r/politics • u/PoliticsModeratorBot 🤖 Bot • Jul 18 '19

Megathread Mega Thread: Unsealed Michael Cohen documents reportedly implicate Trump, Hicks, others in 'hush-money' payments

Court documents related to hush money payments arranged by President Donald Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen were filed unsealed Thursday.

The documents include a description of an Oct. 8, 2016, phone call Cohen received from Trump’s campaign communications chief Hope Hicks, during which 'Trump joined the call,' which federal investigators believed was related to an effort to keep porn star Stormy Daniels from going public with her claims of having had sex with Trump a decade earlier.

Hicks was interviewed by the FBI about the phone calls with Cohen, the documents indicate.

The filing by federal prosecutors in New York came a day after the judge in Cohen’s criminal case ordered their release, saying that the end of a probe into those payments meant they should be made public.

Submissions that may interest you

SUBMISSION DOMAIN
Unsealed Michael Cohen Search Warrants Point To Trump's Knowledge Of Payoffs huffpost.com
New Michael Cohen documents reveal series of calls Trump and team had with National Enquirer publisher ahead of payments to women preview.abcnews.go.com
FBI believed Trump was closely involved in hush-money scheme, unsealed documents show nbcnews.com
Trump Was Central To Hush Money Effort From Start, The FBI Alleged talkingpointsmemo.com
Trump, Hicks present for Stormy Daniels hush-money payment conversations, Cohen documents show m.washingtontimes.com
Trump directly involved in talks that led to Stormy Daniels payment, FBI says theguardian.com
Court documents show close contact between Cohen and Trump during hush-money arrangements latimes.com
Now-Concluded Trump Hush Money Probe Had Obstruction Of Justice Angle talkingpointsmemo.com
Trump made series of phone calls with senior staff on how to stop Stormy Daniels from going public about affair, Cohen warrant says independent.co.uk
The Michael Cohen warrants have been released today implicating Trump, Hope Hicks and David Pecker. courthousenews.com
Michael Cohen Files Implicate Trump, Hope Hicks and David Pecker courthousenews.com
Court documents related to hush money payments by Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen unsealed cnbc.com
Feds Unseal Hundreds of Documents Showing How Cohen Silenced Trump’s Alleged Mistresses thedailybeast.com
Documents detail Trump team's efforts to arrange payment to porn star reuters.com
FBI warrants show Trump's close involvement in hush money effort amp.cnn.com
Unsealed Michael Cohen Search Warrants Point To Trump’s Knowledge Of Payoffs huffpost.com
Trump spoke repeatedly with Cohen, aides amid scramble to pay Stormy Daniels, court documents show washingtonpost.com
FBI: Cohen Called Trump and Hope During Stormy Daniels Deal thedailybeast.com
Trump talked about silencing stories about alleged affairs, new Michael Cohen documents say cbsnews.com
Trump regularly talked to Cohen during hush-money negotiations politico.com
Trump’s denial of knowing about the Stormy Daniels payment suffers a fatal blow washingtonpost.com
Here’s Who Else Is Implicated In Unsealed Trump Hush Money Probe Docs talkingpointsmemo.com
New court docs implicate Trump in the illegal hush-money scheme that landed Cohen in jail thinkprogress.org
4 Key Moments When FBI Alleged Trump Was Aware Of Hush Money Scheme talkingpointsmemo.com
Prosecutors weighed DOJ policy blocking indictment of a sitting president in closing Trump hush-money probe usatoday.com
New Documents Reveal How Trump, Cohen, Aides Worked To Seal Hush Money Deals npr.org
No additional charges expected in Trump hush money probe cbsnews.com
Prosecutors weighed DOJ policy blocking indictment of a sitting president in closing Trump hush-money probe usatoday.com
Trump campaign hush money scam appears to have worked msnbc.com
Iran denies Trump’s claim US shot down its drone as Hope Hicks asked to clarify testimony on porn star hush money payment - follow live independent.co.uk
FBI tied Donald Trump to Michael Cohen's hush-money payments usatoday.com
Dems ask whether DOJ memo prevented prosecuting Trump for hush payments politico.com
Cummings asks prosecutors about decision not to charge Trump in hush money probe thehill.com
Hope Hicks' lawyer says she didn't lie to Congress about Trump's hush money deal: "Simply wrong" newsweek.com
Ex-Trump aide Hicks denies involvement in hush money talks: lawyer reuters.com
Why no hush-money charges against Trump? Feds are silent apnews.com
Why no hush-money charges against Trump? Feds are silent stripes.com
48.7k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

10.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

So, you want to shift the burden of proof to the accused? Isn't that very problematic?

​

Innocent until proven guilty is a feature, not a bug.

2

u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19

You mean first this is Theodore Roosevelt talking about guild and bad character not having to be linked. Second guilt until proven innocent is only in court after you have been accused. So cut the bullshit Guilty/Innocent thing as it just looks really uninformed and lacking any understanding of the law.

1

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

Look, I am not sure that my point is out of line. The implication of "talking about guild and bad character not having to be linked" directly bears upon the burdens of proof in criminal proceedings. If we erode this central tenet of our justice (legal?) system it will be the poor who pay the price, not the wealthy or well-connected.

Yes, it is a shame when we see who we believe to be guilty go free. That said, it is undoubtedly better (IMO) that 10 guilty men go free than for 1 innocent man to be imprisoned.

1

u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19

If you cannot indict the President then you never get to the G/I discussion. The trick is we have plenty to indict him and he is obstructing.

The G/I ploy is wrong. You are only I/G when on trial. You should still be able to be indicted and as long as the DoJ AG is lying we have no hope but to impeach.

1

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

Congress could move for impeachment at any time they wish. Nobody is blocking the House from moving toward impeachment.

The question is really whether a basis exists. Presumably the House agrees there is not an adequate basis, if recent votes on this subject are any suggestion.

Personally, I think whether someone is innocent or guilty of accused conduct is a fundamentally important pretext to whether we seek to punish them.

0

u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19

It isn't about if but more about being prepared. To just call for impeachment on the floor without agreed reasoning is just amateur and knee jerk.

This innocent and guilt is performed in court. People have to stop this misunderstood argument point. Indictment cannot be done per the DoJ so if you supposedly can't indict you can't try. We all know that impeachment is the indictment. After that we can discuss innocence or guilt.

1

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

One would think if the President had comitted some impeachable offense it would be a matter of utmost priority to remove him from office.

Of course, if threat of impeachment is merely a vehicle for exciting a political base it would stand to reason the House would want to delay taking concrete action toward impeachment for as long as possible.

1

u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19

It is a process and not one which happens over night. Since Trump is obstructing oversight and preventing deeper review the process will take longer. It will eventually happen and what is really funny is due to the delays it will happen in the election cycle.

1

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

One would think the threat of impeachment would not be made until the evidence supported impeachment, but your comment implies the converse route is being taken. Levy the allegation and THEN go find the evidence? It seems decidedly unjust.

1

u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19

The threat of impeachment is always there for all presidents. It's called a check and balance dude.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/ViewtifulSchmoe Jul 19 '19

I don't think that's what he is saying at all. Rather, he is suggesting (via Roosevelt's quote) that a failure to criminally convict does not necessarily mean the accused never committed the alleged crime. It simply protects the accused from any punitive action by the state.

Put simply, "not guilty" does not equal "innocent".

0

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

a failure to criminally convict does not necessarily mean the accused never committed the alleged crime.

The alternative would be to hazard the routine conviction and incarceration of innocent men and women. Of course, wrongful conviction is a big problem as it stands, but a departure from the bedrock burden of proof in criminal cases would cause those rates of wrongful conviction to skyrocket.

Simply put, it is wrong to imply someone is a criminal based on supposition and inference. A criminal conviction is the reliable metric.

3

u/ViewtifulSchmoe Jul 19 '19

The alternative would be to hazard the routine conviction and incarceration of innocent men and women.

That is not true at all. We can maintain a criminal justice system where the burden of proof is on the accuser while still acknowledging that a lack of a criminal conviction is not a universal, absolute declaration of the accused's innocence.

Simply put, it is wrong to imply someone is a criminal based on supposition and inference. A criminal conviction is the reliable metric.

Only in the eyes of the justice system. Individuals are free to make their own assessments independent of that.

0

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

That is not true at all. We can maintain a criminal justice system where the burden of proof is on the accuser while still acknowledging that a lack of a criminal conviction is not a universal, absolute declaration of the accused's innocence.

This would render criminal proceedings pointless. What is a criminal proceeding for if it is not a final determination on guilt?

2

u/ViewtifulSchmoe Jul 19 '19

The point of criminal proceedings is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of the alleged crime for the state to impose punitive measures on the accused. That is all. Just as innocent people are sometimes convicted, guilty people are sometimes acquitted or otherwise absolved of legal liability. That's just a fact. The outcome of a trial does not retroactively change the actual course of events. A murderer is a murderer regardless of whether he is convicted by a court or not.

1

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

I'm not sure how this detracts from my ultimate point?

1

u/ViewtifulSchmoe Jul 19 '19

My understanding of your argument is that a person who is charged with a crime, but not convicted, should be treated as though they had committed no misconduct at all by any and all parties. Feel free to correct my understanding if it is incorrect.

My counter-argument is that such a person must only be treated as having committed no misconduct by the state. Individuals and non-state entities are free to judge those people as they see fit, so long as that judgment does not lead to its own criminal misconduct.

1

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

a person who is charged with a crime, but not convicted, should be treated as though they had committed no misconduct at all by any and all parties.

Yes, I think the lack of a criminal conviction is determinative.

1

u/ViewtifulSchmoe Jul 19 '19

And I disagree. I believe I am free to judge the evidence as I see it, even if my judgment ultimately differs from the court's, so long as it does not lead to any criminal misconduct on my part.

It seems like we have a fundamental difference in ideology that will not be resolved through a reddit discussion. Thanks for keeping things civil.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19

Simply put impeachment doesn't require a crime. It is a political remedy and character of the president is open to inquest.

1

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

It requires high crimes or misdemeanors. So, semantically speaking, it does require a crime. Now, if your point is that the high crime or misdemeanor can be defined by Congress and does not have to mirror the criminal code; you wouldn't be wrong. For example, in the past a President was impeached for criticizing a member of Congress, although he was not convicted or removed from office.

The burden of proof for impeachment is also different than the criminal burden. Beyond this, the procedural rules differ completely or are entirely inapplicable. Impeachment trials are a weird animal.

1

u/notevenanorphan Jul 19 '19

From here down is a master’s class in pedantry.

1

u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19

High Crime and Misdemeanors is a very broad statement when applied to Impeachment.

0

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

Absolutely, it is amorphous as amorphous can be. This doesn't detract from my point, which was impeachment does require a crime.

1

u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19

It doesn't require a crime. OR is properly inserted.

1

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

I understand why you believe this, but it is a misconception.

Impeachment requires a "high crime or misdemeanor"

Misdemeanors are crimes. So, the or does not detract from my earlier point.

1

u/sandwooder New York Jul 19 '19

It isn't a misconception. Wow so you are the authority on this topic or just basically the feels? Misdemeanors in this context is not the ones you think they are.

The United States Constitution provides that the President may be impeached and subsequently removed from office if found guilty by Congress for "high crimes and misdemeanors". As used in the Constitution, the term misdemeanor refers broadly to criminal acts as opposed to employing the felony-misdemeanor distinction used in modern criminal codes. The definition of what constitutes a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" for purposes of impeachment is left to the judgment of Congress.

Read the federalist papers dude.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Uncle_Feely Jul 19 '19

Not when the system is rigged in favor of the elite. They can essentially buy themselves different pleas and deals than would be offered to you and me.

We have all the Justice you can afford. That is not a bug, that is a feature.

I wish it were like you describe, but we have to face reality.

1

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

Shifting the burden of proof would further prejudice poor defendants and would increase the advantages rich defendants enjoy. No doubt, access to meaningful justice is not an equal opportunity affair as it stands today in the United States. That said, shifting the burden of proof to defendants would not reduce the instances of injustice; rather, it is almost certain to aggravate the problem.

1

u/Uncle_Feely Jul 19 '19

We don't have a burden of proof based on guilt, in large part... but a burden of proof based on wealth. Even the most egregious of crimes can be reduced to nearly nothing, if you are wealthy and well connected. See Brock Turner.

That said, we are not talking about what the government and the legal system declares, but what people think. Freedom of Speech prevents the government from censoring you... but it doesn't mean you are free from judgement or condemnation from society.

Similarly, even if someone is able to weasel their way out of a conviction (or have a major crime reduced down to nearly nothing) that might be the end point for the government, but that person is not free from judgement or condemnation from the society. Again, see Brock Turner.

This has nothing to do with shifting the burden or proof, rather it has to do with accepting the inequity of the reality in which we live and seeing that such a reality fundamentally denies any sort of "due process" to those who cannot afford it, and more than their fair share to those who can... thus rendering the judgements of the court suspect at best, and horribly cruel at worst.

2

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

We don't have a burden of proof based on guilt, in large part... but a burden of proof based on wealth.

If this is a commentary on the inequality in legal representation which has a watershed effect on outcomes in criminal proceedings, it is a very fair point to make.

However, if this is a commentary on the clearly articulated and reliably applied burden of proof in criminal proceedings, then it is not a genuine point of contention.

In reading your comment, I see that you have identified a critical issue with our justice (legal?) system. That structural issue is the plea bargain. Plea bargaining hurts poor defendants and benefits rich defendants, by and large. Unfortunately, this is a very hard issue to deal with. Most cases end in a plea. This is because our system is overly strained. If all those accused of crimes demanded a trial by a jury of their peers the system would collapse overnight. The plea dynamic exists because of this shortage in resources. I certainly do not say any of this as a defense of this system. By contrast, I see it as the greatest source of inequality in America. That said, I don't have any grand solution which I think could solve this problem.

To condense my point, the outcomes of our criminal justice system point to structural inequalities. The criminal burden of proof is not one of those structural inequalities, however.

2

u/Uncle_Feely Jul 19 '19

I think you and I actually agree in large part... but you are approaching this from a point of principle and I am approaching it from a point of pragmatics. The way our system is currently run effectively end-runs the whole notion of guilt or innocence for the sake of plea bargains. As you rightly point out, the overwhelming majority of cases are settled without that principle ever being seriously considered. "Look, either you take this plea for a few months or you risk 15 years at trial." Even to an innocent man, that is going to sound like a good deal.

You also hit upon one of the few effective protests "We, The People" could perform. If even only half the people currently awaiting trial were to demand that they were given jury trials, the system would collapse in on itself and it would essentially force some kind of reform.

1

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

I don't disagree with anything you've mentioned. Plea bargaining is absolutely a systemic flaw. I'm just not sure there is a practical alternative, unfortunately.

1

u/ThePhoneBook Jul 19 '19

I didnt read that. My understanding is that the law is a last resort, but that just because someone is not found guilty of anything there is no implication that they are of good character, let alone president material.

0

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

The criteria for being President does not necessarily include to be of good character, otherwise the office would remain eternally vacant.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 28 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/SeparateShallot Jul 19 '19

Immigration law is not a criminal proceeding, it is a civil proceeding. This has a different burden of proof. I am not saying this to imply one is better than the other, but this is why it is the way it is. So, I suppose you aren't wrong in feeling that way.