In President Trump’s buying the silence of two women who allegedly had affairs with him, he had some good teachers: the Clintons and much of Congress. In fact, forget consensual affairs, because paying off abused women — and others — to “influence elections” is practically standard inside-the-Beltway procedure. And, no, using your own money to seal lips hasn’t suddenly become a crime.
Nonetheless, the Trump Derangement Syndrome set is all aflutter with talk of “impeachment” — CNN and MSNBC used the word 222 times in 18 hours — after ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen started singing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s tune. Providing some background, American Thinker’s J. Marsolo writes that “Cohen, represented by Clinton lawyer Lanny Davis, negotiated a plea where Cohen pleaded guilty to eight counts of tax fraud, bank fraud, and campaign law violations. Cohen didn’t pay income tax on over four million dollars from 2012 to 2016.”
But this tune may not be, as Democrats hope, “The Party’s Over.” Marsolo continues:
Attorneys not affiliated with the Trump-haters have criticized the Cohen deal negotiated by Clinton lawyer Lanny Davis. There was no violation of the campaign laws. The deal is that Mueller wanted language to damage Trump, and Davis and Cohen obliged Mueller by pleading to a nonexistent crime.
The plea seems to benefit Mueller and Trump-haters more than it benefits Cohen. The purpose is to damage Trump.
But this purpose has been strikingly absent in the past. As Marsolo also points out, “While the Clinton-Obama mob is howling that Trump paid two women to remain silent, which they obviously haven’t, this same bunch had no problem with Bill and Hillary taking steps to silence women whom Bubba raped, harassed, groped, and had affairs with to protect the political viability of the Clintons.”
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
And to the point here, “Bill Clinton had his pals Vernon Jordan and Bill Richardson tried get jobs for Monica Lewinsky at the same time Lewinsky was preparing an affidavit that she did not have an affair with Clinton. Note that this involved Lewinsky lying about the affair during the same time Clinton was trying to get her a job,” Marsolo also relates.
Moreover, American Thinker’s Keith Edwards reminds us of “the precedent set by the highly respected institution we call the Congress,” whose members have paid “‘secret settlements’ for everything from sexual harassment to who knows what else — because we really don’t know ‘what else’ they did.”
Edwards continues, “The secrecy, or can we say cover-up, is meant to protect the identity of the elected officials involved who need to silence their accusers. You know, just in case the information might become public and affect their positions in Congress or — wait for it — the outcomes of their next elections.”
Edwards provides numerous mainstream media sources that reported on the scandal. Here’s just one, Politico, 11/21/17:
Congress paid out $17 million in settlements. Here’s why we know so little about that money.
Two things have become painfully clear on Capitol Hill this week: Lawmakers and staffers say sexual harassment is “rampant” — but even members of Congress have no idea just how widespread the problem is.
The controversial and sensitive issue has taken center stage in Congress this week, with female lawmakers making fresh allegations of sexual harassment against unnamed members who are currently in office, and the unveiling of a new bill on Wednesday to change how sexual harassment complaints are reported and resolved.
On Thursday, the Office of Compliance released additional information indicating that it has paid victims more than $17 million since its creation in the 1990s. That includes all settlements, not just related to sexual harassment, but also discrimination and other cases.
In contrast, the allegations against Trump don’t involve harassment but that he had consensual affairs. Moreover, his payments probably aren’t even crimes, says liberal Harvard professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz. As the Daily Caller reports:
“He is more correct than his critics are,” said Dershowitz on Wednesday’s edition of Fox News’ “Special Report With Bret Baier.” “It’s complicated. The law is clear that the president may contribute to his own campaign, so if the president had paid $280,000 to these two women, even if he had done so in order to help his campaign, that would be no problem, it would be legal. If Cohen himself made the contribution that would be unlawful because he has a limit of $5200.”
Dershowitz then described a “catch-22” prosecutors are in.
“If he believes Cohen that the president directed him to do it, then that’s not a crime at all. If he doesn’t believe Cohen, then Cohen has committed a crime and not the president — and the legal pundits have been saying if Cohen admits to a crime, that makes Trump an unindicted coconspirator — just wrong as a matter of basic criminal law. You don’t become an unindicted coconspirator if your action is lawful even though the action of the other person is unlawful.”
When asked why Cohen would plead guilty, Dershowitz said prosecutors had him “dead to rights” on tax crimes, and tacked the other charge as an “add on” to get him to talk about Trump .
As for the story damaging Trump, Fox News host Tucker Carlson has often correctly pointed out that no one voted for the president believing he was a desert mystic; they knew he was a bodacious billionaire, celebrity semi-playboy. Those of good moral fiber supported him not because, as the Bill Clinton apologists used to say, “Character doesn’t matter,” but because it does.
And far superior is the character of a patriot to that of the perfidious.
Voting involves picking among the choices you have, not the choices you wish you had. And when the other choice is Andy Cuomo’s “America was never really great” gaggle of Jacobin goons, a flawed man who actually cares about the country starts to look just a bit like George Washington.
