecution made their case.

Now we know. Manafort guilty on eight counts.

 

[Grizzly]

...the only thing that matters is whether or not the prosecution made their case.

Now we know. Manafort guilty on eight counts.

And Cohen is singing like a canary ....

 

[ATeam]

Michael Cohen pleaded guilty today to five counts of tax evasion, one count of falsifying submissions to a bank and two counts involving unlawful campaign contributions.

Of direct significance to Trump is Cohen's admission that he made unlawful campaign contributions "at the direction of a federal candidate." In other words, Cohen implicated Trump in an illegal campaign act(s).

That qualifies as an impeachable offense.

While Congress must act if impeachment is to occur, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard has been clearly met.

I remain confident in my prediction that Trump will be impeached and watch with interest as the pieces continue to fall in place.

 

[RoadTime]

I was lucky enough (or unlucky enough) to be able to watch every minute of the OJ trial, and even though there is no doubt in my mind that he did it, if I were on that jury I'd have acquitte him, too, because the prosecution screwed the pooch and didn't make the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

That was must watch TV, at least for me

I'm sure I hoped he was innocent, and really can't remember how I felt at the time if it was a slam dunk or not. But what I do remember, there was no way in hell based on the prosecution's case, that I would have found him guilty either.

 

[Turtle]

On OJ, two things stuck for me. One was the time line that the prosecution dug their heels in for. I didn't buy that OJ could have done everything they said he did, and when they pushed the time line multiple times, it became less believable

The other was the fact that the investigators seized OJ's sink and shower drain pipes and didn't introduce them at trial. The defense asked a witness about them, but no testimony or evidence of blood found in the drains were ever entered into the trial. If he was covered head to toe with blood as the prosecution alleged, he would have left blood residue in the drain pipes when he cleaned up.

The combination of the time line and the pristine drain pipes left too much reasonable doubt.

As for Trump being implicated by Cohen, I wouldn't take Trump's or Cohen's word to the bank. Plus, many famous rich people have routinely paid off people to keep quiet, including Trump when he wasn't a candidate, so to say that this time it was definitely to influence a campaign is a bit of a partisan stretch absent harder evidence than the word of Cohen who had little credibility as it is

 

[Grizzly]

The timing of the payment, end of Oct, to Stormy though Cohen makes it definitely intended to influence the election.

Believing otherwise is a bit of a partisan stretch ....


Edit: OK, it's a long stretch. The intent is obvious ...

 

[Turtle]

The timing of the payment, end of Oct, to Stormy though Cohen makes it definitely intended to influence the election.

Believing otherwise is a bit of a partisan stretch ....

That's like saying any crime committed against a person in a protected class (gay, Jew, black, etc) is automatically a hate crime even if their protected status played no roll in the crime. The fact that the timing fell so close to an election would be a slam dunk violation, if Trump has never paid anyone off when he wasn't a candidate.

 

[muttly]

I was lucky enough (or unlucky enough) to be able to watch every minute of the OJ trial, and even though there is no doubt in my mind that he did it, if I were on that jury I'd have acquitte him, too, because the prosecution screwed the pooch and didn't make the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

That was must watch TV, at least for me

I'm sure I hoped he was innocent, and really can't remember how I felt at the time if it was a slam dunk or not. But what I do remember, there was no way in hell based on the prosecution's case, that I would have found him guilty either.

I will say this about the O.J. trial. Yes, the prosecution, investigators, police, etc. made a lot of mistakes. Some mistakes were big, some were inconsequential.But to throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak and acquitt was a mistake by the jury. Even though there was reasonable doubt about some of the evidence. There was plenty of inculpatory evidence. More than enough for conviction.

 

[ATeam]

...so to say that this time it was definitely to influence a campaign is a bit of a partisan stretch absent harder evidence than the word of Cohen who had little credibility as it is

Cohen's credibility is unimpeachable is it not? That is established by Trump's claim that he hires the best people. Right?

Or, as you suggest, Cohen's claim may not be credible. But Cohen's statement this time was made under oath in an arena where dire consequences would accrue to him if his statement were found to be a lie.

Sure, the credibility of Cohen's statement can be called into question, just as anything can be called into question in the political arena. But in this case, Cohen's statement was made in court, under oath. It stands as strong evidence that what he says happened actually happened. Namely, Cohen violated campaign law "in coordination with and at the direction of a federal candidate for office.”

It's also the case that Trump himself admitted paying money to Cohen as a "monthly retainer." It's been said many times in this forum, "follow the money." Cohen's statement about the purpose of this money calls into question Trump's credibility when Trump speaks of the same thing. While the credibility of Cohen's statement made under oath can be questioned, it's not like Trump has never told a lie and has never paid hush money before.

Add to the mix this statement by Cohen's attorney who "... also took pains to underscore that his client had been acting not on his own, but at Trump's behest. 'Today, [Cohen] stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election," Davis said in a statement. "If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn't they be a crime for Donald Trump?'" (source)

By his own plea, Cohen is guilty of what he says he is, and he implicates Trump in a crime. As I said above, this clearly meets the high crimes and misdemeanors standard. Unless Trump can produce convincing evidence to the contrary, It is now a fact that Trump can be credibly charged with an impeachable offense.

If that happens, Trump, of course, deserves the presumption of innocence. But it is also the case that it would be legitimate for the charges to be laid.

By the way, it would be wise to note that this development came not out of the Muller probe but out of the District Attorney's office in New York. Trump can tweet against Muller all he wants but that's not the investigation that led to Cohen's guilty pleas.

 

[ATeam]

I just want to mention that my current approach to all the investigations into Trump and his associates is to wait for hard facts to develop before forming strong opinions. I have a business to run and do not have the luxury of time to spend on politics.

While I believe and have predicted Trump will be impeached, I find it best to not spend a lot of time listening to the media writers and talking heads. Nearly everything they have to say is speculation or opinion not grounded in fact.

Today, two significant developments occurred; Cohen pleading guilty to eight counts and Manafort being found guilty of eight counts. Those are something worth thinking about and using to refine one's view of the political landscape. Going forward, we will likely be treated to additional weeks of tweeting, opinion mongering and speculation; the value of which is nearly meaningless and time on which I will not spend.

For those for whom politics is a spectator sport, I can see how it is intellectually and emotionally fulfilling to huff and puff with all the other political players. Personally, I'm content to focus on the hard-fact developments, share my views about them, and vote as I deem best.

 

[muttly]

Well I'm more likely to vote for Trump now due to this witch hunt. So are most of my relatives. #Boomerang

 

[ATeam]

Regarding Manafort, I suggested above that the (then current) Manafort trial had nothing to do with Trump. Now that the Manafort guilty verdict is in, that seems to be the case. Nothing in the charges related to Trump and, at least for now it seems, nothing coming out of the trial is going to be used against Manafort to get to Trump. Manafort was found guilty on eight counts. No cooperation deal was made. Sentencing will happen in the near future. A second Manafort trial in another court will begin in the near future.

What will come out of that trial? What, if anything, might come out of today's guilty verdicts? I don't know and I'm content to wait and see. Having other ways to entertain myself, there is no need to pour hours and hours into the groundless speculation and idle opinion stating that will go on about that.

Don't get me wrong. I'd fully enjoy a romp in the ongoing political debate. This note is as more a note to myself as anything. My time is better put into the business Diane and I run. Time here is great fun, but costly too in that it takes me away from my productive work.

 

[ATeam]

Well I'm more likely to vote for Trump now due to this witch hunt. So are most of my relatives. #Boomerang

No doubt, but will you get the chance? If I am right about Trump's upcoming impeachment, you'll have to find a different candidate to support in 2020.

 

[Turtle]

Cohen's credibility is unimpeachable is it not? That is established by Trump's claim that he hires the best people. Right?

I sense sarcasm.

 

[muttly]

Well I'm more likely to vote for Trump now due to this witch hunt. So are most of my relatives. #Boomerang

No doubt, but will you get the chance? If I am right about Trump's upcoming impeachment, you'll have to find a different candidate to support in 2020.

Impeachment on what?

 

[ATeam]

Impeachment on what?

Two of the eight charges Cohen pleaded guilty to included one count of willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution. In his allocution, Cohen implicated Trump in crimes for which Trump can be impeached. As I understand it, these are federal crimes and felonies.

Cohen's attorney said, "Today, [Cohen] stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election."

In the words of Duke law professor Lisa Kern Griffin, "Trump is clearly guilty of violating campaign finance laws and also guilty of federal conspiracy as well (because he agreed with Cohen, and possibly others, on a plan to violate federal law).”

In the words of a Bloomberg Opinion writer, "Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, admitted in open court Tuesday to violating federal campaign finance laws — at the direction of a candidate who told him to do so. Cohen is saying that Trump was a principal of the crime he admits to having committed. Under federal law, that makes Trump criminally liable as an accomplice.

The Washington Post puts it this way, "The criminal liability here concerns violation of campaign-finance rules as part of a deliberate attempt to conceal large amounts of money from voters."

There are many more explainations like this online. The above gives you the gist.

Cohen's attorney went on TV last night to say Cohen has a great deal of additional information (including tapes and documents) to share about Trump that will be of interest to prosecutors in various jurisdictions. Time will tell how that plays out and what value, if any, Cohen's additional information may be in further developing the impeachment case against Trump.

 

[Turtle]

As Alan Dershowitz duly noted, every candidate for president violates campaign finance laws. The penalty is a fine, unless the DOJ can prove Trump willfully and knowingly violated the statute for a corrupt purpose Mostly, violating campaign finance laws is the jaywalking of criminal acts, and doesn't really rise to the level of constitutional high crimes and misdemeanors. Unless of course, a Democratic House says it is, and they can get enough Senate Republicans to go along with it on order to remove a president from office.

Democrats have wanted to impeach Trump before he was even inaugurated, so we know how high the bar is for them.

This will all get fleshed out over time, and it'll mostly, if not totally, go away with the American people (excluding the Democrats and never-Trumper, of course).