Posted on 03/02/2019 10:20:29 PM PST by be-baw
As special counsel Robert Mueller prepares his final report and Congress ramps up its own investigations, we soon will have answers to questions over collusion, obstruction, and Russian influence. Yet, President Trump may answer one of the most intriguing questions of all: Is it better to fight one horse-sized duck or a hundred duck-sized horses? New developments make it likely that Trump will fight a hundred duck-sized horses, in the form of alleged collateral crimes rather than collusion. None appears life threatening in their own right, so the real question here is what they will represent collectively during the next two years of this administration.
When Mueller was appointed, Trump faced a horse-sized duck in the form of Russian collusion allegations. That duck has yet to materialize over the course of dozens of “speaking” indictments and filings. One indictment stated that any contact between Trump officials and Russians was done “unwittingly,” and not one filing or witness has established a link between either Trump or his campaign and Russian hacking of Democratic emails. At most, there is evidence that Trump associates like Roger Stone, as well as Trump himself, wanted to see that material. But many journalists and political operatives were trying to obtain the same material, which had already been teased as forthcoming by WikiLeaks. That itself not a crime.
Trump also faced a horse-sized duck with the obstruction allegations. The problem is that there is still no clear obstruction by Trump, despite a litany of inappropriate comments. He did not fire Mueller. He did not order the end of the special counsel investigation. He also has not been accused of destroying evidence. He has tweeted aplenty but that is more obnoxious than obstructive. None of that changed with the testimony of Michael Cohen, who expressly said he has no evidence of collusion. He offered little more on obstruction beyond saying that he believed Trump wanted him to lie about Trump Tower in Moscow, without Trump ordering him to lie. There is still far more duck than horse in obstruction theories.
Instead, Cohen in his testimony became a virtual wrangler of duck-sized horses, including portraits bought with charity funds, insurance claims with inflated damages, a bid for a National Football League team with inflated assets, hush money for mistresses, even false medical claims to avoid the draft. Many of these little equines are coming from the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, rather than the special counsel in Washington. Yet, these pint-sized horses would make a poor case for impeachment even in the aggregate. Many occurred before Trump became president, and most would fall short of the constitutional standard. Even as criminal matters, presumably in prosecutions after Trump leaves office, this herd is even less threatening than it appears.
Hush money
Of the various legal horses, the most formidable is the allegation that Trump knowingly participated in a violation of campaign finance laws. Cohen produced checks signed by Trump after he became president that were reimbursement for hush money paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal. Federal prosecutors had treated the payments as a criminal matter when charging Cohen for his role in this violation. Under the same theory, Trump was also a party to the crime.
Justice Department policy, wrongly in my view, maintains that a sitting president should not be indicted. Prosecutors could pursue a charge on the payments against Trump after he leaves office but this is no easy case to make. The Justice Department failed in such a prosecution against former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. The signing of these checks and the alleged directions given to Cohen make the case stronger, but Cohen may have weakened the chances for the prosecution. The most obvious defense for Trump is that he was motivated in making the payments not by the campaign but by his marriage and reputation.
Cohen gave Trump a major lift in that defense in two respects. First, he testified that Trump never thought he was going to win the 2016 election. Many others did not either, and even Trump himself said he continued to pursue business deals in anticipation that he might lose. Second, Cohen recounted how Trump had him speak to the first lady about the payments, to assure her that the stories of affairs were untrue. That would support a defense that Trump was worried about his wife finding out and may have been protecting his marriage and his reputation. This all comes down to motivation, and Cohen supplied Trump with a much stronger defense.
Financial fraud
Cohen has been charged with bank fraud, as has former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Cohen implicated Trump in both insurance fraud and bank fraud in the inflation of damages and assets. Those, too, could be charged as crimes. In business, however, assets often are exaggerated. For example, Trump reportedly gave Deutsche Bank figures on his worth that jumped in one year by $4 billion. Yet, the list of liabilities and assets on the “summary of net worth” seems like a fairly preliminary document.
It might not constitute the type of accounting data that would trigger a fraud claim. The $4 billion is also explained as “brand value.” That might be dismissed as a tangible value for accounting purposes, but Trump clearly indicated the source of this claimed value. Inflated insurance claims can be a cut and dried criminal case if they are outside the range of valuation. However, that is a big “if” as businesses often claim the highest potential value or damage when they seek insurance coverage.
Charity fraud
The best example of the scourge of tiny horses is the controversy over a portrait of Trump. Most of us were transfixed by the notion that Trump would rig an auction with a straw buyer to make sure that his portrait was the most expensive purchase. That is not a crime but he allegedly used money from his charity to buy the portrait, then hung the painting in one of his properties. In July 2013, Trump tweeted about his portrait being the most valuable item. The date is important, since most forms of fraud have a statute of limitations lasting five years. The statute on fraud involving financial institutions can be as long as 10 years. However, these violations are rarely prosecuted criminally anyway. In the worst cases, the charity is disbanded, which is precisely what happened to the Trump Foundation.
These are all examples of why fighting a hundred duck-sized horses is easier but can take more time. Trump will be answering questions and subpoenas on these allegations for the next two years. It is unlikely to be lethal, absent false statements or obstructions, but it is likely to exhaust him and his presidency. His mounting troubles are likely to rekindle his anger at Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who will leave the Justice Department in coming weeks. It was Rosenstein who ordered the referral of the Cohen criminal case to the Southern District of New York.
At the time, I wrote that the move made more strategic than legal sense. It made little sense for Mueller to pursue Manafort on unrelated fraud and other crimes but then to send similar claims against Cohen to New York. If anything, Cohen is linked more closely to Trump, as recently shown. Yet, in doing so, Rosenstein has insured that any forced closure of the special counsel investigation would not end all investigations. In other words, if the horse-sized duck toppled in Washington, a stampede of duck-sized horses was coming from New York. Now we will see which one is worse.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Here we see the pivot to other nonsense.
Not gonna read anything by Jonathan Turdley. Not enough time n life.
“Here we see the pivot to other nonsense.”
I agree with you. Horse-sized ducks and duck-sized horses? It’s hard to get more nonsensical than that.
Still, there’s a lot of meat in the article, from a legal standpoint. Too bad Turley chose to muddy his plate with the tortured metaphors.
DJT never had a choice between one or the other. The Deep State players have intended to throw it all at him from the beginning.
... but it is likely to exhaust him and his presidency.
Mr. Turley has failed to notice the most noticeable Trumpian characteristic of all. He doesn't get tired.
Normally, Turley is pretty fair when he’s interviewed or when he writes something, not so in this case, IMHO. I stopped reading after I read this....
not one filing or witness has established a link between either Trump or his campaign and Russian hacking of Democratic emails
It has never been determined that the Russians, or anyone else, hacked the DNC. Ergo, this entire thing, as well know, is based on an unsupported and uncorroborated accusation by Clinton and her supporters to overturn the results of the election. It has no basis of facts, in any way shape or form.
Long past time that some revenge is had not by, but upon Rat Rosenstein.
The doj will not indict?. Idiot. Trump is the DOJ, and a president is not indictable, impeachment is the politcal proceeding since this is all political , or else we would change presidents on a week by week whim with huge instability.
Are these liberals that ignorant and stupid!
how about we pivot to the real investigation of the coup-plotters and their enablers?
all the evidence is there.
declassify all documents, President Trump.
Nonsense, pure unadulterated crap from a long time fool pretending to be a journalist. Nonsense! Never let the truth get in the way of the agenda. Trump’s biggest “crime” was he won, did not play by the rules, upset the apple cart and continues to buck the deep state while standing proud. The establishment hates the fact they have lost control. Screw you Turley, your horse and every horse your establishment deep state followers came in on. FU.
Used his charity to buy a painting of himself? Sounds similar to the Clinton Foundation paying for Chelsea’s wedding. But of course the Clintons can get away with anything.
The author forgets one important fact: Trump hasn’t yet gone on the offense. He’s been taking ‘duck sized horse’ shots for 2 years. Maybe he’s rope-a-doping his enemies?
I admit my dismay at his inaction to date, but he never seemed the type to take this kind of assault unanswered. He’s given interviews 20 years before he took office stating that when attacked he returns fire 10x harder. He said the same thing on the campaign trail. So I still think he’s just waiting for Mueller to wrap up, then he gets control of the microphone.
You nailed it. He's been taking shots all along, clearing out derps from FBI/DOJ and elsewhere. Consider them "carpet bombs" to clear the field.
The "offense" that you speak of is imminent, or so I'm told by a certain someone. He told me this just recently, and a WHOLE lot more.
Carpet bombs are ok. Tactical nukes are better.
It's coming. And soon.
Check out the forbidden place of which we cannot speak to find out more.
Youll all be very happy very soon.
Duck the horse and duck.
But all one has to do is read this line in his article to realize what his agenda STILL is:
Justice Department policy, wrongly in my view, maintains that a sitting president should not be indicted.
So this twerp believes that a sitting president can be indicted, coming from his duck sized horses?
I agree. The special counsel should NOT be the judge and jury. It should amass information, then give that to the AG, and he or she releases it.
The entire unabridged report should NOT be released to the public. This is America, My Friends, where someone is allowed to counter his accusers in court, and where one is innocent until found guilty.
Ok, I miss your point. The lines from the article that you reference seem to support Turley being fair minded. What am I missing in the examples you gave? I think the guy is and always has been a never Trumper.
I was turned off by the article the moment he said, the in his opinion a sitting president should be indicted.
Well said.
Why do we get this propaganda from The Hill re-posted nearly every day? There is seldom anything factually based in their "news stories". They are gutter trash Leftist/apologists for the DemonRats.
we should have brains and tell the writer to go duck himself
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.