In reply to aggiehawg
The allegation is that Trump placed incorrect information in documents in a coverup of another crime.
If the crime is conspiracy, then the conspiracy must have been to cover up a known violation. Wilfully. But this conspiracy would have had to happen BEFORE the election, and BEFORE Stormy was paid. So, in other words, intent must now be a requirement in order for there to be a coverup.
This is where 2011 misses the mark. He argues that intent of the original crime is not a requirement. Only the coverup is. But if the original crime is conspiracy, then intent is now a necessary component.
So based on the theory, Trump couldn't have been advised by his attorney that the action of paying Stormy was a grey area, much less a legal one. He must have been advised ahead of time that the whole thing was illegal, and then been part of the decision to move forward with it anyway. (Note that Cohen has never alleged that he advised that paying Stormy could be illegal, and he was overruled by Trump.) Furthermore, why conspire do this if there was another way to proceed that was NOT illegal? The whole conspiracy theory collapses under it's own weight. Smoke and mirrors. That's all this is.
This is the point that I believe those on the left are either missing; or, wilfully avoiding.aggiehawg said:
Here's the problem using the model jury instructions in this trial as to the specific charges.
This is a novel application of that law. None of those jury instructions regarding that statute have been tested in past cases.
For example, there was an exchange between Bove and Steinglass yesterday on the underlying crime. Steinglass states the underlying crime is conspiracy. There are no conspiracy counts in the indictment. Bove points out that conspiracy needs a criminal object for even conspiracy to be a crime itself.
Conspiracy to do what? Conspiracy to aid or conceal what? If the "what" isn't a crime in itself then existence of a conspiracy is not a crime either.
The allegation is that Trump placed incorrect information in documents in a coverup of another crime.
If the crime is conspiracy, then the conspiracy must have been to cover up a known violation. Wilfully. But this conspiracy would have had to happen BEFORE the election, and BEFORE Stormy was paid. So, in other words, intent must now be a requirement in order for there to be a coverup.
This is where 2011 misses the mark. He argues that intent of the original crime is not a requirement. Only the coverup is. But if the original crime is conspiracy, then intent is now a necessary component.
So based on the theory, Trump couldn't have been advised by his attorney that the action of paying Stormy was a grey area, much less a legal one. He must have been advised ahead of time that the whole thing was illegal, and then been part of the decision to move forward with it anyway. (Note that Cohen has never alleged that he advised that paying Stormy could be illegal, and he was overruled by Trump.) Furthermore, why conspire do this if there was another way to proceed that was NOT illegal? The whole conspiracy theory collapses under it's own weight. Smoke and mirrors. That's all this is.