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.

[Lazamataz]

[SaveFerris]

I see Drudge is getting all excited. Got his DNC-talking-point “headlines” rolling.

[Lazamataz]

My latest about the fake charges.

The Official Lazamataz Sometimes-Funny, Sometimes-Disturbing Ping List
404 Satisfied Customers!™

Original graphic by TheOatmeal

[Lazamataz]

But this is not a crime if there was no guilty mind.

[BenLurkin]

Muller is investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

Were any of these harassment settlements made to or by Russians?

[SkyDancer]

Sheesh - over acting again.

[Lazamataz]

What?

[Lazamataz]

Muller is investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Were any of these harassment settlements made to or by Russians?

Well, this particular point I have less problem with. It's been a longstanding tradition that Special Prosecuters often go far afield of their original charter.

My issue is with the News Misleadia in general, and Lanny Davis in particular, assuming the mindset of President Trump, which would have to be a particular one to make these payments 'crimes'.

[AmusedBystander]

The only thing President Trump is guilty of is assault on the deep state. And I hope we are able to upgrade those charges to murder in the near future.

[Psalm 144]

Fake charges. Authentic, high quality essay.

[Larry Lucido]

Is this your way of making un of crime?

[Lazamataz]

Fake charges. Authentic, high quality essay.

Thank you, brother.

[Larry Lucido]

The way I look at it, you can’t be guilty of something that isn’t wrong, even if you confess.

And you can’t even expect to be pardoned if you were stupid enough to plead guilty to something that wasn’t illegal.

[TADSLOS]

Co-conspirators yet to be indicted and receive a plea deal.

Trump’s valet

Trump’s limo driver

Trump’s caddy

Trump’s pool boy

Trump’s gardener

Professor Plum

Mrs. White

Mr. Green

Mrs. Peackock

COL Mustard

[nwrep]

Intriguing essay. What is the commonly agreed to legal standard of proof for divining the mindset of a person in cases like these? Would Trump have a defense against that argument?

[ptsal]

Caution.... Laz is on a roll.

Thanks.

[Lazamataz]

The way I look at it, you can’t be guilty of something that isn’t wrong, even if you confess.

Yes, and as a former cop, you understand this.

Further, I assert that Cohen -- who most certainly signed an agreement not to appeal as part of his plea -- can still get the charges vacated because it can be demonstrated that there is no crime.

[Lazamataz]

Larry, if you think this is an interesting and new take on things, please put it on your Twitter. You have many followers. I think this essay is important enough to get out into the Memespace.

[Lazamataz]

What is the commonly agreed to legal standard of proof for divining the mindset of a person in cases like these?

Usually, audio or video recordings, or documents (emails, tweets, paper letters) in which the suspect describes his mindset and motive.

For example, if there was a recording of Trump stating, "Well, we want to quiet these women down before the election -- this stuff might impact my chances..." that would be pretty damning material.

[bagster]

You have written up the truest and most perfect take of this situation that I've seen yet, Laz.

I shared this with my fellow Qtards on the Qtard thread.

We were running out of things to larp about over there.

Hope you don't mind.

:)

p.s. Thanks for the ping. Keep 'em coming, Hunter S. Thompson.

Bagster