This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The thing that you and a lot of Trump supporters seem to miss when discussing the case is that you assume that the prosecution had to prove that Trump had to have committed the FECA violations himself in order to be criminally liable. That's not true; neither party disputed that the law applied to covering up misfeasance by someone else. Here, they had Cohen testify that he knew the payments were illegal at the time he made them, and that Trump reimbursed him through phony invoices for nonexistent legal work. That's the prima fascia case right there. Cohen was investigated and pleaded guilty (though his plea couldn't be used as evidence in Trump's case), so there's nothing controversial about whether a FECA violation actually occurred, unless you want to talk theoretically, which is pointless since Cohen isn't going to appeal.
Whether or not the case is preempted is a trickier matter, but New York didn't charge Trump with any campaign violations. He was charged with creating fraudulent records. In fact, the fact that this law has never been applied to FECA violations before actually tips the needle against preemption. If the law isn't aimed at regulating elections but at preventing fraud generally, then it's harder to argue that it's intruding on the policy goals that congress reserved to the Feds. Courts have already ruled that consumer protection issues relating to campaigns aren't preempted, even though they're directly related to campaign violations, so it's less likely that anyone would do so here. Not that there isn't an argument to be made, it just isn't as strong as some think it is.
I'm not an expert on the NY constitution so I'll leave that question to the Court of Appeals, who have the final say. I will say that whether or not Sharia Law applies in and of itself is a moot point. I imagine Sharia Law prohibits theft, and I don't think you'd have too much of a cross-jurisdictional issue if the predicate offense was theft in a country that has Sharia. If it's one of the things we Americans find more offensive, then prosecution would likely be barred on the grounds that it's contrary to public policy. It's an interesting question but crimes in other jurisdictions being used as the basis for related charges in others isn't exactly unheard of.
I think this post is wrong on many levels.
Cohen was dead to rights on much more serious tax violations and taxi medallion schemes. They threw in the FECA violation late and he plead to it (lesser crime). There is very much a dispute as to whether Cohen violated FECA and whether Trump knew about FECA.
Second, obtaining an NDA is legal work so hard to see how it is non existent. Moreover even if it were the sole person tying Trump to it is Cohen. Cohen stole 60k from Trump which Cohen viewed as “self help.” This guy would clearly lie, steal, and cheat if it could help him in any way. You don’t convict based on a guy like Cohen.
Third, FECA requires willfulness. Trump and Co had to know it was wrong; not just intend to do the actions that are prohibited. Your theory of the case then is that Trump and Cohen knew that by Cohen doing it that it was a FECA violation even though if Trump did it himself it would not be a violation. Since Cohen was solely acting as a middle man he wasn’t key to the scheme. There was no need to go through all this “scheming” to protect Cohen when Trump could’ve just done it himself. Trump has been looked at for years and they haven’t found crimes despite being a NY real estate developer. Do we think he knew option A was criminal and option B was not, both would get him what he wants, and he choose A? It just doesnt make sense.
I understand what you're saying but these are questions of fact for a jury. To take it individually:
Whether Cohen violated FECA is irrelevant since the New York law doesn't require that the predicate act actually be committed, only that intent exists to cover up a violation. Whether Trump knew about it is a question of fact for a jury.
Whether or not the invoices were legitimate is a factual question, and ultimately an irrelevant one, since it wasn't raised as a defense. Cohen certainly isn't the most credible person, but the credibility of a witness is an issue for the jury to determine.
Again, what Trump knew or didn't know or intended to do or didn't intend to do are core factual issues in a case like this. You're entitled to think that the jury got it wrong, but simply disagreeing with the jury isn't grounds for an appeal (at least not good grounds; you could theoretically argue that the verdict was unreasonable given the evidence and ask the trial judge for reconsideration, but judges in general are loathe to second guess juries).
I agree that judges are loathe to second guess but if there was ever a case…here is one. There are many other legal problems including numerous rulings by Merchan. So we don’t need to get to the facts to overrule and fully suspect this case will be tossed eventually. But in the court of public opinion it is more than fair to say yeah the facts here stink to high heavens and a biased jury pool was led by a board judge to make a biased ruling.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a non sequitur. Dumb people and people trying to get a good deal for other, real crimes, plead guilty to things that aren't actually crimes all the time. There is no logical way to bootstrap that to get to "nothing controversial about whether a FECA violation actually occurred". There may be all sorts of statutory, agency interpretation, and even constitutional defenses to the claim that a FECA violation actually occurred that Cohen simply did not pursue, but would nevertheless win the day in a court of appeals.
Which is why the judge didn't allow the guilty plea to be used as evidence that a crime occurred. I was merely responding to the OP's contention that there was some controversy within the FEC as to whether there was a violation because while that may have been true with respect to Trump, it wasn't with respect to Cohen. Cohen testified, nonetheless, to having committed all the elements of the violation he pleaded guilty to, which renders it a moot point.
Just set back for a second. You are relying 100% on the words of a notorious liar and thief to convict another man. There is no evidence to support that except for Cohen’s testimony. I don’t think your legal theory works but that’s besides the point. Let’s assume everything is as you say! Again reasonable doubt. And when the sole evidence is the words of a serial liar you just can’t get there.
I don't know what you want me to say here. You're allowed to call crappy witnesses. The defense is allowed to cross examine. The jury gets to decide whether to believe them. Whether reasonable doubt exists is a matter for the jury, not the court. The appeals court doesn't pore over the trial transcript and decide if the jury made the right decision.
What I want is for you to say “yeah it is bullshit to solely rely on the words of serial perjurer and thief.” Not a hard thing to do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Again, not if there is a statutory, agency interpretation, or constitutional defense which would imply that, even if all the claimed elements are true, it is nevertheless, not a crime.
It's kind of weird that you acknowledge on the one hand that there is a difference between Trump/Cohen ("while that may have been true with respect to Trump, it wasn't with respect to Cohen"), but then view Cohen's testimony as the final word for Trump. But that simply doesn't follow. Trump can still just say, for example, "Sure, Cohen's testimony may be completely true as to which actions were taken and that they satisfy the elements of the statute, but there is still a constitutional defense to reading the statute in a way that allows these facts to constitute a crime." So TBH, I'm really just not sure what you're trying to say, so I'm mostly just asking for clarification.
The prosecution only had to prove that Trump intended to conceal a crime. They didn't have to prove the crime itself, or even that a crime was committed. The jury can infer intent from the course of conduct, even if none of the individual elements of that conduct are crimes or even elements of the crime. When you have testimony by people saying they committed FECA violations on Trump's behalf, it's no surprise that the jury found there was intent. When people say that Trump never explicitly said he was trying to conceal the crimes or knew what the crimes were, they're either inappropriately conflating the requirements of FECA itself with the crime he was actually charged with, or assuming that direct evidence is necessary.
That's why I brought up the burglary example in an earlier post. You don't need the trespasser to be caught in the act of stealing or provide a witness who says the trespasser told him he intended to break in and steal something. If the jury finds through other evidence that the circumstances prove an intent to steal, they can convict. In the Trump case you might not personally believe that the evidence was persuasive, but arguing insufficiency of evidence is rarely enough to overturn a conviction. Appellate courts aren't there to second guess juries.
How about saying, "The thing they judged that I had intent to conceal is just not a crime", because there are constitutional/other reasons that that thing isn't a crime? That's a question of law, yes?
It's a question of law but it's irrelevant. If you think you're committing a crime then you've satisfied the intent requirement, regardless of whether the action you committed actually is a crime or not. This is how people get busted on To Catch a Predator type shows. They could argue since everyone involved was of legal age there was no crime, except they obviously showed intent to break the law even though there was never any chance of anyone being harmed. Whether or not this intent exists is a question for the jury.
It is not a matter of fact like whether they're actually of legal age or not. It's whether the thing, itself, is actually a crime. Suppose the case is that they intended to show up and sleep with a person of age X, and sleeping with a person of age X is, by statute, considered a crime. Now, hypothetically, imagine that the defendant wants to raise a constitutional challenge to say that such a law, making it illegal to sleep with a person of age X, is not constitutional. Here, we're even removing the question of statutory interpretation (which may still be live). It's not about whether or not you did or didn't actually carry through with your intent to do the thing; it's challenging whether the underlying thing is even a crime in the first place.
To get into the weeds a bit, the prosecution never had to argue that the specific pattern of conduct Cohen engaged in was necessarily a violation. The jury instructions stated the law and it was up to the jury to determine if Trump intended to break that law. They determined that he did. If Trump intended to cover up a campaign finance violation the fact that he made a mistake as to whether there was an actual violation is irrelevant. That the facts indicated that Cohen's actions constituted a violation only make the case stronger. Suppose he thought Cohen stole campaign funds and made phony invoices to make the assumed theft look like legitimate payments. If it turned out that Cohen hadn't actually stolen the funds he'd still have the intent to cover up a crime; the law is clear that a crime need not be committed. Similarly, If he thought Cohen had committed a campaign finance violation that hadn't actually occurred and tried to cover it up his mistake of fact wouldn't be a defense. I would note that the defense never tried to challenge this, so it isn't fair game for an appeal anyway.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link