Posted on 12/10/2018 9:05:26 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The 40-page sentencing memo filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York for former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen is the basis for an indictment against the president, according to Andrew McCarthy.
McCarthy believes the charges will be for violating campaign finance laws. It's alleged that Cohen and Trump paid off two women to hide their sexual liaisons with Trump during the 2016 campaign. The violation occurred when Cohen made the payments and cooked the books to hide them. That's fraud and Cohen will go to jail for it.
As McCarthy points out, the prosecutors have had Trump in their sights from the beginning:
But when Cohen pleaded guilty in August, prosecutors induced him to make an extraordinary statement in open court: the payments to the women were made in coordination with and at the direction of the candidate for federal office Donald Trump.
Prosecutors would not have done this if the president was not on their radar screen. Indeed, if the president was not implicated, I suspect they would not have prosecuted Cohen for campaign finance violations at all. Those charges had a negligible impact on the jail time Cohen faces, which is driven by the more serious offenses of tax and financial institution fraud, involving millions of dollars.
Trump has denied he had sex with the women as well as denying any payoff. But why indict Trump when violations like this are usually handled administratively and rarely rise to the level of a crime?
Moreover, campaign finance infractions are often settled by payment of an administrative fine, not turned into felony prosecutions. To be sure, federal prosecutors in New York City have charged them as felonies before most notably in 2014 against Dinesh DSouza, whom Trump later pardoned.
In marked contrast, though, when it was discovered that Barack Obamas 2008 presidential campaign was guilty of violations involving nearly $2 million an amount that dwarfs the $280,000 in Cohens case the Obama Justice Department decided not to prosecute. Instead, the matter was quietly disposed of by a $375,000 fine by the Federal Election Commission.
The sticking point is Cohen's efforts to conceal the payments from the FEC. The prosecutors will allege that Trump was involved in that process.
The sentencing memo for Cohen argues that the hush money payments were not merely unreported. It states that Cohen and the Trump organization the presidents company went to great lengths to conceal them by fraudulent bookkeeping.
Equally significantly, Cohen was not charged with merely making illegal donations. He was charged in the first campaign finance count with causing a company to make illegal donations.
That company was the National Enquirer, which bought Karen McDougal's story for $150,000 and then buried it at Cohen's request. There was apparently a promise to repay the company -- a promise that was never kept.
Throughout the memo is the suggestion that Trump knew what Cohen was doing and ordered him to do it. Cohen has already admitted lying to Congress so the question of his credibility in telling prosecutors that Trump was in on the payoff scheme remains open.
Trump is not without a defense in this case and it's no slam dunk. Plus, Justice Department guidance states that a sitting president cannot be indicted. There is much debate over that point -- a question that could be tied up in court for years.
So Democrats have to ask themselves if they should impeach Donald Trump for violations of the campaign finance laws.
More importantly, do campaign finance violations qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors, which is the constitutional standard for impeachment? It is hard to imagine an infraction that the Justice Department often elects not to prosecute is sufficiently egregious to rise to that level, but the debate on this point between partisans would be intense.
To kick Trump out of office, Democrats are going to have to find 13 Republican senators to convict the president in a Senate trial. Over a violation of campaign finance laws? Really?
That's why all this excitement and hysteria over the prosecution filing in the sentencing of Michael Cohen is partisans blowing smoke.
I know and understand Democrats...and their base.
They have to impeach Trump or all Hell will break loose in their party. Which is fine, but they attack - they always attack (they’re the polar opposite in temperament to Republicans). It’s happening regardless of what Trump does, because for the Democrats it HAS to happen.
The focus needs to be on defeating what we know they have to do. Ignoring it is not an option.
There is not going to be any impeachment.
I hope they rip the Country apart if the Dems try this.
The rat RINOS are behind this.
Yes those juvenile messages do require some intellect.
I like your statement.
I pray for President Trump.
You are correct.
I thought you have to have 66 to impeach...in Senate
67
that’s why I say for now Trump is safe with 39-40 solid; another 6-7 “squishes” like Rubes, who will vote to acquit on something stupid like campaign finance violation, but if Trump declassifies FISAs, this is the kind of thing that will send Rubes and Sassehole and Burrito and Mel Tillis over the edge & Trump would lose them.
I vividly recall the way the Media and the special Prosecutors wore Nixon down. He could have ended the whole thing right at the start, but he didn’t. He could have burned the tapes, but he didn’t. He also wasn’t really well liked when it came down to it.
When his approvals got into the 30s, the GOP started turning on him, one by one. I think it was Bush, Sr? Who told him he needed to resign.
I don’t think the same will happen to Trump, but I wish to God Trump would get in front of the public more and rally us to stand our ground on this war with China.
The media, the Cavutos and other wind bags, are caving as they see their portfolios getting hit, but we have to hang together as Americans.
JUST THINK HOW MUCH CAN BE DONE, IT TRUMP HAD SOME BACKING FROM SOME OF THE DEMS AND ALL OF THE GOP.
I DON’T quite understand why he doesn’t declassify that FISA warrant. You’ve lost me.
The FISA will show GB was involved in a coup. Relations with GB will be extremely strained when that becomes public.
Critics, such as Rubio and Burr and others who always pound their chests about “national security” will claim that this has endangered national security with an ally. No, it won’t be true, but that doesn’t matter. Rubio, Sasse, etc. hate Trump and are looking for any-—in their minds, LEGITIMATE-—reason to get rid of him.
I don’t think they can make that case with the campaign finance violation, but I think they will try to make it with FISA release. Practically, it means if there is an impeachment, to release the FISA stuff would (in my opinion) cost Trump 4-6 GOP acquittal votes.
Well Nixon actually broke the law. Trump has done nothing wrong and isn’t trying to cover anything up. There is no smoking gun or missing tapes. Trump is not a criminal. All the Dems have is rhetoric.
Nixon had no friends. Yeah, he covered up, but as soon as his numbers tanked, they threw him under the bus.
I’m thinking that’s what’s going on here. They’re trying to get Trump’s approvals down.
GB? George Bush? Huh????
Great Britain, I believe.
Yes
Well, “they” are always trying to do something to somebody but the last time they had success was with Nixon and he really did break the law. Most of the time it’s just sound and fury. Like now because for all intents and purposes Obama’s administration never happened. Trump has reversed most of it and the Dems are just furious but too weak to prevail.
You said it.
One is a judge.
The other is a Democrat Congress.
You apparently don’t know the difference between impeachment-—a HOUSE action-—and conviction or removal, which is a Senate action.
I clearly said as of now Trump is safe in the Senate.But he will be impeached.
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.