I don't like to write about Trump. I've written several posts and feel I'm repeating myself. But it is impossible to overestimate the potential impact of Trump's four criminal trials on the upcoming Presidential election, given Trump's relatively uncommon third nomination. Trump is unlike any American politician in my lifetime. In earlier nominations, any Republican who cast a single "wrong" vote got labeled a RINO; for example, McCain in 2007/8 barely survived votes for campaign finance reform and initial opposition to the Bush tax cuts, never mind support for immigration reform. Trump, on the other hand, strayed from the conservative orthodoxy of fiscal balance, freer trade and entitlement reform, and had run for the Reform Party's Presidential nomination and was a registered Dem for most of the 2000's, even backing Clinton and Obama in 2008. Not only did Trump completely sidestep the obvious tag which had crashed the prospects of multiple lifelong Republicans, but he coopted the term. aiming it at Trumpist opposition. In some unusual way Trump's charisma and celebrity and his nationalist populism have resulted in a highly motivated, disproportionately vocal cult-like base, dismissing Trump's crimes and critics as politically motivated and partisan.
I am not going to review the unprecedented, historic criminal trial of a former President in detail. The basic story is that Trump in the 2016 campaign paid off a porn actress, Stormy Daniels, who allegedly had a 2006 affair with Trump (which Trump denies), 4 months after third wife Melania gave birth to Barron, their only child. Stormy reportedly thought near the end of the Trump general election campaign she could sell the story of their affair to an infamous tabloid for a 6-figure sum. Trump lawyer/"fixer" Michael Cohen paid hush money to Daniels through the tabloid publisher to kill the story. Now it should be noted that paying hush money itself is not a crime, and if Trump had repaid Cohen from his own pocket, this would never have gone to court. The basic problem was that Cohen was reimbursed from the Trump Organization as a "business legal expense". Even falsely stated business records don't amount to 34 felonies, the legal theory is that if business records are used to commit an underlying crime. The basic theory proposed by the Manhattan DA is the Daniels payment amounted to an illicit campaign contribution:
A New York state law makes it a crime to promote a candidate's election through unlawful means. he theory here is that Cohen, by fronting the money to Stormy Daniels, made an unlawful campaign contribution to Trump that also was not disclosed. Now, one of the questions that remains to be resolved is whether it has to be a criminal violation of the federal election law to essentially count for purposes of the New York state statute, or whether a civil violation of the federal election law, which is less demanding, also would count.
There are other contextual notes over the recent trial, including alleged partisanship of the DA, political contributions of the judge, the jury instructions, and Stormy Daniels' sensational testimony which was not bearing on Trump's alleged criminal behavior. One libertarian analysis points out analogous federal charges weren't filed , probably motivated by the failed prosecution over John Edwards' hush money scandal but more importantly disagrees constitutionally to relevant campaign finance restrictions at play, which he thinks are out of line in the context of the Citizens United decision. [I don't think think this is compelling; Trump wasn't spending his own money but his business' and the existing restrictions were well-known.]
My take? I'm not a legal analyst, but I thought Trump's defense was flawed and predictable--largely, attack the credibility of chief witness Cohen. The documentation corroborating the Stormy Daniels payment. I don't believe for a second a micromanager like Trump didn't know or approve a $400K legal bill from Cohen. I also know Trump has boasted of his womanizing ways in print and the fact is, he's been married 3 times. The way Stormy Daniels explains meeting Trump in 2006: at a charity golf event, is intuitively credible.
But isn't this the same guy who once boasted he could kill someone on 5th avenue and not lose a supporter? Why would he worry about a last-minute scandal? It was a close election, and he needed votes outside his bsse. He probably saw the hush money payment as a type of insurance. Hasn't he always denied the affair? Yeah, no doubt unfaithful husbands don't want their families to learn about their misconduct. Didn't Daniels recant her story during the Trump term? Yes, but she explained she was under duress with a hostile, retaliatory Administration in power.
I think the factual basis of hush money payments is incontrovertible, and I don't think the underlying inisdemeanors will be reversed: business records were falsified fraudulently. I think the theory that hush money payments constituted an illicit campaign contribution is dubious. I think that overstating expenses is a form of tax fraud and Trump should reimburse the Trump Organization for repayment of a personal expense.
Finallly, Trump should be sanctioned for his outrageous misconduct which exposed witnesses, lawyers and the judge at risk to Trumpkin retaliation.
I also did want to address the response of Republican officeholders and the base circling the wagons around convicted criminal Trump. I don't buy the "weaponization of DoJ" conspiracy theory talking point. Two of Trump's trials involve (NY and GA) state law, one involves Trump's theft of classified documents which Trump fought tooth and nail for 18 months, and the other clustered around Trump's response to losing the 2020 election. In fact, I've already pointed out the feds chose not to prosecute Trump over the hush money scandal, in part because he was still President at the time.
So stop playing Trump's PC victim card. His own misconduct, which would have ended the political careers of almost any other politician I know, is not above the law. Lots of other people have been convicted of similar crimes. Unlike them, Trump has the means to hire the most able attorneys on the market. No, Biden has not been targeting Trump. In fact, Biden beat Trump once, and Trump's favorables are just over 30%, one of the lowest ever recorded. Almost any other candidate with a criminal conviction would never be nominated or win an election. What's particularly alarming is that a party which traditionally promotes law and order is nominating someone who doesn't respect the rule of law, who openly threatens partisan reprisals on regaining office, etc.
