The Art of the Plea Deal

Trump's former campaign manager, former deputy campaign manager, former foreign policy aide, former national security adviser, and former lawyer have all either pleaded guilty or been found guilty of federal crimes. If any Trump voter would like to choose country over political party and apologize for putting a scumbag criminal in the white house, there is no time like the present.

Anyone who clicks the "Oh, look who's coming..." link will surely join me in thanking you 1 million times, Adam, for 3 words: Bridget the Midget.

Very much unlike its neighbors Newburyport and Amesbury. I saw Trump signs all over Ferry Road the last time I biked there. Could be an interesting scene.

The Arkansas of Massachusetts.

Trailers an inbreeding abound.

I believe Robert Mueller is safe and can keep spending millions since there was no Trump collusion with Russia and not one vote was changed. Hillary and the Democrat party just ran a terrible campaign. The President has stayed out of the investigation although he is in charge.

Far-left but esteemed Harvard Professor Attorney Alan Dershowitz admits the special counsel is on a witch hunt. Long before Trump, another highly respected Boston attorney Harvey Silverglate (friend of Dershowitz) wrote the book Three Felonies A Day which I highly recommend. Anyone of us could be charged and given the choice to plead guilty or lose everything. That's what's happening here, no Russia collusion.

Interesting Hillary hasn't been charged for home bathroom computer server with classified information, smashed cell phones and bleaching of all files under subpoena, all felonies not to mention selling US uranium to Russia and paying for the fake dossier.

When news of the payoff to Madame Daniels first came out last year, the claim was made that Trump paid it out of Trump funds. That would have been sleazy, but not illegal since neither hush money in general nor a candidate spending arbitrary sums of his own money toward his election are illegal.

Then the story got twisted into Trump directing Cohen to make the payment and then reimbursing him. Which again is legal for the same reason. Now Cohen claims he made the payment himself, implicating himself in going over the 2500 limit for a campaign contribution but then he also says he did it at the direction of the very same person for whom making such a payment would have been perfectly legal.

So Trump's defense is that he was going to reimburse Cohen, or direct him to bill Trump for services rendered. Interestingly, Cohen is also pleading guilty to embezzlement from the Trump Organization. Seems to me these things are only criminal if looked at in isolation but if taken collectively could be argued to be perfectly legal, if distasteful. The fact that they had Cohen on so.ething else is the only reason they got him to plead on making the payment on behalf of Trump. BUT: that's Cohen's problem. Trump's defense is that everything excluding Cohen's other crimes should be taken together rather in isolation, in which case no crime was committed even if Cohen chose to plead guilty to something that in isolation looks illegal but in context with other actions is not which he did only to make a deal based on his other legal troubles.

Da, comrades?