Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

Cairn Horn88

By Cairn Horn88
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Imagine your basis of hating Trump is because of mean tweets, January 6 and “hush money” trial all because liberal media is crooked. Fuck right off. This is my last post in this forum  dumb fucki

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

When you're a court, you just grab their asset, and they let you do it!

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Bye bitch. Enjoy living in literal hell if your man Biden is re elected

Posted Images

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31542

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

It honestly depends. If we were working together in a surgery then absolutely it should be made known to the jury. You know, the “finders of fact”.  Trump signed a fucking check made payable to cohen. For the exact amount that he plead guilty for improper payments to trumps campaign. They are intimately connected and should have been tried together (who was the “unindicted coconspirator” again?)

 

Don’t piss down my leg and tell me it’s raining

So yeah, it depends.  

Also, "unindicted co-conspirator" is a gross overstatement of what the Cohen information avers. That's a fabrication of the internet. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1088966/download

Let me show you what, exactly, that "indictment" says about Individual-1, Donald J. Trump:

  • COHEN held the title of "Executive Vice President" and "Special Counsel" to the owner of the Company ("Individual-1").
  • In or about January 2017, COHEN left the Company and began holding himself out as the "personal attorney" to Individual-1, who at that point had become the President of the United States. 
  • The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, Title 52, United States Code, Section 3 0101, et seq. , (the •Election Act"), regulates the influence of money on politics. At all times relevant to the Information, the Election Act set forth the following limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements, which were applicable to MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, Individual-1, and his campaign:
  • On or about June 16, 2015, Individual-1 began his presidential campaign.
  • In or about August 2015, the Chairman and Chief Executive of Corporation-1 ( "Chairman-1"), in coordination with MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, and one or more members of the campaign, offered to help deal with negative stories about Individual-l's relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided.
  • First, in or about June 2016, a model and actress ( "Woman-1") began attempting to sell her story of her alleged extramarital affair with Individual-1 that had taken place in 2006 and 2007,

That "indictment" doesn't even begin to allege a crime against Individual-1.  Much less that he was part of a conspiracy.  So, to use our med mal analogy, it shows that Sawbonz consulted in some vague respect with the tortfeasor, not that he was in the OR wielding instruments and severing nerves and vessels left and right.

In the very best case for the good guys, that information could conceivably be used to establish the facts that it alleges, above.  

This is a grand example of people inflating things they've seen on the internet into something they're not.

 

 

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27595

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So yeah, it depends.  

Also, "unindicted co-conspirator" is a gross overstatement of what the Cohen information avers. That's a fabrication of the internet. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1088966/download

Let me show you what, exactly, that "indictment" says about Individual-1, Donald J. Trump:

  • COHEN held the title of "Executive Vice President" and "Special Counsel" to the owner of the Company ("Individual-1").
  • In or about January 2017, COHEN left the Company and began holding himself out as the "personal attorney" to Individual-1, who at that point had become the President of the United States. 
  • The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, Title 52, United States Code, Section 3 0101, et seq. , (the •Election Act"), regulates the influence of money on politics. At all times relevant to the Information, the Election Act set forth the following limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements, which were applicable to MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, Individual-1, and his campaign:
  • On or about June 16, 2015, Individual-1 began his presidential campaign.
  • In or about August 2015, the Chairman and Chief Executive of Corporation-1 ( "Chairman-1"), in coordination with MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, and one or more members of the campaign, offered to help deal with negative stories about Individual-l's relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided.
  • First, in or about June 2016, a model and actress ( "Woman-1") began attempting to sell her story of her alleged extramarital affair with Individual-1 that had taken place in 2006 and 2007,

That "indictment" doesn't even begin to allege a crime against Individual-1.  Much less that he was part of a conspiracy.  

This is a grand example of people inflating things they've seen on the internet into something they're not.

 

 

 

Lol you think that indictment doesn’t implicate Trump? But for individual 1 Cohen could not have committed his crimes. Individual 1 then reimbursed him for those crimes. It’s farcical 
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31542

Posted
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Lol you think that indictment doesn’t implicate Trump? But for individual 1 Cohen could not have committed his crimes. Individual 1 then reimbursed him for those crimes. It’s farcical 
 

 

Give it up.  I don't have to "think" anything because I can read.

The "indictment" doesn't even allege that Individual-1 reimbursed Cohen.

ETA:  I'm not doing this particularly to pick at you.  The Cohen "indictment" and plea has been severely oversold as a significant document against Trump, and it just is not, legally or any other way.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31542

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

So let me get this straight, we have a doctor arguing about how trials work, or should work, with an actual litigator?

Seems like a great use of energy.

I can't really call myself a litigator.  I have litigated enough to know how these things work.

A conviction of an associate is rarely if ever admissible to prove the guilt of anyone but the associate.  If you want to use the associate's guilt to prove the guilt of the defendant, you put em on the stand and get them to testify.  And then the conviction may be used to hurt the credibility of the associate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27595

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

So let me get this straight, we have a doctor arguing about how trials work, or should work, with an actual litigator?

Seems like a great use of energy.

I’m sure he knows exactly how trials work. That’s the problem and I think we should all be concerned about it. It’s a major reason we are where we are. And pointing out how much of it is absolute bullshit is worthwhile IMO

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31542

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

I’m sure he knows exactly how trials work. That’s the problem and I think we should all be concerned about it. It’s a major reason we are where we are. And pointing out how much of it is absolute bullshit is worthwhile IMO

These types of rules of evidence benefit everyone.  There's problems with the system, but this ain't one of them.

There's no guilt by association in America.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pyrohornIII

pyrohornIII 4823

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

Have they unsealed the indictment yet? Are we even sure this is all about Stormy Daniels stuff?  Or is that just Trump trying to plant the seed that it’s only about paying a porn star so he can win the PR battle, and then a compliant (right wing) and/or dumb sensationalist (left wing) media reinforcing the narrative for him?

34 felonies is a lot.  I find it hard to believe that is all about Stormy Daniels.  That was like one agreement and one failure to report - not seeing how you get to 34 separate “falsifying business records” felonies on that alone.  

It seems more likely that the business/tax fraud shit they convicted his CFO of participating in will also have to be at issue, which would explain why Trump wants to make it all about Stormy Daniels.

I hope that several of those 34 come so far out of left field that no one saw them coming, but they hold lots of water.  Just to catch Trump and all his lawyers off guard.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54464

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

These types of rules of evidence benefit everyone.  There's problems with the system, but this ain't one of them.

There's no guilt by association in America.  

Sawbonz's argument seems to be a lot more related to the concept of legal precedence than to guilt by association.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27595

Posted
Posted

Think of the absurdity of having 2 people involved in the commission of crimes: one pleads guilty to said crimes, and then as a prosecutor you want to use the testimony of that guy to get a conviction on the other guy, yet the judge prohibits you from using the facts that went into his decision to plead guilty to bolster his testimony. Not only that, the defense gets to use the fact that he is now a convicted felon to impeach his testimony. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 77519

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Yes I'm sure he will act very presidential, while being arrested. What's that look like anyway? Considering he's the first. 


why would he start acting presidential now ?

 

trump : it was the biggest crowd ever for a presidential indictment. Hundreds of thousand of supporters. It was the most perfect booking ever. They told me, the best and quickest ever. Please send me $1000, thanks 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31542

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Sawbonz's argument seems to be a lot more related to the concept of legal precedence than to guilt by association.  

Because, as I pointed out, the indictment doesn't say what people think it says.  It doesn't allege any complicity by Trump whatsoever.

You need to start supplying information that is extrinsic to the indictment itself before it starts to become relevant.  And when that happens, you can basically cross that document off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17889

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Think of the absurdity of having 2 people involved in the commission of crimes: one pleads guilty to said crimes, and then as a prosecutor you want to use the testimony of that guy to get a conviction on the other guy, yet the judge prohibits you from using the facts that went into his decision to plead guilty to bolster his testimony. Not only that, the defense gets to use the fact that he is now a convicted felon to impeach his testimony. 

That's not what he's saying. You can bring in facts, statements, photos, documents, etc. about party 1's actions  as long as it is directly relevant to the guilt of party 2. What you can't do, is bring in evidence of his conviction by itself, and say "well this guy is guilty so this other guy must be as well."

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21173

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

type set GIF
 

 

At least we agree on that.  I can’t believe it’s happening in America either.  I mean, it definitely should be happening but who the fuck would have guessed…finally.  Enjoy, you fat fuckstain.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31542

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Think of the absurdity of having 2 people involved in the commission of crimes: one pleads guilty to said crimes, and then as a prosecutor you want to use the testimony of that guy to get a conviction on the other guy, yet the judge prohibits you from using the facts that went into his decision to plead guilty to bolster his testimony. Not only that, the defense gets to use the fact that he is now a convicted felon to impeach his testimony. 

READ.

THE.

INDICTMENT.

And show me all the criminal activity alleged against Trump in it.

Besides, the live testimony of Cohen is much more valuable evidence before a jury than trying to make them read an indictment and a judgment of conviction and make heads or tails of it.  The risk that the rules of evidence seek to avoid is the jury saying to itself "oooh an indictment! and oooh a conviction! and giving them weight they don't deserve.

Cohen's conviction may come into the trial, but more as an attempt to impeach his credibility as a convicted felon than evidence of Trump's guilt.  That's a little dicey for the defense there.

And yes, let me be abundantly clear.  I'm talking about the documents themselves, not what Cohen can testify to as someone who likely operated with Trump's knowledge and consent and at his direction.  That's coming in, no matter what.  

Just the indictment, and the conviction by plea, the documents standing alone, are inadmissible for any purpose other than to impeach Cohen's credibility.

Also, I think the point should be made and driven home that Cohen's indictment (it's really an information, not even issued on probable cause by a grand jury) doesn't plead Trump as a co-conspirator, or even that he was complicit with Cohen's actions.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30321

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

It bottles the mind that our legal system would have rules preventing one from entering into evidence a federal conviction for the precise crime Trump is  accused of providing remuneration for. 
 

Truly obscene

Lol

Doc, I enjoy your posts, but you should stay in your lane on this one. 

Let’s make up a hypothet: I’m in the car with two of my buddies, and one says stop by his house to pick up some beer.  He also sells weed, but two of us don’t know it.   Two minutes after we enter the house the cops bust in and arrest us all. Because there’s a bunch of baggies and scales and weed other evidence of distribution in the house we are all charged with distribution and conspiracy to distribute.   My lawyer tells me there’s an excellent chance. I’m going to jail for a while because dealer says it was all my idea….and unless I flip, plead guilty and say that we were there to sell drugs at dealer’s control i’m going to pound your ass prison. 

If I do plea I get off with a possession conviction and no jail time.

 Here is the problem - under your theory we can introduce my guilty plea to prove the guilt of my other innocent friend in the car. Remember-  I am not actually guilty, I just pled guilty.

Can you see why this is a problem?

The DA can use the facts we all drove to the house, that there were bags and scales, and a mountain of dope can also be introduced. They can introduce the dealers testimony that it was my innocent friend’s fault, and while a bad idea, get me to testify about my plea too. But they can’t introduce my guilty plea to prove the third guy is guilty too.  My pleading guilty has no direct bearing as a standalone proposition as to anyone else’s guilt.

And the DA can call Cohen. Which is why the piece of paper that said he pled guilty is not that relevant when you can put the actual person on the stand.

Does that make sense?

  • Hook 'Em 2
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...