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]

Thanks bro. Spread it far and wide.

[Lazamataz]

Another one for your website. Feel free to use this.

[bagster]

Is this your way of making un of crime?

Haha x188.

Perfect, Larry!!!

And yes, I did see what you did there. :)

Bagster

[LouisianaJoanof Arc]

A fabulous read.

Thank you.

[Lazamataz]

You are welcome, madam. :)

[heterosupremacist]

Question: would charging a person with a crime that is NOT even a codified crime, be a criminal act, per se?

[Lazamataz]

Question: would charging a person with a crime that is NOT even a codified crime, be a criminal act, per se?

Unsure, but this is not the case here.

[MV=PY]

"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. "

That sound familiar... doesn't it seem like we have a lot of those regarding the nature of the witch hunt?

[READINABLUESTATE]

I heard it breathlessly reported on the way home tonight “that this may result in more indictments within the Trump organization.”

Good grief! What BS.

[Lazamataz]

If you still frequent FR, Mark, I know you will agree with this editorial.

[Lazamataz]

I heard it breathlessly reported on the way home tonight “that this may result in more indictments within the Trump organization.”

"Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown."

That quote from a movie sums up my take on the News Misleadia reaction.

They were busy publishing provably wrong stories, detrimental to President Trump, for nearly the last two years.

How would you expect them to act, now that they have something meatier?

[generally]

So we have un-crimes which are un-illegal by un-person Trump.

I keep smiling because Hitlery was un-elected. :-) :-) :-)

[Lazamataz]

That sound familiar... doesn't it seem like we have a lot of those regarding the nature of the witch hunt?

Oh, no question. I get what you are saying here: That there are many motive-exposing emails and recordings of members of Mueller's team.

[Lazamataz]

I keep smiling because Hitlery was un-elected. :-) :-) :-)

It was un-credible. :)

[MileHi]

This is spot on, Laz. And these people won’t stop. They can’t because if Trump succeeds there are jail cells and ruined careers in store for them all.

What I wonder is, what did they have on Cohen to make him throw away his law career with this plea?

[Lazamataz]

What I wonder is, what did they have on Cohen to make him throw away his law career with this plea?

They had him on some serious bank-fraud charges, among others.

[MV=PY]

"Oh, no question. I get what you are saying here: That there are many motive-exposing emails and recordings of members of Mueller's team. "

Yep. Thanks for restating it. My post wasn't very clear. ;)

[Kickaha]

“News Misledia” I like that, is it yours?

[knarf]

Ya've done it again, Laz.

[SkyDancer]

In reference to that big blue cartoon.