A Plea For Injustice

A Plea For Injustice

 

The only thing less likely than a McDougal/Daniels take down is Melania shooting Donald in the middle of 5th Avenue.

Michael Avenatti

Michael Cohen

Stormy Daniels

Karen McDougal

Robert Mueller

Donald Trump

Trump was elected despite the Access Hollywood Tape and the thirteen women that followed. All accused him of sexual impropriety. The entire mainstream media (MSM) called Trump a self-confessed, sexual predator. It would be too ironic to bear if his demise came from the only two consensual experiences in the entire story. Not to mention, McDougal loved Trump and had nothing negative to say about him.
That leaves Daniels. A story that revolves around the classification of a $130,000 dollar payment, involving Michael Cohen. This will be hashed out over the next few months and will most likely answer the legal question as to whether a sitting president can be subpoenaed (it will be a resounding no, unless there is some extenuating circumstance and a ticking clock, which there isn’t in this case). Either way, the MSM is focused on Cohen right now, as he just pleaded to 8 felonies.
The first 5 are tax evasion (2012-16). The sixth is bank fraud (April 2016). These counts don’t create any legal issues for Trump. They are also incredibly easy to prove. Counts seven and eight are different. They directly implicate Trump in illegal campaign activity and are much more difficult to prosecute (consider the John Edwards case, which included four counts of illegal campaign contributions, each resulting in a mistrial. It is not necessarily on point, but it is analogous).
Do the charges against Cohen tell us anything?
Consider that Cohen faced sixty-five years in prison. All but ten of those years stem from the first six counts, which aren’t related to Trump. Yet, Cohen pleaded to less than five years. Why would prosecutors knock off over sixty years?
The average tax fraud sentence in 2016 was fifteen months. That should mean at least six years for Cohen. That’s before considering bank fraud or campaign finance violations, which represented over half of Cohen’s potential prison time.
Was the prosecution’s case that weak? So unlikely to win in court? On charges that were so easy to prove? If so, then why did Cohen sign the plea deal?
Or, did prosecutors place that much emphasis on implicating Trump? Enough emphasis to encourage Cohen to lie?
Die in prison or reveal something of value. Stick to the story or tell a different truth to avoid years of unnecessary cost and legal trouble, even if Cohen ultimately would’ve been found innocent.
Maybe Cohen is telling the truth. Maybe he is lying. But there is at least one thing not up for debate: Michael Cohen is no Socrates.
Remember, the first six counts are not difficult to prove, as evidenced by the Manafort convictions (found guilty on eight counts of tax evasion and bank fraud). Any person that willfully, in any way, attempts to evade any tax is guilty. All you need to prove is any relevant, unclaimed asset. That’s twenty-five years, right there. Count six is of the same nature. Any person that knowingly makes a false statement on a loan or credit application is guilty. Add up to another thirty years with minimal effort by the prosecution. Yet, it’s counts seven and eight that are much more difficult to prove and threaten much less prison time that seem to create the leverage. As for what other reason would the prosecution go easy on Cohen? Why else would they remove over sixty years?
Consider what the prosecution must show to prove illegal campaign finance donations. Count seven, refers to three sections of the US Code: 52 U.S.C. §§ 30118(a) & 30109(d)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2(b):

 

 

 

 

COUNT 7

 

30118(a) says no national bank or corporation can make certain types of campaign contributions or expenditures. Contributions and expenditures are defined here and here.
30109(d)(1)(A) details penalties, defenses and mitigation of offenses.
2(b) says “whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.” Obviously, this is the statute that is designed to implicate Trump.

 

Count eight, refers to four sections of the US Code. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30116(a)(1)(A), 30116(a)(7) & 30109(d)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2(b):

 

 

 

COUNT 8

30116(a)(1)(A) discusses contribution limits.
30116(a)(7) considers the person or group to which contributions should be assigned. 
30109(d)(1)(A) details penalties, defenses and mitigation of offenses.
2(b) says “whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.”

 

Another important consideration is that Cohen pleaded. The prosecution did not convict him. The prosecution did not prove anything. Yet, the MSM will pretend as if Trump is already guilty. Cohen’s attorney, Lanny Davis has already said if my client is guilty, then Trump is guilty. But Cohen is guilty by concession, not beyond the legal standard of reasonable doubt, which is a much more accurate way of viewing Trump’s Cohen-related predicament.
But by far, what is most important to remember is that Mueller referred this case. Tax evasion and bank fraud are not the focus of the Russia probe.
Would he have referred the case if he believed Cohen and Trump committed campaign finance violations? Absolutely not. Instead, he would leverage that campaign-related violation into Russia-related information. Seemingly, he referred Cohen because he didn’t have campaign-related leverage. Otherwise, it absolutely would’ve been within the scope of Mueller’s investigation.
Consequently, we know beyond any doubt that Cohen started with six charges, fifty-five years in prison and the position that Trump was not involved.
Cohen ended with a sentencing range of less than five years and a position implicating The President of The United States of America.