Yes, Seriously. Just because he’s committed so many crimes and so many more serious crimes doesn’t mean that this is not a crime as well. I fail to see the ‘selective prosecution’ angle.

bmaz, calling people here ‘idiots’ and your other choice words seems like it is against the rules being posted of being civil in this thread. Perhaps you should read the guidelines. Just wanted to point out that it should work both ways. Even for the mods, rule #1 should still apply.

[If you don’t like what contributors/moderators write here or how they operate the comments, you’re free to find the exit and/or start your own blog. We do not take policing from commenters. /~Rayne]

Agree all should wait for indictment to be opened. Also, agree this is not a time for celebration for our nation. Still, found it troubling that when I turned to Fox news to see their coverage that a network reported to be moving on from Trump was airing an interview by two South Carolinians (Graham and Gowdy) that closely paralleled Calhoun and Picken’s call for insurrection! After January 6, you cannot help but be concerned for where this goes moving forward!

I agree with you that it was a campaign finance violation.

The defense very likely will argue, same as did Edwards in his case, that the real motive for the hush money payoff was personal.

And so one line of reasoning that this is “political” (I do not know whether this aligns with bmaz’s thinking) is that the challenge of proving intent renders this too weak a case to advance, absent a political motivation.

How does one answer that argument?

In anticipation of angry denunciation of my purported motive in raising this question, allow me to make clear that I have encountered this argument in dialogue with someone else and seek guidance in addressing it.

Having gone through the charging document last night, it seemed to me that the references to Individual-1 were merely contextual. They merely established for the purpose of convicting COHEN on a campaign finance charge that Cohen operated on behalf of the campaign of Individual-1.

Nothing in there seemed to implicate Individual-1 in any of the machinations among Pecker, Cohen, Editor-1, McDougal, and Stormy.

Marcy’s more recent post explains this:
.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/03/31/trump-has-attempted-to-cover-up-that-he-cheated-to-cover-up-cheating-in-2016-at-least-six-times/

In the months after Cohen’s plea, Main DOJ attempted to interfere in the Cohen investigation repeatedly, as laid out in Geoffrey Berman’s book. They did so first on Rod Rosenstein’s orders, by demanding the SDNY rewrite Cohen’s statement of offense to hide the degree to which Trump ordered the hush payments (Rosenstein’s deputy, Ed O’Callaghan tried to eliminate all reference to Individual-1).

***We then sent a copy to Rod Rosenstein, informing him that a plea was imminent. The next day, Khuzami, who was overseeing the case, received a call from O’Callaghan, Rosenstein’s principal deputy.

O’Callaghan was aggressive.

Why the length, he wanted to know. He argued that now that Cohen is pleading guilty we don’t need all this description.

[Robert] Khuzami responded, What exactly are you concerned about? O’Callaghan proceeded to identify specific allegations that he wanted removed, almost all referencing Individual-1.

It quickly became apparent to Khuzami that, contrary to what O’Callaghan professed, it wasn’t the overall length or detail of the document that concerned him; it was any mention of Individual-1.

[snip]

The team was tasked with the rewrite and stayed up most of the night. The revised information, now twenty-one pages, kept all of the charges but removed certain allegations, including allegations that Individual-1 acted “in concert with” and “coordinated with” Cohen on the illegal campaign contributions. The information now alleged that Cohen acted in concert and coordinated with “one or more members of the campaign.” But in the end, everything that truly needed to be in the information was still there.***
.
.
In the weeks and years following January 6, the former guy has relied quite a lot on his Kevin.

We will find, I think, that in this circumstance he will find himself undone by his Pecker.

I think Trump arguing the payment was to avoid embarrassment will fail. I don’t think he is capable of feeling embarrassment. (See his response to Access Hollywood tape. “Locker room talk.”) But embarrassing or not it strains credulity (or should to a reasonable juror) to claim that he believed his campaign would not be further damaged if the story came out, given GOP’s negative reaction to Access Hollywood tape.

True, Trump currently does have that “problem” with the pesky USSS detail. As I say, I expect him to be arraigned in NY (based on what the TV lawyers have said).

As I think on this more, I can see why this whole “edge of crisis” state warrant scenario is not something that anyone who supports the current Federal system should be gleeful about. This is a very serious business of indicting and prosecuting ex-Presidents. Not quite as hairy as indicting sitting Presidents but it’s definitely got some potential issues that may require sorting out by Federal courts if laws and jurisdictions are not clearly delineated all up and down the line. While one assumes that USSS agents are briefed on their duties and legal responsibilities, etc, in great detail, expecting them to be interpreting their duty beyond the specific laws they may have been briefed on is a bit much. And I wouldn’t put it past Trump’s cadres to force them (and us) through the edge cases.