In general, with criminal cases, if you are a betting person, it's safer to bet on the prosecution. They usually win because they pick which cases to bring and they generally wait until they have a strong enough case.
It's also easy for me to sit here and poke holes in what we know so far of the prosecutor's theory.
(If you want to try some arm-chair defense lawyering, you can have some fun with it.)
I'll resist because I have a feeling we only know part of their theory. Right now it feel shaky. I mean, if keeping bad information from voters is election interference, well, lots of people are guilty (and there wasn't enough notice that this is a crime.)
(I said I'd resist poking holes and yet, here I go)
If "election interference" means finding ways to keep bad information about a candidate from being made public, then you have just criminalized something common.
There are all kinds protections, including Constitutional protections, from charging people with a crime that was just invented.
If I run for office and ask my neighbor not to tell anyone I was a jerk to her, am I intefereing in the election?
They could pay to hide bad information they just need to be honest about the book keeping. Which sounds absurd, but NDA is one thing secret NDA is another?
I'm not a law person at all but I appreciate how you look at the whole landscape. Could you help us understand why Cohen went to prison? Why exactly.
Is there a way that all his actions could be self-serving?
IDK to me this fits perfectly. The thing is it's a small crime compared to the other crimes. But it's consequential. The bad bookkeeping was done to help him get elected.
@futurebird@Teri_Kanefield Yeah it might be a lot easier for a jury to understand and relate to their own experience. “Inciting an insurrection” is big and scary; business fraud they’ve seen before.
As business fraud it is but a misdemeanor. But put that in the context of an election and it is a felony.
Because we are supposed to be able to know about all of the people who contributed to a campaign. It is a list that we get to read.
(super pacs make a mockery of this but can trump claim to be his own opaque pac? and a pac isn't a pac if they only work to elect one guy.... that's not allowed... technically)
@Teri_Kanefield I have no idea how the trial will turn out, either, for the same reasons plus I'm working so all I can do is read about each day's testimony after the fact. BUT: The prosecution's theory laid out in your two screenshots sounds ... plausible?
I'm wondering if letting Pecker plea was a mistake. He made huge in-kind campaign contributions in the form of favorable and negative press and suppressing stories. And he expected to be compensated for it.
@futurebird@Teri_Kanefield@panamared27401
Andrew Weissmann just addressed this on Deadline White House. Pecker had a great lawyer and jumped on an immunity deal before DOJ offered it to Cohen.
I’m sure testimony was part of the deal. Pecker is a higher value witness IMO.
@futurebird Not to my knowledge, and I would imagine prosecutors were not eager to pursue that because it raises a tough legal question: How is what Pecker did different from what Fox News does? @Teri_Kanefield