That’s a great idea. I admit I’m buffaloed as to what category you’d put it in. Something about barricades just screams, “Safe Haven,” though, and that might be of actual value to you after the events of today.
In the meantime, this is a thread about the personal attorney to the now President of the United States admitting in open court to committing a crime at the direction of the now President intended to materially affect the outcome of the election that elected the now President of the United States.
The President has been acknowledged in a guilty plea by one of the parties to be a participant in this crime.
I thought I’d add a little context to this thread while you consider starting that thread. Perhaps you’d like to contribute to this thread rather than throwing chaff about hypothetical other threads I am fairly confident you will not start.
Cohen pleading guilty to this and admitting it is a campaign contribution does not legally make this a campaign contribution. Mueller wants it to be. Cohen will agree that it is in order to get off easy. A court may or may not agree, depending on the facts.
Just saying, don’t count Cohens plea as proof.
There can be other reasons for paying someone to be quiet about this.
Obviously, there are no reasons the whole affair is either moral or ethical.
Good lord. He literally pleaded guilty to two counts of making an excessive campaign contribution. That’s the crime he pleaded guilty to. “Excessive campaign contribution.”
That is some incredible sophistry to say it doesn’t legally count as a campaign contribution just because he admitted to it. It is literally, almost to a word, what he pleaded guilty to.
His pleading guilty to it do not prove the facts and they do not establish the law as to someone else. It simply means he plead guilty to it because he decided it was a good deal for himself.
He cannot plead someone else guilty.
Was he lying about the facts? I don’t know. Is his reputation for honesty on the line?
Is he right about the law? Maybe yes maybe no. A judge decides that, not him.