Cohen Sentenced to Three Years

[chaunce54]

um yeah, intent is an element of the felony, you idiot.

good luck proving intent? its up to the jury to decide whether or not trump intended to influence the election. thats it. its simple. the DA will present evidence and argue trump intended to influence the election with these payments, and trump will argue otherwise. the jury will decide for themselves whether or not they think trump intended to do so or not, based on the evidence presented.

youre kinda slow

All he would have to say is "I didn't want my wife to find out". But you're so quick that you've already convicted him based on absolutely nothing but whether or not a jury is going to read his mind and determine intent.

[EasTexan]

So uninformed.

You realize everything people think Trump is, was actually done by Obama?

He actually jailed journalists. He actually spied on Congress. He actually spied on our foreign allies. He actually had his AG (Holder) squash an investigation into the Executive branch.

All the ridiculous things that liberals thought Trump would do (and hasn't) are things Obama actually did.

You people are a joke.

I've never seen so much cope and delusion.

[Peter Ruby]

Is this it? Is Blumphf finally done?

C’mon guys, I’m running out of patience. I want my Christmas present NOW!!!!

[sandaltan]

All he would have to say is "I didn't want my wife to find out". But you're so quick that you've already convicted him based on absolutely nothing but whether or not a jury is going to read his mind and determine intent.

yeah he could say that, and who knows, maybe the jury would believe him

but then again maybe not

its up to the jury to decide whether or not trump intended to influence the election with these payments. trump can claim he didnt intend to do it all he wants. the jury will decide if they believe him. i dont know why this is so hard for you to grasp

[dabbmw2002]

its all about intent dude. was trump's intent, in any way, regardless of whether or not he also intended to protect his brand/business, to influence the election?

if so thats a felony

trump will argue he didnt intend to influence the election. the da will argue that he did. the jury will decide who to believe

Go look up the campaign finance law, intent has nothing to do with

[ghostfacedup]

Any new evidence? Collusion? Nah? kthxbye.

[Dan_S]

I've never seen so much cope and delusion.

Hurr durr, cope and delusion.

You all never actually go through the trouble of giving a counter point. Ever.

The problem is, if you were actually an informed citizen, you'd realize that everything I said is a true statement about Obama.

But you don't care. It's a lot easier to just say, "Oh man, look at this conspiracy theorist. What an idiot!"

[Cleveland33]

Go look up the campaign finance law, intent has nothing to do with

Seriously - if you buy a private plane with campaign funds and say it is solely to travel around for the campaign - and it is still going to be deemed a personal expense.

If it has any value outside of the campaign it is a personal expense. An NDA about cheating on his wife most certainly has personal value outside of the campaign.

[Procta]

the best part was the Avenatti presser after sentencing ...straight lulz

[EasTexan]

Hurr durr, cope and delusion.

You all never actually go through the trouble of giving a counter point. Ever.

The problem is, if you were actually an informed citizen, you'd realize that everything I said is a true statement about Obama.

But you don't care. It's a lot easier to just say, "Oh man, look at this conspiracy theorist. What an idiot!"

I'm not woke enough, sorry brah.

[sandaltan]

Go look up the campaign finance law, intent has nothing to do with

just saying it doesnt make it true.

its like gravity - its there whether or not you believe in it.

3. Campaign Financing Crimes
The federal campaign financing laws are embodied within
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), 52 U.S.C.
§§ 30101–30146, as amended (most significantly in 1974, 1976,
1979, and 2002).
As amended, FECA applies to virtually all financial
transactions that impact upon, directly or indirectly, the election
of candidates for federal office, that is, candidates for President
or Vice President or for the United States Senate or House of
Representatives. FECA reaches a wide range of communications
aimed at influencing the public with respect to issues that are
closelyidentified with federal candidates, referred to in the law
as “electioneering communications.”
FECA contains its own criminal sanctions, which
provide that, to be a crime, a FECA violation must have been
committed knowingly and willfully (this is intent) and, except for campaign
misrepresentations and certain coerced contributions, must have
involved at least $2,000 in a calendar year. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d).
FECA crimes aggregating $25,000 or more are five-year felonies,
and those that involve illegal conduit contributions and
aggregate over $10,000 are two-year felonies. 5 2 U.S.C.
§ 30109(d)(1)(A), (D). Moreover, all criminal violations of FECA
are subject to U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 2C1.8, that the
United States Sentencing Commission promulgated in response to
a specific Congressional directive.
FECA violations that either: (1) do not present knowing
and willful violations, or (2) involve sums below the statutory
minimums for criminal prosecution, are handled non-criminally
by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) under the statute’s
civil enforcement provisions. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a).
5
Finally, FECA violations that result in false information
being provided to the FEC may present violations of 18 U.S.C.
§ 371 (conspiracy to disrupt and impede a federal agency), 18
U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements within the jurisdiction of a federal
agency), 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (obstruction of agency proceedings), or
18 U.S.C. § 1519 (creation of false records in relation to or
contemplation of federal matters).

its all in cohen's sentencing memo (page 11)

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...cing-memo.html

[sandaltan]

Seriously - if you buy a private plane with campaign funds and say it is solely to travel around for the campaign - and it is still going to be deemed a personal expense.

If it has any value outside of the campaign it is a personal expense. An NDA about cheating on his wife most certainly has personal value outside of the campaign.

do you seriously think that having alternative value in addition to influencing the election will absolve you of the crime?

brb its not murder because i ALSO did it to collect the life insurance monies!!! it wasnt JUST the anger and hatred! cant convict bro!

[Retoaded]

just saying it doesnt make it true.

its like gravity - its there whether or not you believe in it.

3. Campaign Financing Crimes
The federal campaign financing laws are embodied within
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), 52 U.S.C.
§§ 30101–30146, as amended (most significantly in 1974, 1976,
1979, and 2002).
As amended, FECA applies to virtually all financial
transactions that impact upon, directly or indirectly, the election
of candidates for federal office, that is, candidates for President
or Vice President or for the United States Senate or House of
Representatives. FECA reaches a wide range of communications
aimed at influencing the public with respect to issues that are
closelyidentified with federal candidates, referred to in the law
as “electioneering communications.”
FECA contains its own criminal sanctions, which
provide that, to be a crime, a FECA violation must have been
committed knowingly and willfully (this is intent) and, except for campaign
misrepresentations and certain coerced contributions, must have
involved at least $2,000 in a calendar year. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d).
FECA crimes aggregating $25,000 or more are five-year felonies,
and those that involve illegal conduit contributions and
aggregate over $10,000 are two-year felonies. 5 2 U.S.C.
§ 30109(d)(1)(A), (D). Moreover, all criminal violations of FECA
are subject to U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 2C1.8, that the
United States Sentencing Commission promulgated in response to
a specific Congressional directive.
FECA violations that either: (1) do not present knowing
and willful violations, or (2) involve sums below the statutory
minimums for criminal prosecution, are handled non-criminally
by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) under the statute’s
civil enforcement provisions. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a).
5
Finally, FECA violations that result in false information
being provided to the FEC may present violations of 18 U.S.C.
§ 371 (conspiracy to disrupt and impede a federal agency), 18
U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements within the jurisdiction of a federal
agency), 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (obstruction of agency proceedings), or
18 U.S.C. § 1519 (creation of false records in relation to or
contemplation of federal matters).

You think Trump the idiot thought he was committing an FEC violation willingly in paying off a whore? Remember he is too stupid to tie his shoelaces and has the mind of a child. That is going to be tough to prove he knew he was committing an FEC violation.

[dabbmw2002]

do you seriously think that having alternative value in addition to influencing the election will absolve you of the crime?

brb its not murder because i ALSO did it to collect the life insurance monies!!! it wasnt JUST the anger and hatred! cant convict bro!

That comparison is retarded.

[Cleveland33]

That comparison is retarded.

that dude is a lawyer? Comparing campaign finance laws to criminal charges?

[sandaltan]

You think Trump the idiot thought he was committing an FEC violation willingly in paying off a whore? Remember he is too stupid to tie his shoelaces and has the mind of a child. That is going to be tough to prove he knew he was committing an FEC violation.

ignorance of the law is not a defense dude

brb i didnt know murder was illegal! cant convict bro!

you're not reading the statute correctly. its not knowledge of the law, it's knowledge of the act, as in he knew/intended to influence the election, not that he was knowingly committing a crime

[SillieBazzillie]

btw...the campaign finance violation is the only one we currently know about. By the tenor of the sentencing letters, there are more...

Like working with Cohen on his lying testimony to Congress for example.

[sandaltan]

that dude is a lawyer? Comparing campaign finance laws to criminal charges?

are you slow? the campaign finance charge IS a crime

jesus

dont go to law school

and maybe stop lying about being a lawyer

[dabbmw2002]

ignorance of a crime is not a defense dude

brb i didnt know murder was illegal! cant convict bro!

According to James Comey it is, otherwise Hillary wouldn't have walked.

But wait, according to what you just posted there has to be an intention to break the law.... " knowingly and willingly".....lol

[sandaltan]

That comparison is retarded.

brb its not a campaign violation because i ALSO did it to help my brand and keep my wife from finding out!!! it wasnt JUST the election influence! cant convict bro!

that better for you?

[SillieBazzillie]

And weird how they're not calling it a crime when Edwards was INDICTED on campaign finance charges. INDICTED like no one from the ultra corrupt Obama admin has.

[mbland02]

yeah he could say that, and who knows, maybe the jury would believe him

but then again maybe not

its up to the jury to decide whether or not trump intended to influence the election with these payments. trump can claim he didnt intend to do it all he wants. the jury will decide if they believe him. i dont know why this is so hard for you to grasp

The problem with Trump coming out and saying "I didn't want my wife to find out" would mean he confirms the affair actually did happen. To this date I don't think he has acknowledged the affair as happening.

[dabbmw2002]

brb its not a campaign violation because i ALSO did it to help my brand and keep my wife from finding out!!! it wasnt JUST the election influence! cant convict bro!

that better for you?

Yeah, you finally understand. If you're actually a lawyer Jesus H Christ.....

[sandaltan]

According to James Comey it is, otherwise Hillary wouldn't have walked.

But wait, according to what you just posted there has to be an intention to break the law.... " knowingly and willingly".....lol

youre making a fool of yourself. thats not what the statute says, and you're either too slow to get it or youre intentionally ignoring it

there has to be an intent to influence the election, not an intent to break the law, you idiot

brb i didnt intend to break the law when i murdered!

but did you intend to kill her?

absolutely!

dumbass

[Retoaded]

And weird how they're not calling it a crime when Edwards was INDICTED on campaign finance charges. INDICTED like no one from the ultra corrupt Obama admin has.

Its not weird. He was found innocent by a jury and the DOJ dropped the case. That is by definition not a crime.

I think the closer parallel is Clinton in 1996 when people from his circle got indicted but nothing ever happened to slick willy. The Clinton's have a long line of indicted friends (and suicides, but that is another story).

[sandaltan]

Yeah, you finally understand. If you're actually a lawyer Jesus H Christ.....

i was being sarcastic and i think you might be legally retarded

can i speak with your aide?

[Cleveland33]

According to James Comey it is, otherwise Hillary wouldn't have walked.

But wait, according to what you just posted there has to be an intention to break the law.... " knowingly and willingly".....lol

he's changing the story again.

Bottom line - straight from the FEC - if there is personal value to the asset it is not a campaign expense - regardless if it is used for the campaign or not.

[Cleveland33]

Yeah, you finally understand. If you're actually a lawyer Jesus H Christ.....

That is literally what the FEC says

[sandaltan]

he's changing the story again.

Bottom line - straight from the FEC - if there is personal value to the asset it is not a campaign expense - regardless if it is used for the campaign or not.

LOL ok bro, good luck to trump with this defense, i'm sure it will work flawlessly

[sandaltan]

That is literally what the FEC says

no, thats just literally how your brain is interpreting it. this is something taught on day 1 of criminal law - how to read statutes, and what intent means

intent literally means intent to do the actions that = crime

intent does not mean intent to commit a crime, which would mean that literally every criminal could just say "i didnt know about the law, or i didnt know action X was a crime"

thats now how it works

did you intend to break into the house and steal that tv?

yes

did you intend to commit burglary, or know breaking into a house and stealing a tv was a crime?

nope! i did not know that was a crime!

too bad

it's really not that hard to understand