Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3238

  • Anastasis

    2088

  • David Dennison

    1559

  • triplehorn

    1384

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Goredho
Goredho

Just to make sure I have the alternative facts straight...  Our government -- but I'm guessing only the deep state part of it --- is now guilty of torturing a poor, naive Russian exchange student who

Incredulity
Incredulity

liberals suddenly being terrified of Russia and manic for election integrity is just pure comedy gold.

Chooky
Chooky

I don't believe for a moment that any of this is entertaining to you.  I think it gives you a bit of anxiety knowing that your best weapon against a group who you despise is a bumbling fraud as a busi

Posted Images

Longhorn94

Longhorn94 2501

Posted
Posted

Trump An 'Unindicted Co-Conspirator'? Not To Ex-Prosecutors

Share us on:    By Jody Godoy

Law360 (August 22, 2018, 9:12 PM EDT) -- A day after Michael Cohen pled guilty to campaign finance violations and, under oath, implicated President Donald Trump in his crimes, several Democratic senators called Trump an "unindicted co-conspirator," a term that former prosecutors say does not fit the highly watched case.

Trump's longtime lawyer pled guilty to two counts of making illegal campaign contributions in the form of six-figure payments to keep two women whom Trump had had affairs with from taking their stories public ahead of the election.

Shortly after Cohen set foot in court, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., himself a former U.S. attorney, tweeted that Cohen's plea and the mention of Trump were a "legal & political bombshell."

‏"There is no other reading: President Trump is an unindicted criminal co-conspirator," Blumenthal said.

By late the next day, the phrase had caught on among Blumenthal's fellow Democratic senators. They argued that Trump, being implicated in a crime, should not be allowed to pick a U.S. Supreme Court justice who could later make rulings affecting hypothetical charges against him.
 

A legal & political bombshell. The Michael Cohen plea agreement names a “candidate for federal office” who directed him to violate campaign finance law. There is no other reading: President Trump is an unindicted criminal co-conspirator.

 
 

Regardless of Cohen's surprise in court, the "unindicted co-conspirator" label isn't accurate in this case, former prosecutors with the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office told Law360 on Wednesday.

Jennifer Rodgers, executive director of the Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity at Columbia Law School, said that technically Trump is not an unindicted co-conspirator because Cohen was not charged with a conspiracy.

In addition, the U.S. Attorney's Office had not described any actions by Trump in the charges against Cohen. Instead, Trump was referred to as an unnamed presidential candidate by way of describing Cohen's crime, Rodgers noted.

"It's a term that doesn't quite fit, but I understand its usage because there is no other better term," Rodgers said.

What should a person be called who is implicated in a crime during a plea hearing? There isn't really a term for that, she said.

"He's in the soup, right? He's someone who has been implicated as having committed a crime, the same crime Cohen pled guilty to," Rodgers said.

Some senators hedged. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., called Trump "the equivalent" of an unindicted co-conspirator, while Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in a speech and Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., in a tweet used the term but noted that it was Cohen who had implicated his ex-boss.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., spilled a few more characters to say Trump had been "implicated in crimes in federal court."

Former Manhattan federal prosecutor Dan Goldman said the phrase "unindicted co-conspirator" is something of a term of art that is most relevant to prosecutors when they want to introduce statements in court — say, from the friend of a conspirator — that would otherwise be banned as hearsay.

But prosecutors need not use the label to prove someone was, in fact, an uncharged co-conspirator, Goldman said. Since Cohen isn't going to trial, that usage doesn't apply.

Rodgers said that referring to someone as an unindicted co-conspirator can also serve as a shot across their bow, an indication that the office may be coming for them next. That motivation likely played no part one way or the other here, she said.

In a sense, Cohen did what prosecutors could not. Since the U.S. Department of Justice's legal counsel has advised against the practice of charging a sitting president, for Manhattan prosecutors to suggest the DOJ views the president as a criminal actor would have been problematic.

But it's unclear that Trump would have been charged even without that ban, Goldman said.

Cohen's testimony at his plea hearing along with the recording he leaked last month of a conversation with Trump about the payment to Playboy model Karen McDougal may have been enough for a grand jury to find probable cause to charge, he said. But Goldman doubted prosecutors would file a case on that evidence alone.

"I think that a seasoned prosecutor would not feel comfortable that that is clearly proof beyond a reasonable doubt," Goldman said.

At any rate, Cohen pointing the finger at Trump during his plea hearing was likely not a surprise to prosecutors, said Harry Sandick, a partner at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.

In complex cases, there is often an exchange ahead of time between prosecutors and defense attorneys over the allocution, that is, the facts the person will attest to as a part of their plea.

"In a case of this magnitude, my assumption is that the defense counsel and the government discussed the specific wording of the allocution before going into court," Sandick said.

Members of Trump's campaign, executives at Trump Organization and an editor and the publisher of the National Enquirer all played roles in the payments to McDougal and porn star Stormy Daniels, according to anonymized references in the criminal information.

Former prosecutors had mixed thoughts on whether the unindicted co-conspirator label would apply to others included pseudo-anonymously in the charging document.

Rodgers said no. Goldman thought it might apply to the members of the campaign. Sandick noted that not using the term allowed the prosecutor's office to avoid unnecessary headaches.

Sandick pointed out that there are times when not all the players in a scheme know enough about what's going on to be charged. Trump campaign members may have "potential liability," but that would depend on facts that simply aren't included in Cohen's charges, Sandick said.

"By not charging it as a conspiracy, the government has not taken a position on their guilt or nonguilt," Sandick said.

Asked by Law360 on Wednesday whether Blumenthal stood by his use of the term, Communications Director Maria McElwain stuck with it, saying that the information and Cohen's allocution indicated Trump had been "involved in criminal conduct."

"Either way you slice it, Mr. Cohen says he committed crimes with and at the direction of President Trump — that makes the president an unindicted co-conspirator," McElwain said.

--Editing by Brian Baresch and Alanna Weissman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shnsajax

shnsajax 3607

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That’s some high level semantics.

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Cohen say in open court Trump helped, no, directed him to commit crimes he pled guilty to.

And we know Trump and Cohen worked their hardest to cover it up.

If unindicted co-conspirator doesn’t fit, what does? 

 

Maybe its a seal indictment? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 18135

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Yeah.  That article is dumb.  He’s not an unindicted co-conspirator because that is a term of art.  But he is a co-conspirator.  And he is unindicted.  Fascinating. 

Exactly this.  It's a short-hand the general public can use to know that the shit is on Trump shoes, not just Cohen's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted (edited)

The term "unindicted co-conspirator" itself is some high level legal semantics.

Using the term according to it's dictionary definition, it's anyone who may be guilty of a conspiracy crime that has yet to be indicted.  Which of course includes Trump.

The dictionary definition is not how it is typically used.  https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-11000-grand-jury#9-11.130

Also, oddly enough, the US Attorneys Manual specifically counsels against identifying uncharged individuals in pleas and at sentencing.https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-16000-pleas-federal-rule-criminal-procedure-11#9-16.500

https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution#9-27.760

 

In this context, I prefer "criminal mastermind" or "arch-criminal."

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

“If you're innocent, why are you taking the 5th?”

Shrewd move by Mueller offering to accept some written responses from Trump.  It lays bare how scared shitless and guilty he is. 

Mueller has to be doing the math in his head. I mean, he's not a young man, and he knows what the political landscape is. Why waste several months with an indictment to get DOTUS to cop to crimes that he already admitted to Lester Holt and then to the Russians in the Oval Office?

Mueller will figure he has to wrap this shit up eventually so he can do a little fishing and drink a few beers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RayDog

RayDog 682

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, retread said:

Mueller has to be doing the math in his head. I mean, he's not a young man, and he knows what the political landscape is. Why waste several months with an indictment to get DOTUS to cop to crimes that he already admitted to Lester Holt and then to the Russians in the Oval Office?

Mueller will figure he has to wrap this shit up eventually so he can do a little fishing and drink a few beers.

If only Trump would stop breaking the law long enough for Mueller to write his report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I can’t tell you how awesome the 2nd Manafort trial is going to be because I’m still skeptical it’s going to happen.

Seriously, the things that will come out of that trial will be the closest thing we are going to get to a Mueller report before the midterms.

Mmmm it might.  If the judge is anywhere near as controlling as Ellis, I imagine references to Trump will be highly circumscribed, as well as references to any other crimes not directly in issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, retread said:

Mueller has to be doing the math in his head. I mean, he's not a young man, and he knows what the political landscape is. Why waste several months with an indictment to get DOTUS to cop to crimes that he already admitted to Lester Holt and then to the Russians in the Oval Office?

Mueller will figure he has to wrap this shit up eventually so he can do a little fishing and drink a few beers.

Y'all need to get over the Holt interview as judicial(ish) proof of anything.  It's not admissible in court except to the extent Trump contradicts himself.  Except Trump contradicts himself about 40 bazillion times right there in the interview.  For every inculpatory statement, there is an exculpatory one.  He says it's black, then white, then orange, then tutti frutti.

 

If this were a deposition transcript, it would be a complete shit show.  It is almost absolutely worthless as proof of anything other than Trump's case of incipient verbal diarrhea.  Fucking word salad.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/transcript-donald-trump-nbc-news/index.html

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15698

Posted
Posted
Y'all need to get over the Holt interview as judicial(ish) proof of anything.  It's not admissible in court except to the extent Trump contradicts himself.  Except Trump contradicts himself about 40 bazillion times right there in the interview.  For every inculpatory statement, there is an exculpatory one.  He says it's black, then white, then orange, then tutti frutti.
 
If this were a deposition transcript, it would be a complete shit show.  It is almost absolutely worthless as proof of anything other than Trump's case of incipient verbal diarrhea.  Fucking word salad.
 
https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/transcript-donald-trump-nbc-news/index.html

I’m sorry, but in what court is an admission of a party-opponent not admissible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90650

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Bevo VIII said:


Me thinks the whole party is complicit in some form. I would say not all individuals though.

All you need is a small handful with ties to Russia, and everybody else either covers for them, or if it gets out, the  GOP as a whole goes down hard in the midterms and in 2020. 

Just as a small base of Trumpkins can hold Rs hostage in the primaries, so to can a small group of corrupt Rs force everybody else to cover for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:


I’m sorry, but in what court is an admission of a party-opponent not admissible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well and as an impeachment document.  Still, the totality of the transcript is that he admitted black, white, orange and tutti frutti as well. It's incredibly easy to back away from. 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Why would the fact that he sounds like an imbecile in the video make the interview inadmissible? 

It doesn't make it inadmissible.  But within the context of all the blather in that interview, he can "clarify" and say just about anything without being terribly constrained by the "testimony."  The great admission is that he "made up his mind" before the Rosenstein memo.  He can simply say he thought Comey was an asshole that wouldn't pledge loyalty, or either or both or something else.  He says repeatedly that he wants the investigation to continue and to hurry up.  He says all kinds of shit.  He isn't fenced in by it like a good deposition.

In any context in which it is used against him, he can show/use the rest of it to demonstrate that he misspoke, or it doesn't mean what it looks like, or this, that or the other thing.

That interview does not mean an automatic conviction in a criminal proceeding.  It's of some use, but it doesn't make anything a slam dunk.  Even in a civil case with a preponderance burden, I don't think that would be the centerpiece of the case.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKJ

SKJ 1320

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The term "unindicted co-conspirator" itself is some high level legal semantics.

Using the term according to it's dictionary definition, it's anyone who may be guilty of a conspiracy crime that has yet to be indicted.  Which of course includes Trump.

The dictionary definition is not how it is typically used.  https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-11000-grand-jury#9-11.130

Also, oddly enough, the US Attorneys Manual specifically counsels against identifying uncharged individuals in pleas and at sentencing.https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-16000-pleas-federal-rule-criminal-procedure-11#9-16.500

https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution#9-27.760

 

In this context, I prefer "criminal mastermind" or "arch-criminal."

 

In the feds they call it the "ringleader"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzrock

Buzzrock 15136

Posted
Posted

Thanks Longhorn94 for posting that article. I was interested in the technicalities because the local legal analyst on the radio said that the term UC doesn’t apply when there is a plea deal. There has to be a trial. Makes sense I guess because I could go plead guilty to a crime and say Hugo was involved. That doesn’t make him a UC because there was never a trial, nothing was proven.

I hadn’t heard that anywhere else and was wondering if that article went there. It didn’t.

But yeah: looks like a duck, walks like a duck...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Thanks Longhorn94 for posting that article. I was interested in the technicalities because the local legal analyst on the radio said that the term UC doesn’t apply when there is a plea deal. There has to be a trial. Makes sense I guess because I could go plead guilty to a crime and say Hugo was involved. That doesn’t make him a UC because there was never a trial, nothing was proven.

I hadn’t heard that anywhere else and was wondering if that article went there. It didn’t.

But yeah: looks like a duck, walks like a duck...

To clarify, an unindicted co-conspirator is a tactic.  The government identifies a person in the indictment as a co-conspirator (actually it doesn't have to be in the indictment, but usually is), and upon threshhold proof of conspiracy (agreement to commit an unlawful act and an overt act toward doing so), statements made by the unindicted co-conspirator become non-hearsay and thus admissible.  So, in that sense there needs to be a trial.  But, there can be an unindicted co-conspirator identified in an indicment (Person 1, or even persons known and unknown), and that person probably qualifies as an UC.

Otherwise, they're just collateral damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

I for one really appreciate twicehorns input/knowledge on these things.  Always matter of fact and no BS. Don’t always agree, but look forward to his posts. 

Thanks.  Just trying to pass on some legal knowledge/perspective.  And I get it wrong sometimes (always have to review the hearsay rules).

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pescado_Rojo

Pescado_Rojo 19587

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

I for one really appreciate twicehorns input/knowledge on these things.  Always matter of fact and no BS. Don’t always agree, but look forward to his posts. 

I read his stuff like I'm reading a law professor. He gets grief sometimes from people that think he's taking a side on an issue, but I read it as if he's working through a problem he was given. Like "what would you do/ how would you argue this point if a client brought this to you?" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted

Another Russian hacker, Andrei Tiurin, arrested overseas in Georgia and extradited to US today.  He'll appear in SDNY this afternoon:

“his participation in a massive computer hacking campaign targeting U.S. financial institutions, brokerage firms, financial news publishers, and other American companies”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shnsajax

shnsajax 3607

Posted
Posted (edited)

From Papa's lawyer

Quote

 

Papadopoulos' defense attorney, Thomas Breen, pointed fingers at President Donald Trump.
"The President of the United States hindered this investigation more than George Papadopoulos ever did," Breen said.

 

Edited by shnsajax
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...