Andrew C. McCarthy: Trump Is “Very Likely” to Be Indicted
Andrew C. Carthy has issued a very surprising opinion: that Donald Trump is “very likely to be indicted” on a campaign finance violation:
The major takeaway from the 40-page sentencing memorandum filed by federal prosecutors Friday for Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal attorney, is this: The president is very likely to be indicted on a charge of violating federal campaign finance laws.
It has been obvious for some time that President Trump is the principal subject of the investigation still being conducted by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Cohen earlier pleaded guilty to multiple counts of business and tax fraud, violating campaign finance law, and making false statements to Congress regarding unsuccessful efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
Yes, Cohen has stated he did the hands-on work in orchestrating hush-money payments to two women who claim to have had sexual liaisons with Trump many years ago (liaisons Trump denies).
But when Cohen pleaded guilty in August, prosecutors induced him to make an extraordinary statement in open court: the payments to the women were made “in coordination with and at the direction of” the candidate for federal office – Donald Trump.
Prosecutors would not have done this if the president was not on their radar screen.
I can’t say I agree, especially given the guidance that the Justice Department still follows on the question of indicting a sitting president:
The indictment or cnminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
Attachment:
In the .pdf, the DoJ circa 2000 takes another look at the DoJ’s 1973 opinion concluding that DoJ should not indict a sitting president, and agrees with it. Here is what McCarthy says about that:
Justice Department guidance holds that a sitting president may not be indicted. If prosecutors in the Southern District of New York believe they have a case against the president, must they hold off until after he is out of office?
If President Trump were to win re-election, he would not be out of office until 2024, when the five-year statute of limitations on a 2016 offense would have lapsed.
More importantly, do campaign finance violations qualify as “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which is the constitutional standard for impeachment? It is hard to imagine an infraction that the Justice Department often elects not to prosecute is sufficiently egregious to rise to that level, but the debate on this point between partisans would be intense.
Those are all questions for another day. The point for this day is that the Cohen case in New York City is not about Cohen. The president is in peril of being charged.
I don’t see how this set of questions takes guidance that no indictment should be pursued, and turns it into a “very likely” event.
If McCarthy is going to maintain this position, he needs to explain this better.
P.S. To me, one of the major takeaways of the past few days is to emphasize the national security risk that Trump’s presidency represents. Think about it: Michael Cohen and the Russian government have now confirmed that Cohen lied to Congress about the extent and duration of Cohen’s contacts with the Kremlin on behalf of the Trump Organization to pursue Trump Tower Moscow, during the Trump/Hillary general election season. What this means is that, when Cohen lied to Congress on behalf of Donald Trump, not only did Trump know Cohen had lied, but the Kremlin did as well — even as the public was kept in the dark.
This is almost the definition of a national security risk. And, together with the Russians’ knowledge of earlier public lies by Michael Flynn, it could help to explain Donald Trump’s curious, persistent, and almost pathological refusal to criticize Vladimir Putin, for anything.
P.P.S. But does any of this matter to Trump superfans? Trump is betting it doesn’t:
Almost certainly true to an extent, but what a damning paragraph. https://t.co/vhpXip6YhO pic.twitter.com/ilL8j8HnoZ
— Philip Bump (@pbump) December 9, 2018
That’s a pretty good bet, as the comments from Trump superfans in the comments below will likely demonstrate.
[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]