Trump: UnPerson Guilty of UnCrime?

Original Content | 8/24/2018 | By Laz A. Mataz

[Lazamataz]

In the prescient novel '1984', George Orwell envisioned a society ruled by an all-powerful State that imposed its rule with both force and psychological manipulation. One such manipulation was the molding of the speech of its citizens by imposing "NewSpeak", a form of language that limited ideas and political innovation.

In this language, there was a word -- "UnPerson" -- whose definition was someone that was so hated by the State that their very existence was erased from all official history. The daily barrage of negative stories about President Donald Trump shows that the News Misleadia so despises him, that they would erase him if given the chance. To them, Trump is an UnPerson.

Yet, now, we can add a new word to the '1984' lexicon: UnCrime. The definition of an UnCrime is "something that is not a violation of the law, or in any way an actual crime, yet is prosecuted and punished as if it was."

The prosecution of Michael Cohen had him plead guilty to an UnCrime. Witness:

• Many women across the political landscape make claims of sexual indiscretions with men in power. Sometimes these claims are false, and intended only to force the powerful man to settle out of court -- or be dragged through the courts. Many of these men consider it a cost of doing business, and make the payment.
• Michael Cohen said Tuesday that the payments were intended to influence the election, making them a violation of campaign-finance laws, and that he had done so at the direction of the candidate. But that is his opinion. For this to be a campaign violation, we must know the mindset of then-candidate Trump. Did he make these payments with the guilty mindset (or mens rea, in legal jargon) of influencing the election? Or was his intention to protect his family from the scandal that would swirl around such allegations? Or was his intention to simply prevent himself from being dragged through the courts, and that this would be considered, in his mind, the cost of doing business?
• Michael Cohen has no way of knowing the President's mindset, unless he specifically stated, "Michael, you know what? I am making these payments to influence the election, and I am purposefully refusing to report these payments to the FEC, in violation of Campaign Finance regulations."
• Yet, Michael Cohen plead guilty to these unprovable charges. He plead guilty to an UnCrime.

I admit that I am rather impressed with the prosecutions machinations, given that the sole intent of this series of charges (unspoken, of course) was to try to harm President Trump. They charged Cohen with many serious and provable crimes, but offered a plea deal in which he plead guilty to an UnCrime, and stated that President Trump commanded him to commit the UnCrime. It was an interesting and convoluted tactic. Get the defendant to plea to a non-existent crime, thus giving the appearance that the action was actually criminal. Then, tie President Trump to that action. Then, impeach President Trump for a non-existent crime. Of course, it fits their Modus Operandi: The Russian collusion is also non-existent.

Lanny Davis, one of the slimier denizens of Washington DC, had this to say: "It's not about evidence. It is definitive, indisputable that Donald Trump's lawyers said in a letter to the special counsel that President Trump directed – the same word that Michael Cohen used in court yesterday under oath – directed Michael Cohen to make illegal payments. It's not a dispute. It's not about credibility. His own lawyers used the word directed.”

Mr. Davis, I have underlined and bolded the one word you interjected into your narrative that is false: "illegal". Just because your client plead guilty to a charge that is in great dispute as to the legality, and can only be a crime if the candidate Trump had one-of-three mindsets: To specifically and purposefully violate a rather hazy FEC law. You, sir, are assuming facts that are not in evidence.

Furthermore, this law is quite vague, indicating that a personal expense is reportable if it benefits the campaign. Allow me to apply Reducto Ad Absurdium, which will clarify the point:

• Candidate buys an expensive silk tie.
• Candidate appears on TV wearing that tie.
• Candidate looks good in that tie.
• THAT TIE PURCHASE BENEFITED THE CANDIDATE. IT BETTER BE DECLARED!

The same goes for eating breakfast, buying gasoline, paying car insurance...you name it.

The law is vague and open to interpretation. Perhaps it is intentionally so.

[bagster]

O.K. that made me laugh.

:)

Bagster

[SaveFerris]

I burst out laughing in the quiet of night.

Not only was it funny and unexpected, it’s rather spot-on with her.

[bagster]

Now that’s a headline.

Haha. Yea, their link titles are enough to keep me coming back for more.

Bagster

[SaveFerris]

No messing around. I’ll have to see what’s up and bookmark it on the phone. I flipped the phone this morning to see if Hawaii disappeared under the sea and I saw the waves.

Then I saw Rachel Maddow........oh my. The horror; the horror.

[bagster]

Then I saw Rachel Maddow........oh my. The horror; the horror.

What has been seen, cannot be unseen.

Bagster

[SaveFerris]

Have ya seen her with the little wifey? Double the horror for one visit.

[SaveFerris]

These ARE excellent link titles:

Lifelong Communist John Brennan Fantasizes About a Violent Communist Revolution in America

Soros Goons Target NASCAR Driver Conor Lilly Over Something His FATHER Said 11 Years Before He was Born; Cowardly Sponsor Lilly Cancels

Muslim Privilege: In New Mexico, Islamic Terrorists Get to Sign Themselves Out of Pretrial Detention

What Did Slobbering Stalinist John Brennan Know About Obama’s Mysterious 1981 Pakistan Trip — And Why the Attempt to Cover it Up in 2008?

Drunk Illegal Alien Starts Fire in Hospital Emergency Room, Putting Dozens of Lives at Risk

Obama CDC Director Tom Frieden Arrested in NY for for Sexual Abuse

[Lazamataz]

I appreciate every bump, but alas, I cannot add you twice to the Laz List. :)

[Lazamataz]

Thanks for the bump. I do not know how to counter the News Misleadia narrative, but it is overwhelming and nonstop... and it must be countered with pieces like this.

[Lazamataz]

I was asked by an attorney if I had a legal background. I do not, but I take that as a compliment to the substance of this editorial.

[trebb]

That seems to sum it up just right.

[Lazamataz]

Thanks for the kind words.

[Kickaha]

Great, I think I’ll spread it around too!

[hillarynot]

This was the first positive thing I read this morning. AWESOME. Okay if I copy and paste to send out to my enemies list.

[Lazamataz]

This was the first positive thing I read this morning. AWESOME. Okay if I copy and paste to send out to my enemies list.

Please do, and your friends list too!

[Rusty0604]

Very good post. I found it through a link on LS twitter.

[Rusty0604]

Cohen could appeal on the basis of inadequate counsel. Trump would have a field day with it.

[red-dawg]

You just laid out absolute proof that the dimmocrats are only capable of telling UNTRUTH.

Brilliant.

[trisham]

Excellent! One of your best.

[Lazamataz]

Very good post. I found it through a link on LS twitter.

Nice!

THANKS, LARRY!