Cohen, Manafort, Trump and the "Resistance"

Few quick thoughts here, folks. Enjoy the editorial cartoon.

First, the Paul Manafort conviction did nothing to prove "collusion" between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Hillbots will be claiming that from the rooftops; people like Kossack Dead End Kids alums Marcy Wheeler and Bmaz will try to give that same claim a high-intellect turd-polishing. Still not true, no more than it was with Marcy's Emptywheel claims a month ago. (And, there's the issue about whether Manafort will finally flip, or still hold out; his attorney said he's "evaluating his options.")

Anyway, it wasn't true pre-conviction; ain't true now.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych may be a "mess" (and just one of many dictators who Manafort turd-polished, speaking of that term). Last I checked, though, he was not a Russian citizen, let alone an official member of the government of the Russian Federation. Therefore, not collusion (unless Mueller investigates possible collusion between Trump and the government of Ukraine).

Related note: Per who was actually at the Trump Tower meeting of infamy, given that none of the Russians were at the time official members of the government of the Russian Federation, NOT collusion! Stupidity galore for the amateurish handling of it by both The Donald and The Donald Jr. If members of McResistance seriously consider that collusion in the legal sense, I can probably figure a way to make a collusion case against both Jeb! Bush and Hillary Clinton over the Steele dossier. There's a shot across the Hillbots' bow right there, kids.

OK.

On to Cohen.

Here, the ground is different. It seems pretty obvious whose campaign he was lying for on that charge. If Cohen's claim that he was doing the Stormy Daniels payoff at Trump's direction holds up, then we're looking at what would certainly seem to be an impeachable offense, right? Contra Rudy "Rudy" Giuliani, who has by now become a caricature of a caricature of himself, now with:

“There is no allegation of any wrongdoing against the president in the government’s charges against Mr. Cohen.”

“At the direction of the candidate.”

 It seems like a slam dunk, right? 

Well, maybe not. One could argue that this was before he was president, therefore not impeachment. In that case, one could then make the call for Justice to start criminal proceedings. Hey, if civil proceedings started against the Slickster (Paula Jones) while he was president, why not?

And, speaking of the background to this? Stormy Daniels got covered by yours truly eight months ago at Washington Babylon.

Finally, the pardons angle.

If Trump offers them, and they are accepted, then there's no Fifth Amendment protections against the pardoned testifying. Secondly, Manafort still has New York State charges for which he could be tried; presidential pardoning doesn't cover that. Thirdly, as noted above, civil suits still could be launched.

==

And, selected commentary roundup will follow, here.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Turley says a Manafort pardon by Trump is still in play while adding that, vis a vis Papadopoulos and other things, Mueller has perhaps put himself in a bit of a legal crack.

Mark Penn says the Cohen plea deal is little more than a Mueller shakedown. Among his more interesting observations is that the hush money was and is NOT a campaign finance donation, therefore, that action wasn't actionable. Penn goes so far as to say his former boss, the Slickster, got all the breaks and Trump is getting none.

At the Federalist, Mollie Hemingway is partially right. Manafort was, indeed, prosecuted in part for lobbying. She draws the wrong conclusions, including drawing no conclusion about the need for further reform as well as better enforcement of what's on the books, though. She's fully right in agreeing with Penn, especially with the added note that work on the payouts began before Trump officially launched his campaign.

On the other hand, if Norm Eisen is correct, Trump lying about the Cohen payment on financial disclosure forms would arguably be a crime, and as it happened after he became president, would also arguably be impeachment grounds, whether this should be considered a campaign finance payment or not.

Lawfare notes, among other things, that it doesn't matter if Cohen doesn't sing now. He has one year to do so in exchange for sentencing reduction. Furthering my contention that Marcy's still wrong, the roundtable notes that the Manafort case has nothing to do with Trump directly.

David Cay Johnston discusses just how Trump could be prosecuted under New York State law.

Cohen, not Manafort, now faces new NY State worries; the state has subpoenaed him re its Trump Foundation investigation.