Some legal experts are saying today that Lanny Davis, Hillary’s close friend and general counsel, sold his client Michael Cohen out with a sentence unwarranted by the crimes. Do we have to ask ourselves why?
Is it because Hillary Clinton is his client and not Michael Cohen?
It’s important to note that the verdict and plea in the Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen cases respectively have nothing to do with Russia or collusion. The Manafort trial did not deal with his role as a Trump campaign chairman. In Cohen’s case, he said he made the payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall at the direction of an unidentified candidate. That’s not criminal.
So far, the President is not criminally libel. The crime is the illicit use of campaign money and Cohen, who has offered different accounts of the payoff, was responsible for that. Just a few months ago, Cohen absolved Trump of guilt.
Blackmailer Stormy Daniels started the sequence of events because she wanted more money. She then reneged on the deal.
THE LEFT GOES WILD
The front pages of the newspapers today are politically damaging. The NY Post reads, ‘Don’s Cons’, The NY Times headline is, ‘All the President’s Crooks’, and the Daily News blares, ‘All the President’s Henchmen’.
Mueller has become a cudgel for the left and the media as he continues the fishing expedition. If Democrats win the House, they will use this as ammunition to impeach the President. They have no intention of letting him do his job.
Last night, on Chris Hayes’ show, opportunistic Rep. Joaquin Castro accused Trump of being an “unindicted co-conspirator”, quoting law professor Jonathan Turley, and called on Congress to launch a probe into possible criminal action by the president. Never mind that we already have one with Mueller.
Unless he has something other than Cohen’s lying word, it’s meaningless. He might have something on tape. They do have tapes. We will have to see.
HILLARY’S LAWYER FRIEND TAUNTS TRUMP
Clinton mob lawyer Lanny Davis tweeted that Donald Trump directed his client to commit a crime. If that were the case, Cohen wouldn’t have gotten a five to six-year sentence and the New York prosecutor probably wouldn’t have called Cohen out as an inveterate liar.
“I can tell you that Mr. Cohen has knowledge on certain subjects that should be of interest to the special counsel and is more than happy to tell special counsel all that he knows,” Davis told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
He also suggested a conspiracy involving the tired tale of the Trump Tower meeting and alleged knowledge by Trump of the Clinton email hacking.
LANNY’S TERRIBLE JOB
Some lawyers say Lanny Davis did a terrible job on his client’s behalf. Does that raise the possibility of Davis setting up Cohen so he could be used to torch the President?
Legal expert Harmeet Dhillon said Davis let his client down and there is no liability here for the President. “Lanny Davis has really sold his client out,” Dhillon said. She explained “it’s a real stretch” to say somebody who pays money to a blackmailer is trying to affect an election. She added, “I don’t see the campaign finance violation here at all.”
TV host and lawyer Mark Levin discounts the claims and suggsets Cohen’s lawyer sold him out
Mark Levin had his client Michael Cohen “plead to two counts of criminality that don’t exist.”
Calling Cohen’s lawyer, “the general counsel for the Clinton mob family”, Levin explained that “It is a plea bargain between a prosecutor and criminal. A criminal who doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison. That is not precedent. That applies only to that specific case. Nobody cites plea bargains for precedent.”
“Just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so. He is not the judge. He is not the jury. We didn’t adjudicate anything,” Levin argued, using an example to drive home his point.
Levin gave examples.
A former FEC head also rejected the idea that a “campaign expenditure” could be “anything related to a campaign.”
“When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason,” Professor Bradley Smith told Levin Tuesday.