Wednesday, April 11, 2018

What's good for the goose, never good for the gander with Democats

The Cohen Searches and Trump’s De Mini-Mess
Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was caught hiding the sources of 1,300 large campaign donations, aggregating to nearly $2 million. The campaign also accepted more than $1.3 million in unlawful donations from contributors who had already given the legal maximum.
Under federal law, such campaign-finance violations, if they aggregate to just $25,000 in a calendar year, may be treated as felonies punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment — with offenses involving smaller dollar amounts punishable by incarceration for a year or more. (See Section 30109(d) of Title 52, U.S. Code, pp. 51–52 of the Federal Election Commission’s compilation of campaign laws.)
The Obama campaign did not have a defense; it argued in mitigation that the unlawful donations constituted a negligible fraction of the monumental amount it had raised from millions of “grass-roots” donors. Compelling? Maybe not, but enough to convince the Obama Justice Department not to prosecute the Obama campaign — shocking, I know. During the Christmas holiday season right after the 2012 campaign, with Obama safely reelected and nobody paying much attention, the matter was quietly settled with the payment of a $375,000 fine.
Is the $130,000 in hush money Donald Trump’s personal lawyer paid to porn star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election a campaign-finance violation? Probably, although it’s a point of contention. Even if we stipulate that it is, though, we’re talking comparative chump change.
Yet, as that lawyer, Michael Cohen, has discovered, what was not a crime in the Obama days is the crime of the century now.

According to past precedent, the going rate would be a $14,773 fine. That is, of course, if Cohen was working for a Democrat. Working for Trump, he gets his home, office, motel room, and likely body cavities all searched.

It's one thing to have political hypocrisy. It's quite another to literally have two different sets of legal standards for Democrats and Republicans. 

63 comments:

Loretta said...

"What's good for the goose, never good for the gander with Democats"

That's because there wasn't an organized effort to unseat a duly elected sitting President by any means necessary.

They'd prefer him leaving in a hearse, but an organized coup would work.

Lenny sweetie... said...

That's because there wasn't an organized effort to unseat


BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! Trump is providing all the effort all by himself....No one needs to organize anything, trump will trip on his massive member all by himself......Too funny

Loretta said...

You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL, Dennis.

wphamilton said...

Was banking fraud involved in those 2008 campaign finance violations?

Commonsense said...

You have to have banking fraud for it to be illegal?

Given the money involved they were felony violations of the campaign finance law.

And don't even get me started on Zuckerberg's gross violations of the campaign finance law.

Loretta said...

It's almost as if WP didn't read any of it...

"the matter was quietly settled with the payment of a $375,000 fine."

Anonymous said...

WP, you're funny.

No intent, ok.

Anonymous said...

Zuckerberg give 55 million names with profile data to obama., yawn.

And so it goes in the land.

Anonymous said...

Susan Crockford is a polar bear expert with a message that climate alarmists don’t want to hear: polar bear populations are thriving and are certainly in no danger from thinning summer sea ice supposedly caused by ‘man-made global warming.’
That’s why the alarmist establishment is currently trying destroy her.

C.H. Truth said...

You have to have banking fraud for it to be illegal?

According to WP.

If anyone associated with Trump is ever accused of anything for any reason, then they are guilty of all of that and more! Not necessary to prove anything.


He assumed Gates was guilty of everything he was indicted for, when in fact Mueller and gang eventually settled for almost nothing to garner a plea.

Commonsense said...

Opps!!

A plurality of Democrats (!) in new Quinnipiac poll say Trump is more responsible for the current economy (46%) than Obama (43%).

Anonymous said...

Fatty, tell us how many of the engorging calories do you grow and or raise?

Your food mile carbon foot print is Yuge.

Anonymous said...

A plurality of Democrats (!) in new Quinnipiac poll say Trump is more responsible for the current economy (46%) than Obama (43%)."

A 100% of US Senate & US House Democrats voted against tax cuts.

commie said...

A 100% of US Senate & US House Democrats voted against tax cuts.

So fucking what.....the wave is coming...ryan chickened out and is going home...worthless POS who did nothing to rein in donnie, just nodded his head like a bobble head doll.....

fatty said...

KD our freemartin fucker asks another question that has no relevance to anything with



Fatty, tell us how many of the engorging calories do you grow and or raise?

I don't have the property to raise crops...


BTW....your asshole is gigantic and growing with each penetration by your donnie.....

wphamilton said...

Folks, "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" can only make sense if it's the same sauce. Additional crimes, different legal standards.

Are you people really serious with this non-thinking type of criticism? Or just bored and socializing with each other?

wphamilton said...

"He assumed Gates was guilty of everything he was indicted for,"

What's funny about that is that I simply noted the evidence against him, and from the litany of facts CH ASSUMED that I was calling him guilty. Such are the difficulties when you try to dodge the facts in order to justify your world view - you wind up with silly allegations such as the above.

BTW, you were wrong about the charges Gates was facing then, and you're wrong again now. He and Manafort were charged in February, in a 37 page indictment, of money laundering, tax fraud, and banking fraud. Which, I'll remind you CH, you avowed was nonsensical and impossible or exceedingly unlikely, your reasoning that the charges were among the original indictment.

It's amusing that you try a "told you so", being so wrong about it.

Anonymous said...

different legal standards"

Lol@ WP

Yep.

Unnamed Republican Congressman said...

[Occasionally someone on the Republican side will still tell the truth]:

“It’s like Forrest Gump won the presidency, but an evil, really f**king stupid Forrest Gump.”
— An unnamed Republican congressman, who publicly supports President Trump, in an interview with conservative writer Erick Erickson.

Anonymous said...

I don't have the property to raise crops..." Klienminded

Really, "square foot Gardening" great book the get you started.

Backyard Cickens . Com

Get to work fatty.



Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sources said...

Comey Did 5-Hour Interview with ABC News to Air Sunday at 10pm

“The James Comey media blitz has officially begun, with the former FBI director sitting down for a marathon five-hour interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News ahead of the release of his much-anticipated memoir,” Politico reports.

“Comey is preparing a media blitz of at least two weeks around the release of the book, including a live interview with CNN on April 19, an MSNBC interview later that day, an appearance on Fox News on April 26, and a PBS NewsHour interview on April 30.”
______________


Comey Compares Trump to a Mob Boss

A source present at the taping told Axios that James Comey’s interview with George Stephanopoulos airing on Sunday at 10 p.m. is “going to shock the president and his team.

“The Comey interview left people in the room stunned — he told George things that he’s never said before… If anyone wonders if Comey will go there, he goes there.”

Teresa Dulyea-Parker said...

James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile and admits it.

Trump is sure in trouble, Teresa Dulyea-Parker said...

GOP Senators Send Signal to Not Fire Mueller

April 11, 2018 at 9:45 am EDT
First Read: “Yesterday, we posed this question: Would congressional Republicans draw a line in the sand when it comes to protecting special counsel Robert Mueller? The answer we got 24 hours later: While they haven’t raced to pass legislation, several GOP senators did fire warning shots at President Trump.

“So these are definite cracks in the ground between Trump and his party, at least in the Senate. And they come at a time when congressional Republicans are upset at Trump on other matters like the tariffs.”

______________

Sennate Committee Moves Bill Protecting Mueller

April 11, 2018 at 1:49 pm EDT
“The Senate Judiciary Committee is moving forward with legislation to limit President Trump’s ability to fire special counsel Robert Mueller,” The Hill reports.

Judiciary Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wants to add the bill to the panel’s business meeting agenda scheduled for Thursday.

Teresa Dulyea-Parker said...

James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile and admits it.

The insanity and ineptitude of this President Trumps all else, Teresa Dulyea-Parker said...

TRUMP TWEET THIS MORNING
Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!

TRUMP TWEET LATER TODAY
Our relationship with Russia is worse now than it has ever been, and that includes the Cold War. There is no reason for this. Russia needs us to help with their economy, something that would be very easy to do, and we need all nations to work together. Stop the arms race?


TRUMP TWEET STILL LATER TODAY
Much of the bad blood with Russia is caused by the Fake & Corrupt Russia Investigation, headed up by the all Democrat loyalists, or people that worked for Obama. Mueller is most conflicted of all (except Rosenstein who signed FISA & Comey letter). No Collusion, so they go crazy!

Teresa Dulyea-Parker said...

James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile and admits it.

Teresa Dulyea-Parker said...

James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile and admits it.

wphamilton said...

"TRUMP TWEET THIS MORNING
Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!"

I googled it, I see it there, but it's still hard to believe that Trump actually tweeted this. Whether you back this basic concept or not, Russia (and other world actors) are going to take this tweet as saying "I'm a moron, and don't you forget it!"

commie said...

KD the worthless human loser posted....

Really, "square foot Gardening" great book the get you started.

Fuck you....buy it yourself....

Back yard chickens .....maybe in your loser state....Keep trying asshole, your trolling is most amusing...

Anonymous said...

Dems same song book.

Reagan was a nuclear threat at any moment, too.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

It doesn't matter what he was "indicted for".

It matters what they actually agreed to in the plea.

Gates and Mueller agreed he would plead guilty to a process crime, and a generic conspiracy crime. Both could technically result in zero jail time for Gates.

All other counts of the indictment were dropped.

Anonymous said...

Buy the book. I have it. You can borrow it, too poor to buy it.

Backyard Cickens are a current trend. Many cities are changing local ordinances to allow chickens.

Anonymous said...

Other laws/ordinances that are changing, the collection of rain water by citizens and hanging clothing on cloths lines.

You do those things too, like I do.

Anonymous said...

https://efficientgov.com/blog/2017/04/12/cities-react-backyard-chickens/

Grass roots cleaner Earth.

Loretta said...

"I googled it, I see it there, but it's still hard to believe that Trump actually tweeted this."

Looking like you'll get your war.

wphamilton said...

Conspiracy against the US is not exactly a "process crime".

The indicted charges do matter, because if Gates doesn't fully cooperate they all come back. Likely, his cooperation has to do with Manafort.

Regardless of anyone's opinion that a long list of felony charges "don't matter", the fact remains that Gates was charged with money laundering, tax evasion and bank fraud, as expected (by some of us) since these were alleged in the original indictment. You wanted to minimize it then, because they weren't charged, now you want to minimize the actual charges, because Gates copped a plea.

Why you insist on downplaying criminal activity by highly placed government officials is beyond me.

wphamilton said...

I doubt that we will get deep into a war in Syria. Trump blusters and bullshits about everything, and it's no secret to our enemies. But we're going to be in a weaker position after he backs down.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

If they had money laundering, tax evasion, bank fraud... then they would not have dropped the charges.

It is not only standard DOJ policy to garner the most serious conviction you can get, it makes sense if you are attempting to turn a witness.

The whole idea of having one person turn on another is for the first person to admit the crimes (thus establishing that they happened). Then if they cooperate, the recommendation to the Judge is a vastly reduced sentence.

You don't drop all the charges against the person "turning" because then it looks like you couldn't prove it. You also don't charge that person with lying under oath... when your plan is to put him under oath and expect he be seen as credible..

So either Mueller and gang did not really have the proof to press the charges...

or they are not following DOJ prosecution guidelines and have made the most boneheaded move they could by reducing the credibility of both their case and their witness.

C.H. Truth said...

btw... they say you can indict a ham sandwich for good reason.

An indictment means next to nothing if the charges are not proven. In the case of Gates they made no effort to even try.

C.H. Truth said...

And seriously, WP...

These sort of money laundering and bank fraud charges are proven with actual paper trail evidence of criminal activity. Not by witness testimony.

Also, if they were supposedly partners who were charged on the same indictment with the same charges... and considering that the DOJ and any Prosecutor is obligated (by law) to provide "fair treatment" under the law...

How would they justify one partner being given a slap on the wrist, while they attempt to send the other to jail for a couple of lifetimes? Generally you turn a small player with information against the bigger players in the general scheme.

Could it be that they are still trying to squeeze Manafort?

wphamilton said...

If they had money laundering, tax evasion, bank fraud... then they would not have dropped the charges.

Hmm, just like they'd have charged them the first time if there was anything to charge, right?

Think about what you just wrote. If there were actual crimes or actual proof of the crimes, you say, there would not be a plea deal. So how does that work in your world, only innocent people plead to lesser charges?

wphamilton said...

Blogger C.H. Truth said...
And seriously, WP...

These sort of money laundering and bank fraud charges are proven with actual paper trail evidence of criminal activity. Not by witness testimony.


Are you trying to say that the indictments are fake? LOL!

William Hamilton said...

Could it be that they are still trying to squeeze Manafort?

As I've already said:

"The indicted charges do matter, because if Gates doesn't fully cooperate they all come back. Likely, his cooperation has to do with Manafort."

commie said...

Grass roots cleaner Earth.

Rid the earth of idiots like KD the freemartin lover....

BTW another payout to a trump doorman to keep his mouth shut...only 30k this time....when will CH see the light and figure out trump is as big a loser as KD and rat hole?????

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

What is the possible justification to let one partner off in order to garner testimony against the other... when they are both being charged on the same indictment for the same crime?

Keeping in mind that prosecuting with fairness under the law is part of the rules of professional conduct for the DOJ (perhaps the FBI should raid the offices of Mueller?).

wphamilton said...

What is the possible justification to let one partner off in order to garner testimony against the other...

Are you serious?

C.H. Truth said...

when they are both being charged on the same indictment for the same crime?


Yes, WP.

I am being serious.

It's a requirement of the DOJ and prosecutorial standards to equally apply the law to everyone. It arguably is a constitutional due process and equal protection issue.

They are both charged with the same offenses, apparently with the same evidence, etc...

How can one of them be allowed to plea to next to nothing, in order to garner testimony on the other?

Again.. in most cases you turn a small fish to get the big fish. In this case, they were apparently partners, and charged with the same set of crimes (on the same indictment).

wphamilton said...

It's a requirement of the DOJ and prosecutorial standards to equally apply the law to everyone.

"Apply the law", yes. Equally apply prosecutorial decisions, no. So it's not really arguable for either due process or equal protection.

Imagine how far you'd get arguing that you have a right to a plea deal, on constitutional grounds, because some other person who turned states evidence got one. You'd be laughed out of court. At best.

There are many reasons for offering one person a deal, and not the other. Depending on the situation. Here's just one hypothetical, which does come up. You have charged both people with the same crime, but your prosecution is iffy. You have a good case but you're not absolutely sure you can convict. You offer one a deal, to testify against the other, gaining the guilty on lesser charges on one, and a sure-fire case on the other.

I'm not saying that this is absolutely the case with Gates and Manafort, but you can see why it makes sense and doesn't stomp on anyone's rights, can't you? And this reasoning is probably at least part of why Gates was offered the deal.

C.H. Truth said...

You offer one a deal, to testify against the other, gaining the guilty on lesser charges on one, and a sure-fire case on the other.

Again... the DOJ guidelines require prosecutors to garner the most serious charges that they can prove. Any leniency (for cooperation) is supposed to take place in regards to sentencing, not in reducing the charges.

Also... why on earth would any prosecutor force a potential witness to plead guilty to making false statements under oath? That just takes away from the witness credibility.


Let me give you another scenario.

They have limited ability to prove "either case". The prosecution is "iffy" as worded in your example. But this is a prosecutorial team with literally unlimited resources.

One person (Gates) has limited financial resources to fight an extended legal battle in court, while the other (Manafort) has the financial resources to fight an extended battle in court.

The person who cannot afford to take it to court, has his attorney push for a plea, and the prosecution happily accepts. In this case, the optics of getting any sort of scalp is a winner for them. They know that the reduction of charges won't matter to most. Just that they got a guilty plea.

The other person who can afford to take it court, has his attorney push back from any and all angles, and may just be happy to go to court and take their chances.

Based on what we know, and considering prosecutorial norms, policies, regarding prosecutors bringing charges against multiple people for the same charges, nothing about what you suggest would really "fit" the profile... other than the hypothetical suggestion that the case is "iffy".

wphamilton said...

Again... the DOJ guidelines require prosecutors to garner the most serious charges that they can prove. Any leniency (for cooperation) is supposed to take place in regards to sentencing, not in reducing the charges.

Are you claiming that offering plea deals with some charges dropped or reduced is a violation of DOJ guidelines?

Generally speaking, reducing the charges is one of the Government's bargaining points. For example, in this Department of Justice document
https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf

C.H. Truth said...

https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution#9-27.430

9-27.430 - Selecting Plea Agreement Charges
If a prosecution is to be concluded pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant should be required to plead to a charge or charges:

1. That is the most serious readily provable charge consistent with the nature and extent of his/her criminal conduct;
2. That has an adequate factual basis;
3. That makes likely the imposition of an appropriate sentence and order of restitution, if appropriate, under all the circumstances of the case; and
4. That does not adversely affect the investigation or prosecution of others.


You honestly think that if they have the actual evidence to convict Gates and Manafort for the indictment that they brought forward (which potentially puts them in jail for life)...

That the plea they accepted is in line with the Justice guidelines?

wphamilton said...

Yes it is within the guidelines you posted. #1 on your list is up to the Prosecutor's discretion. Whatever he thinks is "consistent" with the nature of Gate's criminal conduct. How provable it is - which is what I told you in the hypothetical (which I also told you probably applied with Gates). If the case is hard to prove without Gate's testimony, then absolutely it's in line with the guidelines.

You'll note that, contrary to your earlier claim, that the document of DOJ guidelines that I posted (and you're quoting here) allowed for charges to be dropped or reduced.


But you know, if you're that bothered by the prospect of Gates getting off too lightly, you can start up a petition https://www.change.org/start-a-petition and drum up support for reinstating the charges.

C.H. Truth said...

Actually WP...

I told you that it was against DOJ guidelines to drop serious charges when you can prove them... just to plea them out. I provided the actual text of the guidelines.

However:

I told you that as a matter of fundamental logic, the concept of allowing such a plea to garner testimony is not a good strategy.

I defer:

Requiring such a guilty plea not only ensures that the defendant is held appropriately accountable and is not given favorable treatment in comparison to others similarly situated; a plea to “the most serious readily provable charge” also makes the defendant a more compelling cooperating witness. By contrast, failing to require a plea to the most serious offense degrades the defendant’s testimony, which is usually offered to prove against other defendants the same serious offense on which the cooperating defendant has been given a pass.

A concrete example makes the point. A defendant who has committed bank-fraud conspiracy and pleads guilty to bank-fraud conspiracy is an effective witness — his admission of guilt goes a long way toward proving the existence of the scheme and makes it more likely that conspirators he implicates will be convicted. This helps the prosecution. On the other hand, if the prosecutor lets the defendant plead guilty to a minor (non-bank-fraud) conspiracy to induce his testimony against other bank-fraud conspirators, it signals to the jury that the bank-fraud conspiracy is not as serious as the indictment suggests; it opens the door to defense claims that the cooperator was given a major break to buy his testimony and exaggerate the culpability of the other conspirators. This hurts the prosecution.

C.H. Truth said...

Moreover...

You still fail to answer whether or not you feel it would be justified (under any circumstances) to allow someone who is accused of over 100 million in fraud felonies (worth decades of prison time)...

to be let off with no financial-fraud charges and the possibility of no jail time. If the prosecutors actually had the evidence to convict the person of what they brought forth in the indictment.

If Gates is actually guilty (and you seem to believe he is) then shouldn't we all want to see him punished? 100 million dollars in bank fraud does not warrant a plea to something that may not even involve a day in prison.

Seems to me that the only real argument is almost entirely based on the fact that the indictment was vastly over-inflated and that Mueller doesn't think he can actually prove the case.

wphamilton said...

If Gates is actually guilty (and he has admitted that he was), then his light punishment is regrettable. But if he helps convict an even bigger crook that might otherwise get away with his crimes, then the trade-off is worthwhile. It's the main point of plea bargaining, the lesser point being saving court time and resources by nailing down a guilty plea. This is surely more about Manafort than Gates however.

Isn't that what I've been telling you this entire thread? What do you believe that I've failed to answer?

wphamilton said...

If you'll look at the plea deal, https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4386515/Gates-Plea-Agreement.pdf he is pleading guilty to tax evasion (more than $9.5 million) and faces up to 10 years. Plus a boatload of money. If he is not fully cooperative, according to the document he will face the full charges.

I believe that is compliant with your quoted example.

From the DOJ guide,
" Typically this is the maximum charge or punishment that the defendant will be held to if he or she goes to trial. The prosecutors will present the defendant with an opportunity to plead guilty to a lesser charge or to the original charge with less than the maximum sentence."

Regarding prosecutorial descretion,
"The plea bargaining process has been criticized for allowing prosecutors too much discretion compared with judges, who are held to concise sentencing guidelines (Burke,
2007; Finkelstein, 1975; Ma, 2002). Prosecutors have been found to use threats that coerce defendants into accepting pleas to secure a conviction when the evidence in a case is insubstantial (Finkelstein, 1975). "

You wouldn't be alone in criticizing the discretion, but you WILL be alone when claiming that it doesn't exist. All of this, that we're talking about here, is under the penumbra of Mueller's discretion and conforms to the Justice Department regulations.

C.H. Truth said...

But if he helps convict an even bigger crook that might otherwise get away with his crimes, then the trade-off is worthwhile

You have still not provided any argument as to why Manafort is the bigger criminal? They were basically charged with the same crimes on the same indictment.

The better reasoning would probably be that Manafort is better known, and can be more easily tied to Trump?

Wouldn't you agree?

wphamilton said...

Why is Manafort the bigger criminal? Why do you think he wouldn't be, seriously? It may just be that Gates would plea but Manafort wouldn't, but consider, Gates has always served as sidekick. An intern at Manafort's first law firm. Then joined "Davis Manafort" in 2006. Junior partner in some of Manafort's controversial deals with Russian Oligarchs. Manafort's deputy during the campaign. It just stands to reason that he'd be junior in crime as well.

You're worried that Manafort will crack, and that leads to Trump? That's the way it works, sometimes, but why pray-tell is that a bad thing? You'd rather that Manafort keeps his secrets, falls on his sword and for what, so that Trump can remain unaccountable?

I've said it before, but look at Manafort's history. The people that he's worked for, what he's done to help them. A personal question, given that history, how is Manafort a sympathetic figure for you? Is it all about Trump in your mind?

C.H. Truth said...

No WP... Manafort was not with Trump long enough to have any information, even if he was going to "crack". I have never thought there was any chance that Manafort had any information to be "squeeze" out.

Again... you work on assumptions. I am working on the indictments, which listed them as co-conspirators who allegedly committed the same crimes. It doesn't matter what their relationship was at work. It matters what their actions were, and how they differed.

wphamilton said...

Then why did you mention, "Manafort is better known, and can be more easily tied to Trump?" Why did you allege prior to that also, that it had to do with Trump? It wasn't I who brought it up. My only "assumption" is asking you why you keep making that connection.

But now you say it's unrelated. Make up your mind.

C.H. Truth said...

"Manafort is better known, and can be more easily tied to Trump?"

Because of the political relevancy. Nobody knew who Richard Gates was, so a guilty plea or conviction against him is not the say trophy as Manafort.

The media loves to talk about how people "tied to Trump" are being charged with crimes... and an actual guilty plea of someone more well known like Manafort would make Mueller a hero in the minds of many.

You don't seriously discount the idea that any of this is political? You are not under the assumption that everything being done, is done because it makes "legal" sense?

wphamilton said...

You don't seriously discount the idea that any of this is political?

Seriously discount no, I unambiguously reject your notion that Manafort is pursued rather than Gates merely because people recognize the name better, and more closely associate him with Trump. I think in fact, that it's silly.

The only reason people know either name is because of this investigation.