DOJ Prosecutors Wrongfully Accuse Trump of Campaign Finance Crimes

Federal lawyers prosecuting Michael Cohen in the Southern District of New York have dropped a bombshell in a memorandum they filed with the court this past Friday — accusing President Trump of campaign finance crimes.

Cohen was Donald Trump’s personal lawyer. During Trump’s campaign, Cohen paid off two women to remain quiet about disgraceful stories of Donald Trump. Cohen acted to silence the two women by buying rights to their stories on behalf of his client, Cohen explained during his guilty plea. The purpose of the hush-buys, according to prosecutors referencing Cohen’s statements, was “to prevent the story from influencing the election.” The money for these hush-buys came from Trump’s corporation. Federal prosecutors titled this activity “Illegal Campaign Contributions.”

Was this activity, in fact, illegal? Were these hush-buys a type of campaign contribution?

Expert campaign finance law attorney Dan Backer, who beat the federal government in a landmark Supreme Court case, is not impressed with the DOJ’s assertions of illegality. First of all, he explains, there is no evidence to corroborate this assertion.

Michael Cohen asserts that the purpose of the expenditure was “to prevent the story from influencing the election.” But Donald Trump has done this for years, having paid off individuals to stay quiet about potentially damaging stories throughout his career. "Trump" is a brand, after all. To protect the reputation of the brand, Trump participated in hush-buys before the election and likely will continue to do so after he completes his term. He’s not the only brand to do so.

Many companies and individuals concerned with their reputations engage in such business dealings to protect their name, their brand, their image. Small businesses across America will provide complete refunds to dissatisfied customers, for example, to prevent bad reviews, sometimes offering additional money on top of a refund in exchange for a customer agreeing to remove a bad review.

Is such activity a campaign contribution? No, Backer answers, “brand protection is not a campaign contribution.” The hush-buys were done to protect Trump as a corporate brand, not to protect him as a candidate. No evidence was presented by the federal prosecutors explaining how a lawful business deal was converted into an illegal campaign finance contribution. "The notion that every penny a candidate personally or professionally spends is somehow reportable to the FEC is utter nonsense." Backer further explains that a campaign finance crime is "not a question of speculation, it’s a matter of proof, and there isn’t any [in this case]."

Moreover, Backer is suspicious of Cohen’s intentions. Cohen is a “disgraced turncoat lawyer who violated the most sacred precept of an attorney,” Backer exclaimed. He is referencing Cohen violating the quintessential trust that an attorney promises to his client upon accepting payment for services, the attorney-client privilege, to protect his own interests while simultaneously throwing his client under the bus. “What kind of a lawyer would tape a client,” Trump famously once asked.

“Nothing new was presented in Cohen's sentencing memorandum, no new facts. Everything Cohen stated we knew months ago when Cohen plead guilty to save himself,” Backer stated. The only new assertion is a statement of intent that Cohen added after he plead guilty and was under an agreement with the prosecutor to cooperate.

Well, the remainder of the sentencing memorandum accuses Cohen of lying, evasion, and fabrication. Cohen’s public treatment of Trump was a violation of his client’s confidentiality and trust. So what possible basis do we, as the public, have in trusting this man? Why would we believe him now, when his only motivation is to reduce the duration of his prison sentence?

After all, cooperation with the government and providing salient information to the government results in a recommendation for a reduced sentence, as we have seen in Michael Flynn’s case. In the sentencing memo for Flynn, Robert Mueller wrote that Flynn’s cooperation was “substantial,” and asked for “a sentence at the low end of the guideline range—including a sentence that does not impose a term of incarceration,” arguing on behalf of Flynn that such a break is “appropriate and warranted.” Certainly, Cohen was primarily motivated by hopes for the same type of leniency.

Cohen is a traitor to his client. Cohen was successfully prosecuted for tax evasion and lying to Congress. Any statements he makes on a wing and a prayer for a shorter prison stay is inherently untrustworthy. Backer agrees, “Cohen is just trying to save his own skin.”

DOJ prosecutors have wrongfully accused President Trump of campaign finance crimes.

Here is something that has bugged the hell out of me for a long time. Before a government employee can obtain representation at taxpayer expense, the DoJ has to make an official determination that the employee was acting within the scope of his/her official duties at the time the actions giving rise to the litigation occurred. The request for representation and the determination to grant representation has to be in writing so there is a record. The procedure requires that the government official granting representation determine the employee requesting representation was acting within the scope of their employment, i.e., was not intentionally violating the law or violating other DOJ or professional ethical standards. Beginning with Obozo and encompassing scores of his administration officials, free taxpayer DOJ representation was provided to clearly corrupt officials. If the official representation determination were not bad enough, most of the cases were so egregious that the government lawyer performing the representation had have lied and deceived the court to work the case. Obozo set the example for this corruption within his administration by having government lawyers in the Civil Division defend him in an array of challenges to his Constitutionally fraudulent right to hold office. On the heels of this fraud, taxpayer DOJ representation was provided to defend a seemingly endless number of outrageous civil and criminal cases - Holder’s gun running, Lois Lerner’s targeting conservative groups, Hitlery’s massive list of State Department criminal acts, including Benghazi, Uranium 1, etc. The latest is the FOIA case brought by Judicial Watch to wrest Hitlery’s unauthorized e-mails from the State Department. If you can believe it, DoJ lawyers are still ‘representing’ that crook, including obfuscating and committing fraud on the court. The extremes to which these Obozo henchmen holdovers have gone are so unethical and outrageous that D.C. Dist. Ct. Judge Roy Lamberth got so disgusted with their deviousness he gave them all a good old fashioned ass chewing the other day. Where are the DoJ Trump officials that should have stopped the DoJ runaway criminal and unethical conduct two years ago? These crooked lawyers should not only be criminally prosecuted, but they should also be disbarred for life. Enough of this corruption already.

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.