From what I know about the Stormy Daniels matter, there was no crime to cover up. Daniels herself has made it clear that she wasn’t a victim and her affair with Trump was consensual.
According to the media, the issue is whether Cohen’s payment to Daniels was an in-kind campaign contribution that runs afoul of the law. Given than Cohen is a long time personal attorney of Trump and was considered a friend, it should be easy to argue that Cohen was helping a friend out of troubling personal matter not trying to subvert campaign finance laws. I would think evidence such as attending family weddings and golfing trips would be enough to prove their friendship.
Well, first off he has stated that he was acting as lawyer not as friend. But still, right. The issue is (assuming the money was in all meaningful terms Cohen’s) what the believable motivation was. Given the timing is it believable that the reason was to keep his wife from finding out the shocking news that she married a person prone to cheating on his wife, or to keep the story out of the news cycle right before the election?
Forget where I read it but one analysis made the point that then what Melania knew and when she knew it, about this specific event and his past behaviors, is very relevant in any actual trial. If she was already aware that her husband had a tendency to have physical encounters with other women (beyond the one he had with her when someone else was his wife of course), let alone of this one, then the remote possibility that the motivation was to keep her from knowing is completely eliminated.
Trump’s sexual prowess is no secret. Nobody thought he was the next Mitt Romney. Nonetheless, Trump has a young child and he could certainly be protecting him as well as other family members from his indiscretions.
The big issue is whether the payment to Daniel’s was an in-kind campaign contribution. Michael Cohen’s closeness to Trump is really the determining factor. Has he done this before? What would Cohen gain personally by supporting Trump beyond his current relationship? If Cohen did not have strong ties before the campaign started, then the argument that it was a campaign contribution would be much stronger. As it is, it is murky at best. I mean if I ran for office and my neighbor agreed to water my house plants while I was away, would that be a contribution even even if she has been friend for a decade and had done it in the past?
I don’t know much about lawyers beyond what I have seen on David E. Kelly dramedies like Ally McBeal and Boston Legal. But even in those whimsical worlds I can’t see Alan Shore paying $130K out of his own pocket to cover up one of Denny Crane’s many affairs.
As regards motivation… How and where and why does a lawyer decide “my client is going to deny that this ever happened but just in case anyone finds out about it I’m going to draw up a detailed NDA and pay $130K out of my own pocket to cover up an affair that never happened”?
Again, IANAL but…
Lawyers do not pay for things out of their own pockets. Ever. If your case crosses the mind of your lawyer while he’s taking a dump, that’s billable hours.
Lawyers do not draw up an NDA for something that did not happen.
Lawyers do not get their doors kicked in by the FBI unless there is sufficient reason to believe that the lawyer is in on some criminal activity. So that to me suggests that some senior Justice Department officials have already considered whether this payment was just the act of a really generous friend. And when they stopped laughing they gave the order to seize the lawyer’s documents.
Raza, if it’s really essential that the President be out of power right now, and there’s broad bipartisan agreement that that’s the case, then that’s what the 23rd Amendment is for, where the Cabinet declares the President incompetent.
That is one of the issues. Another I have seen discussed in the media is that, if Cohen expected to be reimbursed, then it was a loan to his client, which is an ethics violation that can lead to disbarment.
Another issue is whether Cohen personally threatened Daniels and her family, or Cohen conspired with others to have her threatened. Taken in that context, the payment could be considered part of the conspiracy.
If you expand your definition of “the media”, I’m sure there are many other issues being discussed as well. I haven’t read them all.
I think that applies to lawsuits where the lawyer may settle for less in order to get the loan back or it creates some conflict of interest. Doesn’t apply in this case.
[/QUOTE]
Another issue is whether Cohen personally threatened Daniels and her family, or Cohen conspired with others to have her threatened. Taken in that context, the payment could be considered part of the conspiracy.
[/QUOTE]
I think Daniels may be guilty of blackmail. If she wanted to disclose her affair with Trump, why didn’t she just do it? It happened along time ago, and she doesn’t even claim to be a victim. Trump has had many other affairs. Any of these women could come forward and nothing could be done about it.
I think the idea is that Trump has a history of getting sexy women who are much younger than him into bed. And in 2 cases they married him. I guess that means to some people he has “sexual prowess”
She didn’t *want *to disclose it; she didn’t care about it and still doesn’t. The hush money, now *that *w, as worth something to her, and she may have hinted some blackmail-like threats to get it, sure. Some people don’t make $130K in a year, so I understand.
Now, why would Trump pay her if he had nothing to hide?
It’s relevant because Trump was neither cultivating nor had any sort of faithful husband image or conservative lifestyle to tout for the campaign. Thus, the payment to Daniels was strictly a personal matter.
It’s believed by those who have a need to believe that Trump is somehow, in some way, worthy of something akin to “respect.”
A man with actual sexual prowess wouldn’t have been bragging that he can grab women and they can’t do anything about it because he’s “a star.” A man with actual sexual prowess would be bragging, instead (if he brags at all) that women chase after him–not that he can get away with assaulting them against their will.
I believe a more appropriate term would be “proclivity” (frequently used in the plural). CFSG’s sexual proclivities may be a topic of interest — at least theoretically — while I for one have negative interest in speculation about his “prowess.”
I agree, but the person we were quoting does appear to be an avowed Trump apologist (and so will continue to use ‘prowess,’ in all likelihood, no matter how silly it seems.)