The Trump White House can credibly argue that Paul Manafort was just convicted for a lot of crimes he committed before he was involved with President Trump in any way. As it always seemed, the Russia angle was never going to be a serious problem for Trump.
On the other hand, the hush-money payments that Trump allegedly directed attorney Michael Cohen to pay to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal are a lot harder to spin. They demonstrate the very sort of personal sleaze and possible illegality that Trump has exuded ever since the Trump University scandal was still in the air. Not that it should come as a surprise: The man was, after all, a proud philanderer who had boasted about his exploits (surely exaggerating) and about his ability to (ahem) take liberties with women afforded by his celebrity status.
The question that comes to my mind, though, is whether Cohen’s payments were criminal. Cohen has pleaded guilty to campaign finance charges, admitting that his intention in making the payments (for which he submitted receipts to the Trump organization for reimbursement) was to influence an election. Cohen’s attorney, says that Cohen “testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election … If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn’t they be a crime for Donald Trump?”
As to the second question, that’s Cohen’s business — he chose to plead guilty, which might have made sense given the many other charges against him. But as far as the first bit goes, there’s a weak link to the logic that might become Trump’s defense. Specifically, I don’t think it’s easy at all to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the hush money payment was a campaign as opposed to a personal expenditure unless Trump is somewhere on tape saying just that. And I think it will be quite easy for someone to argue plausibly that it wasn’t a campaign expense.
The FEC provides guidelines about what constitutes a campaign expense that can be paid with campaign funds, and what is a personal expense that cannot be legally paid with campaign funds. The two are separate categories, and here’s the rule of thumb:
How easy is it for Trump to argue that hush money is a personal expense — something he would have paid (and perhaps had paid previously?) irrespective of his candidacy in order to preserve his reputation? In that case, not only does it not have to be reported to anyone, but it would actually be illegal to pay with campaign money in the first place.
Perhaps I’m missing something here, but this seems like a natural place to go with the defense.
