December 11, 2018
From the moment Trump was elected every sentient person knew that the hatred for him ran so deep that those who opposed him would do everything in their power to bring his presidency to an end.
With the release of Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen’s sentencing memos from the Southern District of New York and the Special Counsel, the Never Trump media and liberal lawmakers are besides themselves with glee, many claiming that Trump is an “unindicted co-conspirator” who should be impeached.
The aggressive attempts to find incriminating evidence against Trump was never just about discerning if Trump or his campaign colluded with Russians, it was and is about finding evidence to make the case that Trump’s election was fraudulent and the presidency stolen from Hillary Clinton.
Two and a half years later, after spending $30 million dollars there is still no evidence that Trump and his campaign colluded with any foreign nationals to subvert the election. The “smoking gun” evidence that has the “Resistance’ cheering that they finally found criminal wrong-doing to pin on Trump involve the accusation of campaign finance violations.
Cohen, a man whose crimes include tax evasion, bank fraud, lying to Congress, and illegal campaign contributions, had great incentive to offer “cooperation” to prosecutors, in hopes of receiving a reduced sentence. The sentencing memo from the Southern District of New York states that Cohen only provided information when faced with “criminal charges and the desire for leniency.”
According to the memo in 2016 Cohen played a central role in facilitating the purchase of the stories of two women so as to suppress them, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, who claimed to have had affairs with Trump years prior. Cohen acknowledged his intent was to influence the 2016 presidential election.
That Cohen would take these actions to help Trump does not seem out of character for a man that is described in the memo, as someone who “relished the status of ultimate fixer”, and “was driven by a desire to further ingratiate himself with a potential future president.”
To the delight of those whose objective from election night was to see Trump removed from office, Cohen has also claimed that “he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1”, who is Donald Trump.
Even if Trump asked Cohen to take care of suppressing these stories, this doesn’t disprove that Trump may have been motivated to protect his marriage, family, and name brand. Those willing to give Trump even a scintilla of the benefit of the doubt would have to admit that anyone in Trump’s position would be motivated to pay off these women for a multitude of reasons.
Further, to implicate Trump in a campaign violation it would need to be proven that Trump knew he was breaking the law by making and then not reporting these payments. If Trump’s attorney, Cohen in this case, was directing the handing of these payments it is logical that Tump believed what they were doing was lawful,
Much has been made about the timing of when the pay-offs were made. McDougal was paid $150,000 in August of 2016, and Daniels $130,000 in October 2016. What is left out of this argument is that the women only came forward, in an attempt to extort money from Trump, because of his candidacy for president. As described in the memo, in June 2016 McDougal attempted to sell her story because she knew that it would be of “considerable value because of Individual 1’s candidacy for president.” Clearly, the timing of when they were paid was a result of when and why they came forward.
As Daniels was paid only weeks before the election many Trump detractors are claiming that this payment is damning evidence of the intent to influence the outcome of the election. However, this claim is easily negated with the facts. If this payment was reported to the Federal Election Commission the filing time would have occurred after the election. Therefore, reporting the payment with the FEC would have had no bearing on the outcome of the election.
Further, it is perfectly legal for Trump to have paid these women, with his own funds, to buy their silence, for any reason, even if one of the motivating factors was to help his campaign. As clarified by renowned Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, if Trump did arrange the payments, in concert with Cohen, to protect his campaign, the only illegality would have been a failure to report this payment. Failure to report a campaign contribution is not an uncommon occurrence. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the campaign to file this paperwork, not the candidate.
Campaign finance violations occur often, and are almost never criminalized, usually resulting in just a fine. An FEC audit from President Obama’s campaign in 2008 found a failure to report nearly 1300 campaign donations totaling more than $1.8 million. His campaign was fined $375,000. This is the largest fine ever levied against a presidential campaign.
Bearing similarities to the payments made to McDougal and Daniels, in 2008 John Edwards was alleged to have received campaign donations to pay his mistress in an effort to hide his affair from the American people during his presidential campaign. The jury did not find Edwards guilty of a campaign finance violation.
There are two differences in Trump’s favor between Edward’s case and Trump’s: 1. Trump did not use donor money to buy the silence of the two women, he used his own, 2. the dollar amount that Trump is accused of not reporting is a fraction of the amount in the Edward case.
Much is also being made about Cohen’s claim that he was approached by a Russian claiming to be a “trusted person in the Russian Federation”, who offered “synergy on a government level with the Trump campaign.” This person pushed to arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin. Media pundits have been joyously pondering what is meant by “synergy” with the Trump campaign. However, the question that should be asked is why was this interaction even worthy of mentioning in the sentencing memo, because the meeting produced no results. Cohen never followed up with this Russian official.
Similarly, there is much hype around a hypothetical Trump Tower in Moscow. Cohen has been charged with lying to Congress about the date of when discussions surrounding a proposal to build a Trump building in Moscow ceased. Cohen testified to Congress that the deal ended in January 2016. He later admitted that he lied about the date, and that it actually ended in June 2016.
How can there be an illegality for Trump, or even ethical considerations surrounding a deal that never occurred? Trump is being accused by anti- Trump talking heads of attempting to use his power as a candidate for president to receive favorable terms from the Russian government. If this were actually true the deal would not have been abandoned when Trump became the Republican nominee in June, when his leverage with Russia would have been even greater. Moreover, its ridiculous to claim that this proposed deal was the result of Trump’s political position, when Trump has been at the helm of a multi-billion dollar real estate empire for almost his entire adult life.
As more details emerge it is increasingly obvious that the goal of these investigations is to find Trump guilty of something, anything, to destroy his presidency, or at least prevent his reelection.
To date, there is no evidence that puts Trump in legal jeopardy. However, the impeachment process is political. With Nancy Pelosi at the helm of the House of Representatives, and the powerful judiciary committee in the hands of far- left Trump hater Jerry Nadler, impeachment is a real possibility. Republicans, not known for standing together, need to be a united bulwark against those in power looking to annul the results of a legitimately elected president.
