Are The New Allegations That Trump Directed Payoffs To Mistresses A Big Deal? | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's note: This informational nugget was sent to me by Ben Shapiro, who represents the Daily Wire, and since this is one of the most topical news events, it should be published on BCN.

    According to a new report from The Wall Street Journal, President Trump was intimately involved in payoff attempts toward various sexual partners during the 2016 election. The Journal reports that Trump worked with David Pecker, chief executive of the National Enquirer, to quash stories about Trump's paramours; he also worked with personal attorney Michael Cohen to pay women hush money. Here's the Journal:

    The Wall Street Journal found that Mr. Trump was involved in or briefed on nearly every step of the agreements. He directed deals in phone calls and meetings with his self-described fixer, Michael Cohen, and others. The U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan has gathered evidence of Mr. Trump's participation in the transactions.

    But we already knew much of this. The only question is whether Trump knowingly violated federal campaign finance law, as Richard Hasen, law professor at University of California at Irvine, explains.

    There are two possible defenses for Trump here. The first is simple lack of intent: he told Cohen to take care of the hush money without even considering campaign finance law, and assumed that because Cohen was a lawyer, he would avoid breaking the law. The second is a different form of lack of intent: Trump has been trying to pay women for years to shut up about affairs with him, and this hush money just happened to change hands during an election cycle. That second excuse was used by John Edwards after Edwards' donors paid hush money to his mistress during the 2008 cycle: Edwards claimed he wasn't trying to affect the election, but to hide the information from his wife.

    It will difficult for Trump to make a similar claim in some ways. The story states regarding one former paramour, Karen McDougal:

    Messrs. Pecker and Cohen signed a contract for the transfer of the McDougal story in late September. Mr. Cohen set up a shell company in Delaware for the transaction on Sept. 30.... Mr. Pecker called off the Trump-reimbursement deal in October 2016 on the advice of his lawyer. Accepting reimbursement from Mr. Trump, the executive worried, could undermine any argument that the McDougal payment was made for editorial and business reasons, rather than as an in-kind campaign contribution.

    That agreement fell through, but it provided the backdrop for the Stormy Daniels payment, which Trump greenlit and for which he reimbursed Cohen. Was Trump aware that was ending-around campaign finance law?

    It's difficult to imagine Trump going down over a campaign finance violation during his campaign. Everyone has correctly assumed that Trump's history with women is more than checkered, and Trump is no stranger to hush money. Furthermore, both excuses are at least somewhat plausible: Trump is no legal eagle, nor is he pure as the driven snow in matters female-related.

    Still, this story will provide a continuing headache for the administration. It may not be a big deal in terms of public relations as compared with the much-ballyhooed Mueller investigation, but it could end up being a far bigger deal in terms of legal ramifications.