But in some ways, it’s too bad that Marchan didn’t, or wouldn’t, engage in a discussion about Trump’s immunity from prosecution for his actions in this matter. Unlike other charges against Trump, the Manhattan indictment focuses on how Trump became president in the first place. It’s rooted in the actions he took to become president, and according to him and his lawyers (if not many others) he takes every official action without fear of prosecution. It is said that he has acquired the ability.
In other words, the Manhattan incident may provide an admittedly imperfect test of a scenario near the bottom of the slippery slope. In other words, if a candidate takes actions that warrant criminal charges in order to become president, they argue that those criminal charges are covered by the immunity they have earned.
The 34-count indictment obtained by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg last year centers on a fairly arcane charge of falsifying Trump’s business documents. But it was just a so-called cover-up, as he and his then-lawyer Michael Cohen paid her a six-figure sum to keep her from revealing their (alleged but repeatedly reinforced) sexual relationship with the adult film star. It was an effort to keep people from knowing that they had paid the amount. I encountered it a few years ago.
This payment was made just days before the 2016 election, as evidenced by the District Attorney’s Office’s Statement of Facts and the Department of Justice’s later clarification of the federal criminal offenses to which Cohen pled guilty. ing.
The Justice Department’s story begins shortly after Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015. David Pecker, then chairman and chief executive of the National Enquirer’s parent company, spoke with Cohen and members of the Trump campaign. He “offered to help deal with negative stories about” [Trump’s] Among other things, we strengthened our relationship with women by supporting a campaign to identify such articles, allowing them to purchase them and avoid publication. ”
There have been several such stories, as a former National Enquirer employee detailed to the New York Times this week. One focused on Mr. Pecker’s relationship with adult film actress Stormy Daniels, which came to his attention a month before the election. Cohen spoke with Daniels’ attorney and agreed to pay her $130,000 to keep quiet about the case. He didn’t pay until Mr. Daniels started buying articles elsewhere in late October. The deal closed on November 1, 2016, one week before the election.
Cohen lost $130,000. According to the Justice Department, he sent an invoice for the expenses to the Trump Organization in January 2017 and began receiving refunds and additional payments to offset his tax liability the following month.
This is where the Manhattan accusation occurs.
“Each check was processed by the Trump Organization, and each check was disguised as a payment for legal services rendered during a specific month of 2017 pursuant to a retention agreement,” the statement of facts in the case alleges. . “The payment records kept and maintained by the Trump Organization were false New York business records. In fact, there were no retainer agreements; [Cohen] No payment was made for legal services provided in 2017. ”
The resulting charges could have been misdemeanors, except that they were intended to evade another criminal charge: federal campaign finance laws.
If Mr. Cohen had accepted the $130,000 from the Trump campaign as a payment to Mr. Daniels, he would have pleaded guilty under one of the federal laws that focused on “excessive campaign contributions.” He shouldn’t have been found guilty. Look, it’s perfectly legal for the Trump campaign (or any other campaign) to use legally raised campaign funds to pay back people accused of extramarital affairs. However, Mr. Cohen (by his own admission) spent $130,000 supporting this campaign. That means he donated more than the federal contribution limit. And Trump allegedly helped cover it up, claiming he was a hired lawyer.
Now let’s talk about immunity.
“In early February 2017, the defendant and [Cohen] and met in the Oval Office of the White House to confirm this repayment arrangement,” the statement of facts in the New York case alleges. In other words, Trump is the president, and at this point he engaged in the alleged crimes.
Trump’s lawyers’ request to delay the trial focuses on the evidence Bragg plans to present, focusing on the former president’s public statements about Cohen after the Daniels payments were revealed. There is. But their March 7 request for a postponement suggests that perhaps all of this could count as an “official act” that would qualify for this purported immunity.
“[W]”It is clear that the People,” or Mr. Bragg, “intends to submit documents and testimony relating to 2017, when President Trump was in office,” the filing claims. The scope of evidence that would allow President Trump or the courts to distinguish between private and public conduct. ”
While the official conduct immunity argument seems unlikely to apply to Mr. Trump’s alleged conversations with Mr. Cohen, it is not without precedent. During Trump’s first Senate trial after his impeachment, one of his lawyers argued that Trump’s re-election efforts could be seen as being in the public interest and therefore not subject to impeachment. You may remember what you did. For example, a similar argument might be made about maintaining the confidence of the chief executive as an official action.
Marchand’s denial of the request for a delay means this argument likely won’t come up in the New York case. However, the immunity argument being considered by the Supreme Court will proceed as scheduled.
A February survey of about 700 political scientists suggested the issue was unusually vexing. More than 90% of those surveyed said they believed a Supreme Court ruling granting Trump (or any other president) blanket immunity would be a threat to American democracy. Nearly two-thirds said the threat posed was “extraordinary.”
The New York incident provides a glimpse into why this view has become so widespread. If the Stormy Daniels story had surfaced late in the campaign, Trump’s narrow 2016 victory might (or might!) have been ignored. The payoff was potentially decisive. But it’s likely illegal in the eyes of a Manhattan grand jury, and efforts to hide the payments from the public will likely be presented by the president’s lawyers as a formal act that precludes indictment of the president. There is.
A Presidency earned through actions that protect the Presidency from sanctions.
