Dershowitz: Cohen Doesn't Seem to Understand the Difference Between 'Wrong' and 'Illegal'

[piezoe]

Considering that Congress paid out $17 million in tax payer money for having sex with staffers and not a single politician got in criminal legal trouble for it -- I don't expect Donald Trump will be in criminal legal trouble for paying out his own money to women who made claims about having sex with him. Especially since similar federal action again John Edwards completely failed.

Again, paying out money to women you've had sex with is not the issue! The issue is illegal campaign contributions. It is a felony! Until this can sink in, we will have to put up with more Alan Dershowitz correct, but inapplicable, statements being posted here, I suppose. See my post in another thread for a comparison of the Edwards case and the Trump case. They seem similar crimes but vastly different on the basis of the evidence.

I doubt Cohen , who, in March, will begin serving time for among other crimes, having facilitated illegal campaign contributions to the Trump campaign, will take comfort from Dershowitz's nutty statement. It was nutty because it had nothing to do with the charges of illegal Trump campaign contributions. (Not overlooking however the chance that he was quoted out of context . Dershowitz is a smart guy. He's either going bonkers or he was quoted out of context.)

 

[gwb-trading]

Again, paying out money to women you've had sex with is not the issue! The issue is illegal campaign contributions. It is a felony! Until this can sink in, we will have to put up with more Alan Dershowitz correct, but inapplicable, statements being posted here, I suppose. See my post in another thread for a comparison of the Edwards case and the Trump case. They seem similar crimes but vastly different on the basis of the evidence.

I doubt Cohen , who, in March, will begin serving time for among other crimes, having facilitated illegal campaign contributions to the Trump campaign, will take comfort from Dershowitz's nutty statement. It was nutty because it had nothing to do with the charges of illegal Trump campaign contributions. (Not overlooking however the high probability that he was quoted out of context . Dershowitz is a smart guy. I doubt he would say only what he was quoted as saying without qualifying in a subsequent sentence. If he did, he's clearly losing it.)

Once again... how did this line of prosecution work out for Feds in the John Edwards case?

 

[piezoe]

Once again... how did this line of prosecution work out for Feds in the John Edwards case?

It didn't. but what does that have to do with the reality of the Trump-Cohen illegal campaign contribution case. You're asking the wrong question. You should ask if Cohen has already plead guilty, what are the chances Trump would get off if he plead not guilty to the same crime.

There are rather big differences between the Edwards case and the Trump-Cohen case. Mainly in the quality of the evidence and the extent to which the accused in each case incriminated themselves.
This should be helpful: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/12/sto...n-finance-fraud-with-john-edwardss-case/?rf=1

 

[CaptainObvious]

Unless they have actual evidence in writing or tape of Trump giving explicit and precise direction to use campaign funds to pay off the whore(s) they have nothing. Easy enough to conclude if they had such evidence it would already be out. Politically damaging. Legally nothing of substance

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

If the dems want to play hard ball over this Cohen stuff, Trump can instruct the DOJ to subpoena the records of the congressional payoffs and start prosecuting them for campaign finance violations. Isn't using government money to payoff someone much more serious than paying it out of your own pocket?

 

[Tony Stark]

Unless they have actual evidence in writing or tape of Trump giving explicit and precise direction to use campaign funds to pay off the whore(s) they have nothing. Easy enough to conclude if they had such evidence it would already be out. Politically damaging. Legally nothing of substance

3 witnesses against 1 is usually good enough.

 

[Poindexter]

This is going nowhere. Brad Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and Hans von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission, don't see any campaign finance violations either:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...off-the-michael-cohen-case?platform=hootsuite

 

[Tony Stark]

If the dems want to play hard ball over this Cohen stuff

We want to play hard ball.

 

[Tony Stark]

Trump can instruct the DOJ

If you haven't noticed they aren't listening to him.He's instructed them to go after Hillary,Comey, Obama etc,say he wasn't involved in Russian collusion and end the Mueller probe.Hows that going?

 

[Tony Stark]

Unless they have actual evidence in writing or tape of Trump giving explicit and precise direction to use campaign funds to pay off the whore(s) they have nothing.

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...oday-that-prosecutors-have-evidence-trump?amp


Fox’s Napolitano: We learned today that prosecutors have evidence Trump committed a felony

Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano said the American public "learned" on Wednesday that federal prosecutors have evidence President Trump committed a crime.

"Career prosecutors here in New York have evidence that the president of the United States committed a felony by ordering and paying Michael Cohen to break the law," Napolitano said while speaking on Fox News. "How do we know that? They told that to the federal judge. Under the rules, they can't tell that to the federal judge unless they actually have that hardcore evidence. Under the rules, they can't tell that to the federal judge unless they intend to do something with that evidence."