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.

[poconopundit]

How about an UN-Carrier. Could this be an UN-trend?

[Electric Graffiti]

In case anyone missed it, Levin did a great job on Hannity the other night dismantling this sham-

Mark Levin slams Michael Cohen's plea deal[YouTube video 9:15mins]

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

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

The law should be challenged in court; only two of the justices who in 2002 upheld McCain-Feingold - and one who voted against it - still sit on SCOTUS. It was a 5-4 decision, and O’Connor was in the majority; the Court has been less liberal ever since she retired.

[Jet Jaguar]

Add me

[Lazamataz]

I didn’t see it. Perhaps I should.

[Lazamataz]

Add me

You are the 405^th Satisfied Customer!™

[MileHi]

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

Had to be that. And still, nothing to do with Russia, Russia, Russia.

[Lazamataz]

Perhaps the UN- trend will continue.

[henkster]

Orwell was prescient. Words mean whatever the state wants them to mean. Today. Tomorrow the actors might be different. And then the words will mean something different.

It is the death of reason and the Rule of Law.

Orwell, Rand and Huxley would not be proud of the society we have created. But they would have no trouble recognizing it.

[Rashputin]

Vague laws are created that way to insure the line between the “little people” and the the Nobles is clear when the Nobility makes an example of one of the “little people” by driving them into bankruptcy and then imprisoning them for exactly the same thing the Nobles routinely do.

[henkster]

I keep smiling because Hitlery was un-elected

And that's the bottom line. No matter what happens to Trump, that evil bitch did not become and never will be President of the United States.

[Vendome]

Groan...

[SaveFerris]

Yeah, the stories are not selected at all. Nice try.

[henkster]

When I was in law school and then a young buck prosecutor, I despised Alan Dershowitz. Today, I would really enjoy having dinner and a glass of wine with him. Times change. So do people sometimes.

[Lazamataz]

Alan has definitely migrated away from rank liberalism. Thus, his rejection by the News Misleadia.

[henkster]

Alan is a liberal who is actually true to his core principles. He is in favor of a limited government that respects individual rights, adherence to the Bill of Rights and upholding the Rule of Law against the government’s power of criminal prosecution. While he may not like Trump personally or philosophically agree with his policies, he sees that the Deep State coup against Trump poses an exitential threat to all of his core beliefs. He ses a bigger picture in all of this than just “get rid of Trump.”

Because of that intellectual honesty, which is completely lacking by virtually everyone else on he left, yes,I’d be happy to spend an evening discussing the Constitution with him. I’d probably spend most of the time listening but would be fine with that.

[Lazamataz]

+1

You’re right.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

Nifty! You hit it!

[Lazamataz]

Thanks bro.

[Not A Snowbird]

I’m a “sis”. But you’re welcome. 😝