Mueller + Lanny Davis = Michael Cohen Pleading Guilty to Acts that Aren't Crimes, BUT Help Is on the Way as Senators Grassley and Graham Agree that Trump Should Fire AG Sessions

IT'S "THE REAL STORY" TIME. We are being bombarded by the ProgDem machine salivating over the "unindicted co-conspirator" and his "criminal" laywer. Preisdent Trump and Michael Cohen. What really happened very likely goes something like this -- Cohen was Donald Trump's "fixer" lawyer. He handled the stuff very wealthy and rather flamboyant businessmen get into. He had Non-Disclosure Agreements with two ladies who had some degree of personal contact with Trump ten or so years ago. When Trump became a candidate for the presidency, the two women or their own lawyers undoubtedly contacted Cohen, very probably threatening to go public. Cohen, being used to "fixing" things and worried that his client might be embarrassed, decided to pay off at the women, using his own funds, as he often did for other matters, knowing that he would later bill his client Trump who would then reimburse him. Routine for a "fixer' lawyer of a very wealthy client. But, Cohen forgot about or never really understood the implications of Trump being a candidate for federal campaign law purposes. But, he billed Trump anyway -- money is money after all, especially for "fixers" -- and got paid. Independently of all this, Cohen, as a Trump lawyer, came under the microscope of special counsel Robert Mueller, whose junkyard dog crew of anti-Trump pro-Hillary lawyers stumbled on the payments in the documents they seized from Cohen in a spectacularly unusual and possibly unconstitutional raid on a lawyer's client files. The Mueller legal hoods also found questionable income and tax records -- or no records -- and went after Cohen about not paying his taxes. In an effort to save his own skin, Cohen, now in full panic, jumped at the chance to "cooperate" with Mueller, whose real goal was to nab Trump for any impeachable act. Mueller & Hoods concocted a Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) story about Cohen telling Trump he would pay off the women to helpTrump win the election and that Trump agreed to pay what is now being called "hush-money." This fabrication then was positioned as a FECA criminal violation in which Cohen made an illegal campaign contribution at the request of Trump. That tall tale was written into the list of charges to which Cohen pleaded guilty on Tuesday. That plea would not have been made without the consent of Cohen's counsel, Hillary-and-Bill lawyer Lanny Davis. • Got it? Hang on and we'll circle back to it in a moment. • • • THE PRESIDENT SPEAKS OUT. Fox News intrviewed President TRump early on Wednesday morning on Ainsley Earhardt of FOX & Friends. President Trump insisted he learned about the "hush-money" payments made by Michael Cohen “later on” despite his ex-lawyer's plea deal to the contrary. The President maintained that they were not campaign funds in any event because he had reimbursed Cohen out of his own personal funds : “Later on I knew. Later on. What he did -- and they weren’t taken out of the campaign finance, that’s the big thing. That’s a much bigger thing. Did they come out of the campaign? They didn’t come out of the campaign, they came from me.... that’s not even a campaign violation.” President Trump also told Earnhardt : "“I don’t know if you know but I tweeted about the payments." It was a May 3 tweet in which Trump said : "Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA....very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair....despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement....Those agreements are very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair....despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement. Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no role in this transaction.” • The President’s comments come after his former longtime personal attorney and self-described “fixer” had already entered a guilty plea with federal prosecutors on Tuesday, pleading guilty to five counts of tax evasion, one count of making false statements to a financial institution, one count of willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution. The plea deal specifically stated that the payments to the two women were meant to influence the election -- by covering up affair allegations -- and the campaign was involved. admitting to violating campaign finance laws by arranging "hush-money" payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal “at the direction” of then-candidate Trump. Those words were put into his plea court filing by a ruined Cohen, who also pleaded guilty to several charges of bank and tax fraud. We remember that Cohen initially said the money he paid to Daniels came out of his own pocket. • President trump also raised the treatment of President Obama for FEC violations : “If you look at President Obama, he had a massive campaign violation but he had a different attorney general and they viewed it a lot differently.” Trump was referring to Obama's 2008 campaign being fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for a series of missing notices for more than 1,300 contributions. They totaled $1.8 million. • • • LANNY DAVIS, THE OTHER JUNKYARD DOG IN THE TALE. Lanny Davis, Cohen’s attorney, argued that there is little room for interpretation as to whether the President could be in legal trouble. “There is no question that he’s committed a federal crime,” Davis said on “America’s Newsroom” Wednesday. He also argued that it’s never been settled whether a sitting President can be indicted, despite suggestions to the contrary from Trump allies. Lanny Davis argued that because Cohen admitted Tuesday to making an excessive campaign contribution and causing an unlawful corporate contribution, Trump is automatically "guilty," too [the payments to the two women were made for the accounts of corporations formed by Cohen]. • After Cohen's plea deal, Davis also initially said that Trump’s lawyers wrote a letter to Special Counsel Robert Mueller admitting Trump “directed” Cohen to make the payment to Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. BUT, Davis corrected himself to CNN’s John Berman Wednesday, noting he was not talking about a letter to Mueller’s team, but rather the financial disclosure form filed by Trump in May. • On Wednesday, former Utah congressman and Fox News contributor Jason Chaffetz said it's "HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS" that Lanny Davis -- a longtime ally of Bill and Hillary Clinton -- is representing Michael Cohen. "Lanny Davis' presence here is a huge question mark," Chaffetz said on "America's Newsroom." "This is somebody with close proximity [to] Hillary Clinton and the Democratic machine. It really makes you wonder : Why is Lanny Davis sitting in the middle of all this?" Chaffetz questioned why out of all the attorneys in the world, Cohen chose Davis, who served as special White House counsel in the 1990s during the Clinton administration and recently wrote a book titled "The Unmaking of the President 2016: How FBI Director James Comey Cost Hillary Clinton the Presidency." "I think that's highly suspicious," Chaffetz said. Chaffetz also agreed with a point made by Former Trump campaign advisor Michael Caputo, who said it's interesting that Cohen as recently as February insisted that the payments to Daniels and McDougal were on the up and up, but when he was faced with federal charges, he suddenly changed his tune. Chaffetz said that Cohen evidently had huge financial problems, and then was facing federal charges and "mounds of legal bills. And then comes along Lanny Davis, Hillary Clinton's person. And how convenient that the two merge and make this Reese's Peanut Butter Cup that is supposed to the end all, be all. Huge credibility problems on this. But it is a serious situation for the President, Rudy Giuliani and his legal team." • In July, when Cohen hired Lanny Davis, Politico wrote : "President Donald Trump's embattled former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who has dropped hints that he may cooperate with federal prosecutors investigating his former boss, has hired an attorney and PR man who led former President Bill Clinton's public defense against multiple scandals in the 1990s....Davis served as an official Clinton White House legal adviser as it fended cascading investigations from independent counsel Kenneth Starr. After leaving the White House, Davis maintained his role as prominent on-air surrogate for the Democratic President as he faced impeachment proceedings related to an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky....Lanny Davis, who spent countless hours defending Clinton more than two decades ago, said on Thursday that he’s now representing Cohen in the tightening federal probe. 'Like most of America, I have been following the matter regarding Michael Cohen with great interest,' Davis said in a statement. 'As an attorney, I have talked to Michael many times in the last two weeks. Then I read his words published on July 2, I recognized their sincerity. Michael Cohen deserves to tell his side of the story -- subject, of course, to the advice of counsel.' ” • Business Insider wroteo n Wednesday that : "Lanny Davis, Michael Cohen's attorney, says his client has information 'that should be of interest' to special counsel Robert Mueller, following his plea deal with federal prosecutors. 'Mr. Cohen has knowledge on certain subjects that should be of interest to the special counsel, and is more than happy to tell the special counsel all that he knows,' Davis said during an interview on MSNBC. In a later interview on CNN, Davis suggested Cohen's tenure under Trump's wing entitled him to details that have yet to be revealed to Mueller and his broader Russia probe....Davis's comments to Maddow suggest his client may still be angling for a better plea deal by making it clear he has information of value to Mueller. Cohen is currently a subject of interest in several threads of the Russia investigation, including the Trump Organization's push to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, the creation of a Russia-friendly 'peace plan' during the early days of Trump's presidency, and his potential involvement in an unconfirmed trip to Prague during the summer of 2016 to meet with Kremlin-linked officials." • Business Insider also reported that Cohen's plea deal with prosecutors does not so far include a cooperation agreement: "Legal experts say that could be for one of two reasons : either Cohen chose not to cooperate, or prosecutors do not feel that he has enough information to offer them in exchange for a further reduction in sentence. The longtime former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer said Tuesday that if Cohen chose not to cooperate, it may be because he is still holding out for a pardon from Trump. 'If Cohen flips on Trump, that pardon flies out the window,' Cramer said....If Cohen gives Mueller information of value, the special counsel could then push for a reduction in his sentence. Cohen has been released on a $500,000 bond and is scheduled for sentencing on December 12." • • • A SHORT REVIEW OF FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN LAW. • FECA §30101. "Definitions. When used in this Act : (9)(B) The term “expenditure” does not include—(vii) the payment of compensation for legal or accounting services—(I) rendered to or on behalf of any political committee of a political party if the person paying for such services is the regular employer of the individual rendering such services, and if such services are not attributable to activities which directly further the election of any designated candidate to Federal office;..." NOTE : The only rendering of this clause that would make Cohen's payments to the women campaign expenditures would be IF it were proven that he considerd that he was making the payments on behalf of the Trump campaign committee to further the election. There is absolutely no public evidence of that except in the self-serving plea bargain of Cohen written by the anti-Trump special counsel Mueller & Hoods and agreed to by his anti-Trump Clintonista lawyer Lanny Davis. Trump, and Cohen originally, said the payments had nothing to do with the election but with NDAs and were reimbursed by Trump out of personal, not campaign, funds. Cohen's plea statement has a very fishy odor about it. • If the payments were not made on the knowing behalf of the Trump campaign committee, were they made as independent expenditures? "FECA §30101.(17) Independent expenditure. The term ‘independent expenditure’ means an expenditure by a person—(A) expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate; and (B) that is not made in concert or cooperation with or at the request or suggestion of such candidate, the candidate’s authorized political committee, or their agents, or a political party committee or its agents. (18) The term “clearly identified” means that—(A) the name of the candidate involved appears; (B) a photograph or drawing of the candidate appears; or (C) the identity of the candidate is apparent by unambiguous reference." NOTE: Mueller and Lanny Davis lose this one flat out. Will they really show evidence that when Cohen transferred the payments to the women, he included a statement that the payments were being made to "advocate the election" of Trump, that they were made independently of Trump, and that his name as the candidate is "present by unambiguous reference"??? Get Serious !!! • Do Mueller and Lanny Davis get a third strike?? Some experts are talking about Trump's use of his campaign funds to reimburse Cohen -- that would be a prohibited use of campaign funds. "FECA §30101. (26) Personal funds. The term ‘personal funds’ means an amount that is derived from—(A) any asset that, under applicable State law, at the time the individual became a candidate, the candidate had legal right of access to or control over, and with respect to which the candidate had—(i) legal and rightful title; or (ii) an equitable interest; (B) income received during the current election cycle of the candidate, including—(i) a salary and other earned income from bona fide employment; (ii) dividends and proceeds from the sale of the candidate’s stocks or other investments; (iii) bequests to the candidate; (iv) income from trusts established before the beginning of the election cycle; (v) income from trusts established by bequest after the beginning of the election cycle of which the candidate is the beneficiary; (vi) gifts of a personal nature that had been customarily received by the candidate prior to the beginning of the election cycle; and (vii) proceeds from lotteries and similar legal games of chance; and (C) a portion of assets that are jointly owned by the candidate and the candidate’s spouse equal to the candidate’s share of the asset under the instrument of conveyance or ownership, but if no specific share is indicated by an instrument of conveyance or ownership, the value of 1/2 of the property." NOTE : While it is clear that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the payments to the two women, the "FEC Help for Candidates" states in the section titled "Using campaign funds for personal use is prohibited" that "Commission regulations provide a test, called the 'irrespective test,' to differentiate legitimate campaign and officeholder expenses from personal expenses. Under the 'irrespective test,' personal use is any use of funds in a campaign account of a candidate (or former candidate) to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder. More simply, if the expense would exist even in the absence of the candidacy or even if the officeholder were not in office, then the personal use ban applies." That may seem confusing, but what it means is that a candidate may NOT use his camapign funds to pay for personal expences that would exist even if he were not a candidate. The FEC Help for Candidates section gives many examples, but one is clearcut : "The candidate cannot use campaign funds to pay for food purchased for daily consumption inside the home or supplies needed to maintain the household. The campaign may, however, pay for food and supplies for fundraising activities and campaign meetings (even when they take place in the candidate’s home)." The FEC Help section goes on to state : "For other expenses not mentioned on this page, the Commission will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the expense is one that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or duties as a federal officeholder and would be considered a personal use expense. For example, the Commission addresses payments for meals, travel, vehicles, mixed-use and legal expenses on a case-by-case basis....Using the irrespective test summarized on this page, the Commission decides on a case-by-case basis whether legal expenses are considered “'ersonal use' and thus are expenses that a candidate may not pay for using campaign funds." BUT, we have Trump's easily verifiable statement that he reimbursed (paid for) Cohen's payments otthe two women from his own finds, not from campaign funds. Nice try, Mueller and Lanny Davis, but I think we are now able to say "CASE DISMISSED." • Former Federal Elections Commission chair Bradley Smith agrees, and he explained to Epoch Times that : "Under the broad definition in federal law, anything of value used to influence any election for federal office constitutes a campaign contribution. Yet a personal-use prohibition under the same law narrows the scope of what can be counted as a campaign expense to exclude all payments “that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign. The prosecutors in these cases always want to just focus on the idea that it’s for the purpose of influencing the campaign. Many of them are not even aware of the other provision in this statute -- the prohibition on personal use -- that would seem to narrow that definition down.” For example, a tailored suit might make the candidate look good on the campaign trail, but is an expense that would exist irrespective of his campaign for office, Bradley Smith explained. The law specifically lists a number of examples of such expenses, including clothing purchases, country club memberships, or tickets to a sporting event. Under the same statute, a payment securing the silence of a woman could also exist irrespective of the campaign. For example, such a payment can benefit the candidate’s personal business prospects and family life. Thus, Cohen’s payment is specifically prohibited from being counted as a campaign expense and is not a campaign contribution. “When you run for office and you buy TV ads, or you rent a campaign headquarters office space, or you hire a campaign manager or a campaign accountant, or you buy phones your staffers are to use on the campaign, those are all things done because you’re running for office. There are many other things that you do or that you spend money on that benefit your campaign, that you may even plan on them benefitting your campaign, hope that they benefit your campaign, but they are not campaign expenditures because they’re obligations that would potentially exist whether you were running for office or not. The distinction between what is and what is not a campaign expense is crucial for preventing candidates from using campaign funds for anything other than their campaigns -- like a new car or a gold watch -- with the intention of personally benefiting from the purchase." • • • DEAR READERS, Michael Cohen may be guilty of tax evasion and making false statements to financial institutions, BUT he is not guilty of federal campaign law infractions. NEITHER is President Trump. President Trump tweeted on Wednesday : "Michael Cohen plead [sic] guilty to two counts of campaign finance violations that are not a crime. President Obama had a big campaign finance violation and it was easily settled!” Bradley Smith agreed with the President : “My assessment would be that yes, Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to things that probably are not crimes.” Smith noted that in 2012, former Senator John Edwards was charged with campaign violations in connection to payments to a woman with whom he had an extramarital affair. The trial revolved largely around what constitutes a campaign expense. The jury could not reach a verdict and the Justice Department dropped the case. Smith said : “The courts have always faced a challenge in how do we narrow that definition down to something that is actually usable, that doesn’t leave everybody on the hook for everything they do that’s connected to politics.” In pleading guilty, Cohen said that Trump instructed him to make the payment to the woman in question. But the plea is not a binding legal precedent, according to Smith. “It doesn’t affect the ability of the Trump folks to raise defenses.” The defense wil lbe that there was no campaign contribution; no unreported campaign expenditure, and no misuse of campaign funds for personal purposes. • Megyn Kelly’s audience bursts out laughing when Lanny Davis begged for donations to ‘Michael Cohen Truth Fund’ hrough a GoFundMe page launched to cover the legal expenses for former Trump attorney Michael Cohen. Lanny Davis got boos and laughter from a live television audience. And, when Lanny Davis said : “Could I just take one opportunity to remind everyone that Michael Cohen has suffered a tragic and difficult experience with his family?. He’s without resources and we’ve set up a website called ‘Michael Cohen Truth.com’ that we’re hoping that he will get some help from the American people so he can continue to tell the truth,” As the laughter went on, Megyn Kelly told him : “The audience...they don’t appear prepared to donate, Lanny. Davis answered by attacking the viewers as not being interested in the truth. He then got a round of booing. Comments included these. "@LQQKYLou. My question to Lanny is : Why are you asking for money on the show? If your client has so much to offer the #MuellerInvestigation then why won't you represent him for FREE for the benefit of the Country? Many attys represent people probono. So to get the truth you want money?" And, "@jpsanchez511 Replying to @Morning_Joe @LannyDavis. SERIOUSLY? A go-fund-me for Cohen to tell the truth? No thank you....It’s time for you to just tell the TRUTH without being funded!" AND, "@RAMB01234 Replying to @coloredpatriot and 2 others. So he needs money to tell the truth. LOL ??. You can’t make this stuff up." • RAMBO 1234 is right -- you can't make this stuff up. But, the ProgDems keep doing it, and nobody even slaps their wrists. WHEN is Sessions going to do anything to represent the President he is under a constitutional oath to serve with sound legal advice??? WHEN??? • • LATE BREAKING NEWS. Four hours ago, TheHill reported : "In one of his toughest statements following criticism from President Trump, Attorney General Sessions defended his leadership of the Justice Department, which has come under increasing attack from the President and his allies. 'While I am Attorney General, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations. I demand the highest standards, and where they are not met, I take action,” Sessions said in a direct response to Trump's interview on Fox. However, no nation has a more talented, more dedicated group of law enforcement investigators and prosecutors than the United States,' Sessions said. Sessions’s statement came after President Trump criticized the attorney general once more, during an interview with Fox News, for his recusal from matters related to the federal investigation into Russian election interference. Trump also criticized the Justice Department in stark terms. 'Even my enemies say that, ‘Jeff Sessions should have told you he was going to recuse himself, and then you wouldn’t have put him in,’ Trump said in an interview that aired Thursday [See above]. Trump also said that he only selected Sessions, previously a Senator from Alabama, to be his top law enforcement officer because of his 'loyalty(during the campaign. 'He was on the campaign. You know, the only reason I gave him the job was because I felt loyalty,' Trump said. 'He was an original supporter.' ” TheHill noted that : "A group of Republicans on Capitol Hill, meanwhile, have accused the Justice Department and FBI of bias in their handling of the probes into Russian election interference and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails ahead of the 2016 presidential election. They have seized on text messages exchanged by FBI agent Peter Strzok, who was fired by the bureau earlier this month, and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page in which both expressed critical views of Trump. Strzok worked on both the Clinton email and Russia investigations, but was removed by Mueller when an internal probe revealed the messages. Trump said in the interview with Fox News that Sessions 'never took control of the Justice Department. All of my people, they're doing incredibly. But the whole thing with -- going on with the Justice and FBI -- when you see Strzok and his lover, Lisa Page, when you see Comey with all the lies that he's told, when you see Mueller with the conflicts,' Trump said. 'He's so conflicted. Comey's his best friend. He had a really nasty business transaction with me, which he never reported. I've been talking about it; he never reports it. I mean, you look at the bad things.' ” • THIS TIME, President Trump got support from the GOP Senate leadership. After the Sessions commentary broke in the US news, the ProgDem lapdog media was winding up to excoriate President Trump when this happened -- Gateway Pundit published an article with the headline "Top GOP Senators Back POTUS -- Clear Path For Trump to Fire AG Sessions After 2018 Midterm Elections." Gateway Pundit wrote : "Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) both backed President Trump on Thursday and said he deserves an Attorney General he has faith in. The top key GOP Senators said they will both back President Trump if he fires AG Sessions after the 2018 midterm elections. [The powerful] Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley said in an interview with Bloomberg Thursday that he will make time for hearings to confirm a new Attorney General. This is a 180-degree turn from Grassley’s previous statements wherein he had made it clear he wouldn’t confirm a new AG if Trump were to fire Sessions. Senator Graham told reporters on Thursday President Trump deserves an Attorney General he has faith in, reported Bloomberg. “The President’s entitled to an attorney general he has faith in, somebody that’s qualified for the job, and I think there will come a time, sooner rather than later, where it will be time to have a new face and a fresh voice at the Department of Justice. Clearly, Attorney General Sessions doesn’t have the confidence of the President.” Gateway Pundit said that "the tension between President Trump and AWOL AG Sessions reached a fever pitch on Thursday. AWOL AG Sessions unloaded on President Trump Thursday afternoon in a rare statement in response to the President’s interview with FOX & Friends host Ainsley Earhardt....Jeff Sessions recused himself the first day on the job citing the wrong law. He has been in the corner of the Justice Department cowering while his Deputy, Rod Rosenstein calls the shots. Sessions recusal is the reason why Robert Mueller and 17 angry Obama-Hillary donors are hunting down everyone in President Trump’s inner circle. It is impossible for President Trump to drain the swamp without an Attorney General. Sessions has to go." • I knew none of this when I wrote the first conclusion of tonight's blog. But, my question -- "WHEN is Sessions going to do anything to represent the President he is under a constitutional oath to serve with sound legal advice??? WHEN???" -- has FINALLY been answered. President Trump will later this year be able to name an Attorney General who is his lawyer, instead of his antagonizer-and-prosecutor-in-chief. Bravo, Senator Graham. And, Bravo, Bravo, Senator Grassley.