Posted on 08/22/2018 9:48:25 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Let’s stipulate that there are competing choruses taking to the risers. One will sing loudly that every rotten thing critics have been spouting about President Trump must be true now that Paul Manafort is a convicted felon and Michael Cohen has struck a plea deal.
On the other stage, Trump supporters will spin that the fall of two shady characters is no great stain on the president, and that in fact this is another occasion containing no evidence of Russian election collusion.
So, on the first full day of digesting an explosive day of court action, what are the ramifications for Trump, legally and politically?
The simple answer first: the Manafort verdict is meaningless on both fronts. His crimes had nothing to do with Trump or the 2016 campaign.
The Cohen plea deal is a starkly different matter. As Trump’s attorney, he engineered the payment of funds to two accusers to keep their stories of salacious affairs out of the news as the 2016 election approached.
But the question will be: Does that make them campaign contributions? If so, they far exceed the limits permitted by law. The plea deal contains Cohen’s own assertion that those funds were intended to affect the election result. Case closed, right?
Not so fast. Who knows what kind of stretch Cohen was willing to undertake in order to cut a deal mitigating his punishment? Plea deals, by their nature, are negotiations that afford prosecutors and defendants a portion of what they want. Michael Cohen wants to avoid dying of old age in prison. It would be a fairly tiny price to color the Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal payoffs as intentional campaign spending, even if they were not.
This will be the battleground as Trump’s tormentors seek to ramp this up to an impeachable offense, while his defenders circle the wagons of damage control. So if objectivity is possible, a question: Can the argument be made that those payoffs were a protective strategy that would have been made even if there were no election?
Of course it can; it already has, by Rudy Giuliani three months ago when he described those financial arrangements as separate from the campaign operation. Does any expenditure in an election season automatically count as a campaign cost?
The answer may lie with the famous private citizens who have opened big checkbooks to dissuade publicity or lawsuits. Michael Jackson heaped $20 million onto an accuser and his family in 1994 to extinguish a civil suit stemming from molestation claims. This week’s headlines contain the stories of nearly $400,000 paid to a teenage actor to restrain sexual assault allegations against actress Asia Argento. Neither effort was connected to a quest for political office. It is very nearly a law of physics: famous people will often face damaging accusations, and when they do, they may pay large settlements to make those stories go away, whether true or not.
Trump, his attorneys and his defenders are free to paint the payoffs as an understandable path any famous private citizen might pursue. What they will face now is an army of opponents clamoring for Trump to be subpoenaed if not indicted.
It is arguable whether either of those can happen. It is a chaotic prospect to imagine presidents subject to local district attorneys wielding court orders that can bring the nation’s business to a halt. As a necessary exercise in consistency, I would assert that even if we were enduring a Hillary Clinton presidency, she would be similarly immune from the Manhattan phone book of charges that would hang over her head as a result of her email scandals and the blatant mishandling of classified documents.
So here we are. The usual voices calling for Trump to be drawn and quartered will claim sweet vindication of some sort. Trump will probably not plumb the depths of detail about the payoffs, leaving Giuliani and others to assert that they were not campaign contributions, even if Cohen said they were under pressure from ambitious prosecutors.
Look for Cohen to be characterized as a sleazy opportunist, fabricating the campaign law angle to save some portion of his hide. If that effort begins to stick, it will come in handy in a defense against the other bear trap that lies ahead for Trump— the Cohen claim that however they are defined, the payments were pre-approved by the candidate, despite his famous Air Force One video clip saying he was unaware.
The complete absence of Russia collusion evidence creates a burning hunger among Trump-haters for some storyline to stoke in pursuit of impeachment. The spring in their step will last for a while, but their ultimate goal requires a transfer of the stench of guilt from Michael Cohen to his client. That path seems blocked by procedural and possibly factual obstacles.
The greatest likelihood is that the people who despise Trump will add this to their reasons why, while the millions who voted for him will absorb and process this latest drama, and then get on with their lives.
Lanny needs to be disbarred for the way he’s playing his own agenda here.
“Didn’t the FEC already say that the money doesn’t count as campaign contributions?”
Yes. And facts these facts don’t matter. I am not an expert, but it looks like they want to get the President to make a comment that doesn’t fit their narrative so that they can bring down an obstruction of justice charge. That *has* to be their end game.
I’ve seen people claim that Trump Jr and Roger Stone are next. Roger Stone will be able to handle himself ... however, I can’t see them bringing in Trump Jr ... there is a high risk that people will see that as an intimidation tactic.
Finally, I think we are going to see a retaliation tactic from the Trump side very soon ... this is certainly the time you’re going to start firing salvos for the campaign season. My guess is right after Labor Day.
Good question.
“Lanny needs to be disbarred for the way he’s playing his own agenda here.”
Lanny might have nothing to lose at this point being involved with the Clintons for as long as he has ... just some food for thought :-) (that’s just speculation of course)
Nothing happened here.
Nothing.
Cohen plead to things that weren’t crimes at the behest of Lanny Davis (of all lawyers). Cohen is a lawyer, which means he knows what he’s doing.
Manafort and Cohen are plants. Period.
And they got nothing. If they had, I can assure you the details would have been broken down so that a 9 year old Helen Keller would have comprehended it.
It would have been done in Lego, and Barney, and Callou so that even toddlers would understand.
Whether Trump paid for sex or not, I don’t care. I actually understand it. Has Trump done anything to undermine the United States in any way, shape, or fashion.
According to the press, no. By their own admission, no.
Desperation. This is what cornered animals act like in the end.
The payments are offset by the fact that Trump himself spent millions of his own money; how does one know which pot of money it came from, and does it matter if not illegal to begin with as one former FCC chair has stated.
Yep, and it’s why she and her husband should have been targeted for prosecution decades ago.
Just my opinion only, but Lanny would be behind bars if everything were known.
Imagine the political balance in the U. S. if every person Hillary had committed crimes with, had been prosecuted.
Makes me want to campaign for Trump even more than in 2016!
We have a winner!!!!!!
You’re all over threads posting this wacky crap.
FEC regulations specifically state that if there are other legitimate reasons for a payout then considering it a campaign contribution can be ignored.
It may come at a political cost, but there is no legal jeopardy. The feds tried it with John Edwards and it failed, if they try it with the president it will fail too.
Trump did not violate any law pertaining to Michael Cohen ... Cohen made the payment to Stormy Daniels ‘because’ she was ‘Black Mailing’ Trump.... The payment was made by Cohen. Then after receiving the black mail $$ she demanded more!
Somebody please tell me what paying ‘hush’ money to women has to do with campaign contributions.
I don’t know why Cohen chose Lanny Davis. It would seem if not a legal conflict at least a personal and emotional one. But, it appears as if Cohen has done some dirt so they got him one way or another. Of course, had Trump lost or never ran for office we would never even know who Cohen was and he probably would never have been caught for any of the stuff they have on him now.
There is still a problem with lawyer-client privilege. For all intents and purposes the only way to break the privilege here is if Cohen committed a crime with his client, or knew about a crime in advance. Unless they went hand in hand into some criminal endeavor, anything Trump told Cohen after the fact should be privileged. So even if Trump literally hacked a server by himself and paid Putin for dirt and stuffed the WI ballot box with phony ballots all of it would be privileged. I imagine Trump’s new lawyers would be able to quash such testimony.
The thing is, this isn’t going to go to court of law it is going to court of public opinion and, maybe, to Congress. I don’t know how privilege would work in the case of Congressional testimony - but if they tried to put Cohen on the stand to rat Trump out I would be the judge would not allow it.
FYI IANAL
“What if they weren’t lovers and her accusations are false?”
Then why pay the hush money?
Famous men get extorted and sued all the time. Ya just don’t pay unless the accuser has some sort of leverage, corroboration, photos, etc.
Besides, it’s perfectly legal to pay hush money to whomever for whatever.
The core issue that seems to be getting ignored is that when you are a candidate for national office, hush money has to be declared as a campaign expense and reimbursement declared a contribution.
It is never going to go to court. This is all political theater. So they can say whatever they want. Cohen appears to have committed some crimes of his own, unrelated to Trump, and due to his proximity to Trump the machine ground him up. He was guilty of some things, and that is all they needed to make political hay.
Paying hush money is not a crime at all. It has nothing to do with campaign contributions. They are simply trying to influence public perception with this story “Trump was a candidate for POTUS, this story would cause him political damage, so Trump asked the lawyer paid the woman to keep quiet, and that is a campaign contribution because they did it for political reasons”.
But this logic leaves out a lot of facts. I think (but cannot verify all these assertions): Cohen paid from his client’s retainer fund. Trump reimbursed Cohen with personal, not campaign funds. The logic that this was done to influence the election is a presumption unless proven, most everyone thought Trump was going to lose the election anyway and Trump has a business brand to protect that has nothing to do with politics, so the hush money could just as well have been to protect his name and his brand. And, how many times has Trump paid women to be quiet? I bet this is not the first and that suggests that it is something routine he would have done in any case - I imagine all kinds of billionaire’s get blackmailed, especially the more flamboyant and playboy types.
So this is all about politics, not law, imo.
Well here’s some “wacky crap” questions:
What would those “legitimate reasons” be for giving Stormy Daniels the money?
And not declaring the reimbursement a campaign doantion?
Agreed.
The legal trouble started when candidate Trump repaid Cohen and no one reported the money as a campaign donation.
If it was blackmail, dial 911........
That may be true. I don't know and IANAL. Question though - the affair was alleged to have happened in 2006. And it was not exactly a secret. The allegations of the affair were already published in 2011 by Life & Style magazine.
So how do you pay hush money for something that is already in the public domain? That is why they structured the deal to "buy her story rights" so they she would not talk about it any further. But it seems to me that it cannot be "hush money" when it is already printed in the news.
Blackmail..... money from (a person) in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information about that person.......... extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution.
Anyone remember the Trump University Lawsuit?
They were trying to use that against Candidate Trump and he said he wasn’t going to Settle because it was ridiculous. The same People Suing him had signed Letters after they took the Courses saying how wonderful it was, not that it mattered to then and their Lawyers looking for a Payday.
After a while, Candidate Trump decided to Settle it because the Democrats and their Media Allies were pushing the false narrative and causing a distraction.
Now I ask, what is the difference between that and what the Cohen Plea tries to insinuate? Trump or his Privately owned Company paid out Money to get rid of a distraction. It wasn’t “Campaign” Money, it was Private Citizen Trump’s Money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.