Andrew C. McCarthy on the Michael Cohen plea
The Justice Department has a history of treating serious campaign-finance transgressions as administrative violations, not felonies. A prominent example: The 2008 Obama campaign accepted nearly $2 million in illegal campaign contributions, but was permitted to settle the matter with a $375,000 fine. Of course, the force of that argument is undermined considerably by the fact that Cohen’s infraction has been treated as a felony…
Still, as we’ve repeatedly pointed out, Justice Department guidance does not permit the indictment of a sitting president…The issue for President Trump is not whether he has committed a crime but whether he has committed a high crime and misdemeanor…
The conduct here is not of the egregious nature that rises to high crimes and misdemeanors — it is an infraction committed by many political candidates and often not even prosecuted. More to the point, it is remote from the core responsibilities of the presidency, implicating pre-election actions to conceal alleged indiscretions that occurred a decade earlier. And while the president has denied the indiscretions, it is not like the allegations come as any surprise to the public, who, while well aware of his flaws, elected Donald Trump nonetheless.
There’s much more at the link. Please read the whole thing.
To repeat something I’ve stated many times before, both Cohen and Manafort are only being prosecuted as a means to get to Trump. The campaign law violation of Trump’s that the Cohen case supposedly uncovers is so small and insignificant that, if impeachment were to occur on the basis of it, it would be transparently clear that prosecuting Cohen was merely a pretext to get to that particular end—impeachment.
Actually, that’s been pretty clear for a long, long time.
“Cohen and Manafort are only being prosecuted as a means to get to Trump.” I agree completely.
In what moral universe is that not obstruction of justice by agents of the government?
I am avoiding thinking much about Manafort/Cohen because I have a huge sense of waiting for the other shoe to fall in all this. Whether any of this is meaningful seems to entirely depend on whether or not the Dems have their possible “Blue Wave” or not. If they do, and they impeach Trump for whatever, then things will get ugly — or, I should say, uglier, much uglier, more ugly… and the “Cold Civil War” may well warm up to some unpredictable extent.
This minor stuff leaves me unmoved.
Is Jeff Sessions in on this effort to “get Trump?”
What would he do differently if he was?
This whole thing is begging for armed conflict with a whole bunch of swamp denizens bleeding. Mueller needs to be relieved of duty yesterday. He’s got nothing of substance that he would find of 400 other elected folks within a stone’s throw of his office.
My take on Sessions is that he’s either keeping his cards very close to his chest or he’s a man of moderate intelligence and (for an elected official) integrity outmaneuvered by Rosenstein. I suspect when you get to the bottom of this, it will prove to be the top echelons of the civilian component of the IC conjoined to the general run of Justice Department lawyers who are responsible for this and that repairing matters will require firing a lot of people. Keep in mind that Rosenstein is a Justice Department lifer and Mueller and Comey are about 70% of the distance between normal lawyer and Justice Department lifer. Wray appears to have the same autonomic reactions as does this crew so is acting to cover the FBI’s ass rather than repair it.
Sessions and Trump may be playing good cop, bad cop, and waiting to flood the news with dozens of indictments come October. Including indictments of Comey and Mueller.
I, too, think that Trump’s is holding his fire until the results of the November elections are in.
If Republicans–especially Trump type Republicans–not only hold but gain seats in the House and especially in the Senate, I expect Trump to do a major housecleaning of the entire government.
If, on the other hand, Republicans lose control of the House and especially of the Senate, I expect Democrats to try to Impeach Trump.
At that point, I expect that the natives might get kind of “restless,” and converge on D.C., pitchforks in hand.
parker, you’re a real optimist. I like what you’re believing. May it be so.
I’m thinking more along the lines of Art Deco. The question is, who can stop these dishonest bureaucrats? They have decided they know better than the voters. The only tool we have is the Special Counsel. It is now clear how flawed that tool is. It all depends on who appoints him and what the scope of the mission is that he is given. With AG Sessions neutered, the bureaucrats have free rein. It’s maddening.
J.J.,
I did type “may”. 😉 But yes, I try to be optimistic. Brash, quick to fly off the handle djt would fire Sessions in a heartbeat between sips of Diet Coke if he felt Sessions was not serving a role in his long game. I have learned to my surprise Trump plays a very long game. He is a bull in the china shop, easy to dislike on a personal basis, but like Braveheart he fights. So far he fights for what I desire. Good enough and more for me.
Parker: “Brash, quick to fly off the handle djt would fire Sessions in a heartbeat between sips of Diet Coke if he felt Sessions was not serving a role in his long game. I have learned to my surprise Trump plays a very long game.”
By jove, man, that’s a plausible explanation. May it come to be.
JJ, Parker: Since Trump is known for counterattacking immediately it is hard to think of him playing a long game, but I agree it is highly plausible. He seemed to me to agree to the special council far too readily, and continues to not fire Sessions and not declassify all the recused material that Congress wants to see. Perhaps he understood very early what had been done by the Democrats, the DOJ and the intelligence agencies decided to let them do their worst. He certainly has demonstrated that he can play a long game or he wouldn’t be president. He was informed he was being tapped at Trump Tower before the election if I recall correctly. The Donald was not Mr Smith going to Washington. He may have decided on the tactic of giving them enough rope to really hang themselves. I find it hard to account for his apparent passivity otherwise. It seems to me that Mueller is trying to do enough damage for the Dems to regain the house. I don’t believe they will desist out of respect for the midterms but rather leak whatever they have unofficially. So far the counterfire has come from Congress, but that could change if the President fights back directly. I can’t see him letting them kill him with a thousand cuts without a fight.
No reasonable prosecutor would decline to bring charges against a man who laundered $30 million.
The key to any “long game” strategy is making sure the long game lasts long enough! How will Trump be able to clean house if he loses his majorities, even if he is not impeached? While I share the optimism of many that he will keep control of both houses (note I say that HE will, not that the Republicans will), with the Democrats’ demonstrated ability to turn out the vote from graveyards and from behind filing cabinets, it could be a close-run thing. Why wait until after the election to drop the big one, risking that the Democrats will drop theirs before? Possible non-mutually-exclusive answers:
Trump knows “Huber will come”.
Trump knows he has the midterms won, with the breaching of the Dem’s vaunted minority vote citadel?
Trump is just too addicted to confrontation and high-risk situations?
Manju: “No reasonable prosecutor would decline to bring charges against a man who laundered $30 million.”
Two words: Clinton Foundation. You could find 30 mill under their reception area seat cushions!