Here are five felonies Trump committed — if Cohen is telling the truth

[Subduction Zone]

How long did it take for the spin to start? Ever notice the Usual Suspects have no problem taking the word of liars when they're impugning someone they don't like, though?

No time at all. These same Republican representatives have no problem taking testimony from convicted Mafiosos. Yet they all had a cow about Cohen.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

On June 3, 2011, Edwards was indicted by a federal grand jury on six felony charges of violating multiple federal campaign contribution laws to cover up an extramarital affair to which he admitted, following his 2008 campaign.

Edwards was found not guilty on one count, and the judge declared a mistrial on the remaining five charges, as the jury was unable to come to an agreement.

The Justice Department dropped the remaining charges and did not attempt to retry Edwards. Though it did not result in a criminal conviction, the revelation that Edwards had an extramarital affair and fathered a child while his wife, Elizabeth, was dying of cancer gravely damaged his public image and ended his career ………. wiki

Ah yes, remember the good old days when gross breaches of common decency were considered bad in politics?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No time at all. These same Republican representatives have no problem taking testimony from convicted Mafiosos. Yet they all had a cow about Cohen.

Hypocrisy should be a crime.

 

[sooda]

Hypocrisy should be a crime.

New thread

Cohen reveals Trump's entire presidency as a fraud

Trump thinks Americans are suckers

 

[Curious George]

4. Edward's case is a precedent for dismissal.

This demonstrates a lack of understanding of what case law precedent is and how it functions.

 

[sooda]

This demonstrates a lack of understanding of what case law precedent is and how it functions.

With Edwards... he was found guilty on one count .. there was a hung jury on the other 5 counts so the judge declared a mistrial.

 

[Shad]

Nope, your misunderstanding of the case does not mean that is the case. Do you know why Edward's got off?

Wrong. Charges were dropped after a mistrial. You have mistaken Edwards testimony as evidence of innocence.

 

[sooda]

Wrong. Charges were dropped after a mistrial. You have mistaken Edwards testimony as evidence of innocence.

No.. The charges weren't dropped. The judge declared a mistrial and they didn't try him again.

 

[Shad]

This demonstrates a lack of understanding of what case law precedent is and how it functions.

Nope. You are injecting context I did not state. I never said a legal precedent. I was pointing out the money Edwards used wasn't considered illegal and the DoJ never tried another trial. Also read the jury statement in which they thought he was guilty but the state couldn't prove knowledge of the payment. Trump can deny knowledge and get off like Edwards.

 

[Curious George]

With Edwards... he was found guilty on one count .. there was a hung jury on the other 5 counts so the judge declared a mistrial.

Yet none of that matters.

It is true that prior court decisions provide case law precedent, however cases turn on facts. Whatever the case with Edwards no rules of law were established. Moreover Binding precedent only comes from higher courts. What happens in your case at the trial level is not binding precedent for my case at the trial level.

Not sure if I am making myself clear here. But the law, or even how we interpret the law, did not change because of Edwards case.

 

[Curious George]

Nope. You are injecting context I did not state. I never said a legal precedent. I was pointing out the money Edwards used wasn't considered illegal and the DoJ never tried another trial. Also read the jury statement in which they thought he was guilty but the state couldn't prove knowledge. Trump can deny knowledge and get off like Edwards.

You said it was precedent for a dismissal. That is wrong on every level.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

New thread

Cohen reveals Trump's entire presidency as a fraud

Trump thinks Americans are suckers

Well, a significant number voted for him. Some even still support him. I'd say if Trump thinks Americans are suckers, for practical purposes he's been proven right.

 

[Shad]

You said it was precedent for a dismissal. That is wrong on every level.

Yes. Now read my comment and apply it to what I said. Not illegal conduct, charges dropped, belief in guilt but not evidence of knowledge. You know defense can file for dismissal right?

 

[Shad]

Neither is @Shad . During his campaign Edward's made a secret payment to his pregnant mistress. He was able to argue that since she was pregnant he would have paid her anyway. Does anyone think that Trump can claim he would have paid the bribes anyway?

Trump denied the payments. You forget that. Edward acknowledge the payment. See the difference?

 

[sooda]

Yet none of that matters.

It is true that prior court decisions provide case law precedent, however cases turn on facts. Whatever the case with Edwards no rules of law were established. Moreover Binding precedent only comes from higher courts. What happens in your case at the trial level is not binding precedent for my case at the trial level.

Not sure if I am making myself clear here. But the law, or even how we interpret the law, did not change because of Edwards case.

I know that.. but I need to clear up a mistake. Edwards was found NOT guilty on one count and since the jury couldn't come to a verdict on the 5 other counts, the judge declared a mistrial.

Campaign finance "crimes" are pretty toothless. I wonder when the public will wise up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trump denied the payments. You forget that. Edward acknowledge the payment. See the difference?

Right, Trump lied. Edwards told the truth. That only makes it worse for Trump. And it appears that you still do not understand why he cannot use the same excuse that Edwards used.

 

[Curious George]

Yes. Now read my comment and apply it to what I said. Not illegal conduct, charges dropped, belief in guilt but not evidence of knowledge. You know defense can file for dismissal right?

The defense would likely be incompetent if they did not file for a dismissal. But, the Edwards case will not be cited or used in that filing. Nor, if there is a trial, would a dismissal likely be granted.

 

[sooda]

Well, a significant number voted for him. Some even still support him. I'd say if Trump thinks Americans are suckers, for practical purposes he's been proven right.

Sadly ... YES.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. Now read my comment and apply it to what I said. Not illegal conduct, charges dropped, belief in guilt but not evidence of knowledge. You know defense can file for dismissal right?

Of course they can. And a judge can have a good laugh at their expense.

 

[Curious George]

I know that

I am glad. It seems there is misunderstanding regarding how Edwards relates. The simplest answer is that it does not relate.