I’d heard the case was closed at one point, but not sure what that technically means. Is it possible the case would be re-opened when Trump leaves office? Is the evidence as strong as it was against Cohen, and is the crime as severe? Thanks in advance.
He might. The FBI closing the inquiry just means they aren’t doing anything with it; it doesn’t mean they couldn’t start again at any time, since they never filed any charges or tried anything, and the NY authorities are just sitting on those documents.
The evidence is stronger against Trump, I would say, since the necessary predicate for Cohen’s involvement to be a campaign violation was that somebody’s campaign was involved. I believe the actual charge Cohen pled to is something like " excessive campaign contribution at the request of a candidate."
Trump is the actual Trump in “Trump campaign,” and he employed Cohen, was the guy who had the sex, and the guy who benefited from the hush money. The only missing link is Trump’s knowledge of the payments, but from what I remember of the documents the judge ordered unsealed, there was a pretty straightforward case that he was well aware (and, I mean, of course he was, just practically speaking), and you have Cohen to provide the details.
But even if true, what does that make Trump guilty of? Is receiving an illegal campaign contribution a crime? Is bribing a woman to keep quiet a crime? Among all the things agent orange has done, this seems to me about the least criminal.
He should. If Cohen went to jail for making the payment, trump should go to jail for ordering it. The case seems to be easier to make as you’d have something you didn’t have against Cohen, specifically Cohen’s testimony. Every day that Cohen sat in prison marks one day that trump should do likewise.
Michael Cohen was charged with, and convicted of, doing it. You used the word “bribery” to describe it. That is a word that traditionally refers to a corrupt act.
It would be a violation of campaign financing laws to use money that had been donated to the campaign organization for a personal expense like paying off a mistress.
Wasn’t this the case with “Individual 1/un-indicted co-conspirator”? There might very well be charges under seal waiting to be filed on January 21.
There is a bit of illogic here. Michael Cohen was convicted for making an illegal contribution to the campaign. If indeed it was a contribution to the campaign, then it is a legitimate campaign expense. If it was not a contribution to the campaign then Cohen should not have been convicted. Pure Aristotelian logic.
My attitude is, Trump screwing around with a porn star (before he was even Prez, I think) is about as serious as Bill Clinton playing pat-a-cake with Monica. Maybe even less serious, as it didn’t happen in the Oval Orifice. As for the hush-money payments: If it wasn’t a big deal (IMO) then also, the money paid to hush it up wasn’t really much of a hush payment, was it?
My point being, among all of Trump’s non-stop malfeasance both in office and before, this barely registers on my radar.
BUT a bigger point seems to be, the investigation of this seems to be leading the prosecutors to bigger and badder crimes, because of the financial information they are digging up in the process. It’s worth chasing after Trump’s affair here if only as a pretext to dig deeper into his other dealings.
ex presidential candidate (and 2004 democratic vp candidate) John Edwards was facing up to 30 years in federal prison for doing something similar.
Edwards used campaign funds to pay off a mistress.
same as trump and Cohen did.
His biggest risk is a guilty verdict if a case comes out of the criminal probe being led by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance.
Vance is looking at “extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization,” according to court documents.
The alleged criminal acts took place before Trump became president. That means Trump can’t hide behind executive privilege or a federal pardon.
“Vance … is free to go after Trump not as a crooked president but as a common crook who happened to get elected president,” Jeff Wise recently wrote in New York Magazine.
The case centers on Trump possibly lying about his finances on official business records. That includes, allegedly, falsely describing a payment to silence a porn star as a legal expense. Proof that Trump signed off on that kind of financial deception could lead to a more serious charge — tax fraud.
If he is found guilty of tax fraud charges, there is no escaping the threat of serious jail time.
I’m bumping this old thread to offer this update.
The Manhattan DA is presenting this case to a Grand Jury. They can return an indictment.
That means criminal charges against Donald Trump.
And, as the saying goes, a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich.
Given that they’ve already tried and successfully convicted a defendant (Michael Cohen) who was far less culpable than Trump in this matter, I’d say the ham sandwich will be superfluous this time around. In fact, Cohen commented that he thought “the whole pig” would be indicted this time around.
I guess one of the prosecutors who quit when this case wasn’t previously brought, Mark Pomerance, has a new book coming out next week. I think I’ll read it.