ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Andrew McCabe , donald trump , George Papadopoulos , Michael Cohen , Paul Manafort , Robert Mueller , Trump controversies , Trump-Russia connections

Reply
Old 23rd August 2018, 05:25 PM   #201
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,655
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
!!! Analogy Warning !!!

Bob is heroin dealer, who is attacked by an armed robber while walking down a dark alley. Bob shoots and kills the robber. The cops have been following Bob because they suspect he's a heroin dealer, and they witness the shooting. The cops snag Bob up after he kills the robber, and take him in for interrogation. During the interrogation, they tell him that he's under suspicion for being a heroin dealer, which carries a sentence of 25 years... but that murder only carries a sentence of 5 years. Bob isn't completely sure how much info the cops have on him with respect to heroin dealing. The cops offer him a deal: plead guilty to murder and flip on his supplier, and they'll drop the case against him related to heroin dealing. The cops tell Bob that if he doesn't take the plea bargain, they will prosecute for heroin dealing.

Bob didn't commit murder - it was clearly self-defense. But he is willing to plead guilty to murder because it carries a shorter sentence than heroin dealing does.

The action can be cast as a crime, and can be plead to as a crime, without actually having been a crime.
Analogy fail.

Firstly, Murder is clearly a worse crime than Dealing, but let's ignore that for the moment.

Prosecutors simply don't offer a charge that they can't actually prove, and there is a very good reason for that.

Let's take your wacky example. Until Bob is found guilty by the Judge, he can back out of the plea at any time. See he comes before the Judge who says, "Bob you have been charged with Murder and I understand a plea deal is on the table, correct? Good, then how do you plead?" And at this point Bob can say "I've changed my mind and decided to plead not guilty" At that point, the Prosecutor is stuck in the position of having to prove the charge of Murder, and if they are for a crime the Defendant didn't commit, then the Defendant walks.

Prosecutors don't take this chance, so they use a lessor charge, but one the defendant is still guilty of, such as an assault charge instead of a grievous bodily harm or an attempted murder. In the case you gave they might go with possession of a class A substance instead of possession with intent to deal, and perhaps add some related gun charges, perhaps carrying an illegal firearm, or unlawful possession of firearm.

The Plea Deal lessens the punishment, perhaps even dropping a felony to a misdemeanor, but it's always something that the Defendant provably did so as to stop them ditching the deal and getting a Not Guilty verdict.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 05:37 PM   #202
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,224
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Seems to me, statistics about people pleading guilty of acts they hadn't actually committed aren't at all relevant to this case.
You don’t understand why I provided that link, do you?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 05:44 PM   #203
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,979
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You don’t understand why I provided that link, do you?
Yes, I do: You're pursuing the smokescreen argument that a judge accepting a guilty plea does not say anything about actual guilt. That's a trivial truth. In this case, however, we know what Cohen did, but you want to argue that he might have gotten off on a technicality. Go ahead, but statistics from the innocence projects about people who didn't actually commit the act they were accused of aren't relevant.
__________________
"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 23rd August 2018 at 05:47 PM.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 05:45 PM   #204
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 19,206
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. It doesn’t work that way. Cohen’s guilty plea does nothing legally to establish Trump’s guilt. That must be established separately.
Guilt is a legal term. That is determined by jurors. So technically you are right. But Cohen's testimony goes a long way in implicating Trump in criminal acts. That along with testimony that comes form others such as David Pecker and documents and recordings etc will likely confirm it. Whether there is ever a moment where Trump is found guilty of criminal acts seems as unlikely as more than a priest or two being convicted in all these sexual assaults in Pennsylvania.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 23rd August 2018 at 06:14 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 05:59 PM   #205
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,655
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Yes, I do: You're pursuing the smokescreen argument that a judge accepting a guilty plea does not say anything about actual guilt. That's a trivial truth. In this case, however, we know what Cohen did, but you want to argue that he might have gotten off on a technicality. Go ahead, but statistics from the innocence projects about people who didn't actually commit the act they were accused of aren't relevant.
Not only that, Judges don't have to accept plea deals. If they are unhappy that there is evidence of a crime it is more then likely that they'd step in and demand evidence before accepting any deal.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 06:19 PM   #206
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,979
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Not only that, Judges don't have to accept plea deals. If they are unhappy that there is evidence of a crime it is more then likely that they'd step in and demand evidence before accepting any deal.
Yes, and even if the case had gone to trial and a jury found him guilty, Zig could keep arguing that they shouldn't have because it wasn't really a crime; they just didn't understand the law as well as he. Whatever, but trying to claim that he might have been pressured into confessing to something he didn't do won't fly.
__________________
"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 06:27 PM   #207
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,655
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Yes, and even if the case had gone to trial and a jury found him guilty, Zig could keep arguing that they shouldn't have because it wasn't really a crime; they just didn't understand the law as well as he. Whatever, but trying to claim that he might have been pressured into confessing to something he didn't do won't fly.
Far from being pressured, he seemed to be almost eager to get in there and confess. My wife was like, "They must have something really big on him for him to be getting in and agreeing to this so fast."
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 06:33 PM   #208
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,454
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Yes, and even if the case had gone to trial and a jury found him guilty, Zig could keep arguing that they shouldn't have because it wasn't really a crime; they just didn't understand the law as well as he. Whatever, but trying to claim that he might have been pressured into confessing to something he didn't do won't fly.
lol wut
__________________
"Don't tell me what cases you've won, tell me who you've beaten."

-M. Avenatti
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 06:58 PM   #209
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,979
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
lol wut
You're too modest, Dog. You should be the editor of the law review.
__________________
"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 07:02 PM   #210
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,098
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
It's kind of neat how Trump faces bogus charges in this regard, but you were more open-minded when it came to Edwards' being in legal jeopardy:

Maybe Trump's proven himself a strong leader. Maybe we've learned more about the law from politician payoffs. Learning. We needed to be wary of thin-skinned narcissists, but we can learn how to make peace with them. Character still matters.

Bonus arguments against Trump Edwards:
Originally Posted by Zig
We now know, for example, that John Edwards is reckless. You may not care about his fidelity to his wife, but his willingness to take great risks for purely selfish and petty reasons should give anyone pause.


Similar words from all the Republicans should give people pause about what serious hypocrites and liars they are.

How can they live with themselves?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 07:07 PM   #211
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,098
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Gee,Trump really is trying to be like Nixon in every way possible....
Excerpt from Nixon's resignation speech.
Quote:
To continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the President and the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home.
So like Trump.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 07:12 PM   #212
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,098
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Do we need to review all the innocence project cases where they exonerated people who agreed they were guilty?
No need. You can just look at the vastly different circumstances in giving a false confession after hours of being manipulated by police interrogators with no lawyer present and Cohen coming to this decision with the consultation of an excellent attorney and Cohen's conscience.

You don't even need the facts and Cohen's taped conversation with Trump to see the difference.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 23rd August 2018 at 07:13 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 07:15 PM   #213
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,098
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I have no opinion on that.
I do. It's above this post (page six). Threads moving too fast.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 07:47 PM   #214
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 19,206
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Do we need to review all the innocence project cases where they exonerated people who agreed they were guilty?
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
No need. You can just look at the vastly different circumstances in giving a false confession after hours of being manipulated by police interrogators with no lawyer present and Cohen coming to this decision with the consultation of an excellent attorney and Cohen's conscience.

You don't even need the facts and Cohen's taped conversation with Trump to see the difference.
Michael Cohen is a 50 year old attorney with decades of law experience. He was represented by a highly respected attorney. To compare this to Innocence Project exonerees that were falsely convicted by a coerced confession or uninformed plea deal is ridiculous.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 08:32 PM   #215
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 22,539
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
<snip>

Perhaps, but your justification for believing in the likelyhood of such evidence, namely that the judge hasn't thrown out Cohen's guilty plea on that count, doesn't make sense to me. Judges aren't usually in the practice of taking on the role of defense counsel. If the defense pleads guilty, the judge is only going to reject that plea under extraordinary circumstances.

<snip>

And you don't think that pleading guilty to something that isn't a crime would be something a judge might consider to be "extraordinary circumstances"?

How does that work, anyway? The judge has to find them guilty of something, some actual criminal statute, to accept a plea of guilty, whether the defendant is in fact guilty or not.

If there was no crime to commit, just exactly what does the judge find the defendant guilty of?
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 08:35 PM   #216
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 22,539
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You don't need to understand legal theory to know this. You can just look at what actually happens. And what actually happens is that people plead guilty to crimes they don't commit, and judges accept those pleas, all the time.

<snip>

Sure. Not certain how that is relevant.

How many examples can you offer of judges accepting guilty pleas for something that wasn't a crime?
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 08:42 PM   #217
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 22,539
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
<snip>

I mean, the whole hush-money thing is both campaign related (to avoid negative PR) and personal (it was a personal interaction from prior to his candidacy). Which makes this seem like there's no possible way for this to be done that doesn't leave Trump open to a claim of breaking a campaign law...

Sure there was. It could have been reported properly. Just because doing so would have been embarrassing is not a sufficient reason to try to evade the law.

He could also have not made the pay-off.

Yeah, that could have ended up embarrassing, too, but that's the situation he got himself into. There was no Catch-22. He just got himself in a bind with no way out that wasn't personally embarrassing to him. That isn't the law's fault.

Quote:
even though if he weren't a candidate, none of it is at all illegal in any way.

Or have I missed something material in there? I confess I find the situation confusing.

Yes. you are missing the fact that if he wasn't a candidate and wasn't campaigning then there wouldn't be any campaign contributions to break any laws.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 08:48 PM   #218
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,346
Some thinking out loud.

I just saw a clip of George Will saying the country decided not to remove Clinton from office for his "abominable" behavior because they determined that his crimes were not serious enough to overturn a presidential election. As far as the Cohen stuff is concerned, I'm inclined to say Trump's behavior similarly fails to meet that otherwise reasonable threshold (even if Trump funneled payments through his fake charity).

Could the Daniels/McDougal revelations themselves have turned the election? It's tempting to answer "no" and argue "everyone knew" Trump was a womanizer. Putting aside hindsight bias, the news would have made his cheating more concrete and less abstract. The Access Hollywood tape was "just locker room talk," whereas an affair with a pornstar, and a newborn at home, is pretty scuzzy. The bigger problem could have been, "What else has he done? What else do we not know?"

Trump's narrow victory complicates matters. Overturning an election is serious business, which is why Comey has said the American people should not count on Mueller to save them. Citizens can take matters into their own hands by voting. The argument see-saws the other way because elections derive their moral legitimacy from the will of the people, and we have an Electoral College that awarded the presidency to someone who won fewer votes. It's a stupid institution, but we have to abide by the results (and work to abolish it).

Trump apologists have recently taken to crediting broad powers to the president -- he cannot obstruct justice, he can pardon himself, he's not accountable to financial conflicts of interest; maybe we don't even like it, they could say, but that's how the Constitution works. And if we take that logic, then Congress can impeach and remove the president for just about any ol' reason -- because that's how it works. However, in addition to laws, we have norms and traditions (e.g., release your tax returns) which Trump has been subverting. Even with removing a president, the Constitution undermines popular will; understandably, it requires a super-majority of two-thirds, but that's two-thirds of the highly unrepresentative Senate. Some of these problems are ultimately rooted in a pre-democratic Constitution.

What if Trump won 70% of the vote? Would this Russian probe matter as much? MAGAns would probably say the Democrats are just out to get the president by any means available. Nixon trounced the Democrats in his re-election, yet he was threatened with removal. Corruption, as Biden might say, is a big ******' deal. For the point against, however, there was no recourse available for the people; Nixon was serving his second and final term, so Congress had to use its impeachment power.

I'd bet a lot of people feel the same way -- you can't deny Trump the presidency for a sex scandal, especially if you frame it as a campaign finance violation (and tack on conspiracy for good measure). Now, collaborating with Russia is another matter, and if Mueller can back it up, then I think that's something a large part of the country can get behind.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 09:27 PM   #219
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,979
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Some thinking out loud.

I just saw a clip of George Will saying the country decided not to remove Clinton from office for his "abominable" behavior because they determined that his crimes were not serious enough to overturn a presidential election. As far as the Cohen stuff is concerned, I'm inclined to say Trump's behavior similarly fails to meet that otherwise reasonable threshold (even if Trump funneled payments through his fake charity).

Could the Daniels/McDougal revelations themselves have turned the election? It's tempting to answer "no" and argue "everyone knew" Trump was a womanizer. Putting aside hindsight bias, the news would have made his cheating more concrete and less abstract. The Access Hollywood tape was "just locker room talk," whereas an affair with a pornstar, and a newborn at home, is pretty scuzzy. The bigger problem could have been, "What else has he done? What else do we not know?"

Trump's narrow victory complicates matters. Overturning an election is serious business, which is why Comey has said the American people should not count on Mueller to save them. Citizens can take matters into their own hands by voting. The argument see-saws the other way because elections derive their moral legitimacy from the will of the people, and we have an Electoral College that awarded the presidency to someone who won fewer votes. It's a stupid institution, but we have to abide by the results (and work to abolish it).

Trump apologists have recently taken to crediting broad powers to the president -- he cannot obstruct justice, he can pardon himself, he's not accountable to financial conflicts of interest; maybe we don't even like it, they could say, but that's how the Constitution works. And if we take that logic, then Congress can impeach and remove the president for just about any ol' reason -- because that's how it works. However, in addition to laws, we have norms and traditions (e.g., release your tax returns) which Trump has been subverting. Even with removing a president, the Constitution undermines popular will; understandably, it requires a super-majority of two-thirds, but that's two-thirds of the highly unrepresentative Senate. Some of these problems are ultimately rooted in a pre-democratic Constitution.

What if Trump won 70% of the vote? Would this Russian probe matter as much? MAGAns would probably say the Democrats are just out to get the president by any means available. Nixon trounced the Democrats in his re-election, yet he was threatened with removal. Corruption, as Biden might say, is a big ******' deal. For the point against, however, there was no recourse available for the people; Nixon was serving his second and final term, so Congress had to use its impeachment power.

I'd bet a lot of people feel the same way -- you can't deny Trump the presidency for a sex scandal, especially if you frame it as a campaign finance violation (and tack on conspiracy for good measure). Now, collaborating with Russia is another matter, and if Mueller can back it up, then I think that's something a large part of the country can get behind.
It's encouraging that shares on predictit.com that Trump won't even be the 2020 nominee have gone from 36˘ when I mentioned it a few days ago to 44˘ now -- dang, coulda already turned a profit if I bought then. I hope he is the candidate, rather than someone more electable, but that's still a tempting bet because I really think Republicans will eventually realize that, too.

I did, however, cash in on my 29˘ shares that the difference in the 538 generic Democrat/Republican polls would be 7 points or more by last night: it was 7.9.
__________________
"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 23rd August 2018 at 09:28 PM.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 09:39 PM   #220
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,328
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
!!! Analogy Warning !!!

Bob is heroin dealer, who is attacked by an armed robber while walking down a dark alley. Bob shoots and kills the robber. The cops have been following Bob because they suspect he's a heroin dealer, and they witness the shooting. The cops snag Bob up after he kills the robber, and take him in for interrogation. During the interrogation, they tell him that he's under suspicion for being a heroin dealer, which carries a sentence of 25 years... but that murder only carries a sentence of 5 years. Bob isn't completely sure how much info the cops have on him with respect to heroin dealing. The cops offer him a deal: plead guilty to murder and flip on his supplier, and they'll drop the case against him related to heroin dealing. The cops tell Bob that if he doesn't take the plea bargain, they will prosecute for heroin dealing.

Bob didn't commit murder - it was clearly self-defense. But he is willing to plead guilty to murder because it carries a shorter sentence than heroin dealing does.

The action can be cast as a crime, and can be plead to as a crime, without actually having been a crime.
That's not the right analogy, of course one could plead guilty to a crime for which you are innocent.

The argument occasionally is that he pleaded guilty to something that wasn't a crime bug which he did actually do. Or possibly that he pleaded guilty to something that he didn't do and anyway wasn't a crime.

Which is just a stupid argument.

It is like Bob being charged with dealing in carrots.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 10:07 PM   #221
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 19,206
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Some thinking out loud.

I just saw a clip of George Will saying the country decided not to remove Clinton from office for his "abominable" behavior because they determined that his crimes were not serious enough to overturn a presidential election. As far as the Cohen stuff is concerned, I'm inclined to say Trump's behavior similarly fails to meet that otherwise reasonable threshold (even if Trump funneled payments through his fake charity).

Could the Daniels/McDougal revelations themselves have turned the election? It's tempting to answer "no" and argue "everyone knew" Trump was a womanizer. Putting aside hindsight bias, the news would have made his cheating more concrete and less abstract. The Access Hollywood tape was "just locker room talk," whereas an affair with a pornstar, and a newborn at home, is pretty scuzzy. The bigger problem could have been, "What else has he done? What else do we not know?"

Trump's narrow victory complicates matters. Overturning an election is serious business, which is why Comey has said the American people should not count on Mueller to save them. Citizens can take matters into their own hands by voting. The argument see-saws the other way because elections derive their moral legitimacy from the will of the people, and we have an Electoral College that awarded the presidency to someone who won fewer votes. It's a stupid institution, but we have to abide by the results (and work to abolish it).

Trump apologists have recently taken to crediting broad powers to the president -- he cannot obstruct justice, he can pardon himself, he's not accountable to financial conflicts of interest; maybe we don't even like it, they could say, but that's how the Constitution works. And if we take that logic, then Congress can impeach and remove the president for just about any ol' reason -- because that's how it works. However, in addition to laws, we have norms and traditions (e.g., release your tax returns) which Trump has been subverting. Even with removing a president, the Constitution undermines popular will; understandably, it requires a super-majority of two-thirds, but that's two-thirds of the highly unrepresentative Senate. Some of these problems are ultimately rooted in a pre-democratic Constitution.

What if Trump won 70% of the vote? Would this Russian probe matter as much? MAGAns would probably say the Democrats are just out to get the president by any means available. Nixon trounced the Democrats in his re-election, yet he was threatened with removal. Corruption, as Biden might say, is a big ******' deal. For the point against, however, there was no recourse available for the people; Nixon was serving his second and final term, so Congress had to use its impeachment power.

I'd bet a lot of people feel the same way -- you can't deny Trump the presidency for a sex scandal, especially if you frame it as a campaign finance violation (and tack on conspiracy for good measure). Now, collaborating with Russia is another matter, and if Mueller can back it up, then I think that's something a large part of the country can get behind.
I would not hold impeachment proceedings against Trump over this. Not his affairs, not his hush money, not this illegal campaign contributions. But if he paid Cohen legal fees or the porn stars with the Trump foundation accounts, it's a very different ball game.

Far more troubling to me has been his abuse of power. The blatant obstruction of justice and jury tampering.

My guess is that there will be other crimes uncovered.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 12:11 AM   #222
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,992
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
It's encouraging that shares on predictit.com that Trump won't even be the 2020 nominee have gone from 36˘ when I mentioned it a few days ago to 44˘ now -- dang, coulda already turned a profit if I bought then. I hope he is the candidate, rather than someone more electable, but that's still a tempting bet because I really think Republicans will eventually realize that, too.

I did, however, cash in on my 29˘ shares that the difference in the 538 generic Democrat/Republican polls would be 7 points or more by last night: it was 7.9.
Still time to buy in: Trump couldn't have won 2016 without the help of the National Enquirer - he certainly can't win a 2020 nomination with Pecker as his enemy.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 02:16 AM   #223
Molinaro
Illuminator
 
Molinaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,228
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
The crux of the matter is Cohen is guilty of commiting a crime. There is no doubt about this since he agrees that he is guilty.
As long as one Republican supporter somewhere continues to say he is innocent you have no choice but to agree to having reasonable doubt about his guilt.
__________________
100% Cannuck!
Molinaro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 02:26 AM   #224
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,541
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
The crux of the matter is Cohen is guilty of commiting a crime. There is no doubt about this since he agrees that he is guilty.
Originally Posted by Molinaro View Post
As long as one Republican supporter somewhere continues to say he is innocent you have no choice but to agree to having reasonable doubt about his guilt.
Not to mention the Dolt sycophants seem never to have heard of Corpus Delecti

For the few ignorant ones among us, it is a term in Western jurisprudence referring to the principle that a crime must be proved to have occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime.

Pleading guilty, and having that plea accepted by the court is a conviction. Cohen could not, indeed would not have been allowed to plead guilty to a crime if no crime had been committed.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 24th August 2018 at 02:28 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 03:32 AM   #225
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,725
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Yep very standard, the government offered leniency in regards to his (and his wife's) sentencing in exchange for not having to prove all of the elements of the charges by clear and convincing evidence, and to get a plea on charges that it will try to use to go after much bigger fish.

Consensus is cool.
Isn't this a cornerstone of the American legal system and why most criminal convictions are not the result of actual trials?

I mean where i come from people cannot "plead guilty" and get a lesser sentence (although they can, because of a recent new law, potentially help with the criminal investigation in return for a lesser sentence).

In at least one case the judges found someone innocent of DUI, even-though the accused admitted it, because the other evidence was of such poor quality.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 03:36 AM   #226
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,830
Trump Tweets


“Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.” Jeff, this is GREAT, what everyone wants, so look into all of the corruption on the “other side” including deleted Emails, Comey lies & leaks, Mueller conflicts, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr......"

"....FISA abuse, Christopher Steele & his phony and corrupt Dossier, the Clinton Foundation, illegal surveillance of Trump Campaign, Russian collusion by Dems - and so much more. Open up the papers & documents without redaction? Come on Jeff, you can do it, the country is waiting!"


Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 03:54 AM   #227
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,992
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Trump Tweets


“Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.” Jeff, this is GREAT, what everyone wants, so look into all of the corruption on the “other side” including deleted Emails, Comey lies & leaks, Mueller conflicts, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr......"

"....FISA abuse, Christopher Steele & his phony and corrupt Dossier, the Clinton Foundation, illegal surveillance of Trump Campaign, Russian collusion by Dems - and so much more. Open up the papers & documents without redaction? Come on Jeff, you can do it, the country is waiting!"


Trump needs to Twitter-shame Sessions into resigning, because he will never have the guts to fire him.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 05:13 AM   #228
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,614
Trump has said on Fox News that 'flipping', ie co-operating with prosecutors and testifying about their superior's wrongdoing isn't 'fair' and should 'almost' be illegal.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 05:20 AM   #229
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,992
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Trump has said on Fox News that 'flipping', ie co-operating with prosecutors and testifying about their superior's wrongdoing isn't 'fair' and should 'almost' be illegal.
That's literally what any higher-up in an Organized Crime organizations says.

But only only that. He also said:
Quote:
“I have seen it many times,” he continued, leaning in toward Earhardt. “I have had many friends involved in this stuff. "
The President just said that he had many friends who were investigated for being involved in Organized Crime.

Republicans must be so proud.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 05:24 AM   #230
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,614
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
That's literally what any higher-up in an Organized Crime organizations says.

But only only that. He also said:


The President just said that he had many friends who were investigated for being involved in Organized Crime.

Republicans must be so proud.
Indeed.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 05:45 AM   #231
Armitage72
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,262
His complaints about cooperating with the authorities is particularly funny considering that he offered to cooperate with the FBI in 1981, to the point of allowing undercover agents to work in a proposed Atlantic City casino to monitor organized crime activity.
Original memo.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 06:29 AM   #232
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,423
(I spotted a major mistake in my post, which would take more time to fix than I have right now. Apologies to all.)

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 24th August 2018 at 07:27 AM.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 06:30 AM   #233
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,454
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
His complaints about cooperating with the authorities is particularly funny considering that he offered to cooperate with the FBI in 1981, to the point of allowing undercover agents to work in a proposed Atlantic City casino to monitor organized crime activity.
Original memo.
Then as now, he was the victim of unscrupulous sorts of people.
__________________
"Don't tell me what cases you've won, tell me who you've beaten."

-M. Avenatti
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 06:54 AM   #234
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,979
Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that all of the cases in which the Mueller has indicted have been turned over to other offices, except one: Paul Manafort. Whereas the charges he was convicted of in his first trial were personal finance crimes, having nothing to do with Trump, his next trial will get into his acting as a foreign agent while working for the campaign.
__________________
"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 07:00 AM   #235
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,034
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Then as now, he was the victim of unscrupulous sorts of people.
I agree that it's fair to say that he is beholden to immoral people who have power over him, such as Vladimir Putin. That's what happens when you get in bed with mobsters.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 07:23 AM   #236
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,454
Remember to donate to heroes of the Resistance!

Andy McCabe: sat on evidence, repeatedly lied under oath, fired by FBI.
Peter Strzok: serial philanderer, used FBI equipment to hide affairs, fired by FBI;
Michael Cohen: 5 time convicted tax cheat.

All with go fund me accounts for the convenience of the Rubes.
__________________
"Don't tell me what cases you've won, tell me who you've beaten."

-M. Avenatti
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 07:28 AM   #237
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,224
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
That means the prior probability that a convicted felon (such as Michael Cohen) whose guilty plea was accepted by a judge is actually innocent is believed to be between 2 and 8 percent. As stated above by both jimbob and LSSBB, and remarked upon by a number of others, we do in fact have additional information in this particular case that has the effect of lowering that probability by quite a bit.
No, WD. Whether Cohen is guilty or innocent of making a campaign contribution by paying Stormy depends entirely upon whether paying Stormy is a campaign contribution. Statistics do not matter for that evaluation.

And again, because you're misrepresenting the debate, the issue here was whether or not judges reject false guilty pleas. It was claimed that the judge's acceptance of the plea was evidence that the plea was correct. But this is wrong. Judges do not generally reject guilty pleas even when the defendant is not guilty. That's all the link was needed for. Nobody has actually contested that.

Quote:
Ziggurat's argument here has been dishonest, accusing others of mistakes Ziggurat himself has introduced into the conversation, and accusing those who applied the statistics correctly of not understanding statistics when it is Ziggurat who is failing to apply the statistics correctly.
No, WD. You have every single thing in this post wrong, because you don't understand what's actually being argued.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 07:36 AM   #238
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,224
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
And you don't think that pleading guilty to something that isn't a crime would be something a judge might consider to be "extraordinary circumstances"?
God damn it, are you not paying any attention? We just went through this! No, it's not extraordinary circumstances. It's sadly quite ordinary. Judges very rarely reject guilty pleas from the innocent.

Quote:
How does that work, anyway? The judge has to find them guilty of something, some actual criminal statute, to accept a plea of guilty, whether the defendant is in fact guilty or not.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Cohen pleaded guilty to an illegal campaign contribution. That's an actual crime. But if the payment to Stormy wasn't a campaign contribution (and I do not believe it was, for reasons detailed already), then Cohen can't actually be guilty of it.

That isn't a complicated concept. How can you not grasp it? You can claim I'm wrong that it was a campaign contribution and therefore a crime, but that's what the argument has to rest on, not the fact that the judge accepted the plea. Star making an argument that actually makes sense.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 07:38 AM   #239
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 19,206
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, WD. Whether Cohen is guilty or innocent of making a campaign contribution by paying Stormy depends entirely upon whether paying Stormy is a campaign contribution.

It's a ******* campaign contribution!

It was made within 2 weeks of the election.

It was done for the purpose of influencing the election.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 07:41 AM   #240
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,454
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
God damn it, are you not paying any attention? We just went through this! No, it's not extraordinary circumstances. It's sadly quite ordinary. Judges very rarely reject guilty pleas from the innocent.


You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Cohen pleaded guilty to an illegal campaign contribution. That's an actual crime. But if the payment to Stormy wasn't a campaign contribution (and I do not believe it was, for reasons detailed already), then Cohen can't actually be guilty of it.

That isn't a complicated concept. How can you not grasp it? You can claim I'm wrong that it was a campaign contribution and therefore a crime, but that's what the argument has to rest on, not the fact that the judge accepted the plea. Star making an argument that actually makes sense.
To repeat folks:

"Cohen pleaded guilty to an illegal campaign contribution. That's an actual crime. But if the payment to Stormy wasn't a campaign contribution (and I do not believe it was, for reasons detailed already), then Cohen can't actually be guilty of it."

This has been explained ten ways to Sunday
__________________
"Don't tell me what cases you've won, tell me who you've beaten."

-M. Avenatti
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.