Trump finally acknowledges Stormy payment

President Trump had to file his annual financial report as a federal office-holder for 2017, and he did finally list, in a footnote, a payment to Michael Cohen of "between $100,001 and $250,000" -- "for expenses."   This is being assumed to be the $130,000 re-payment for the hush money Cohen paid to Stormy Daniels.

Trump was in a bind here, trapped by his conflicting lies.   He had said he knew nothing about the payment nor where Cohen got the money.   But his loose-cannon lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, blabbed on tv about the payment but insisted that it was not a campaign contribution because it was to "protect the family" from the unfavorable publicity and would have been paid even if he were not in an election campaign.   Problem:    it was paid about 10 days before the election for something that allegedly happened 10 years ago.    Why would it come up now, except for the campaign?

Anyway, the footnote acknowledged that Cohen incurred the expense in 2016 and that Trump reimbursed him for it in 2017 -- to justify that he did not include it on his 2016 financial disclosure form but did on the 2017 form.

The whole case is getting so complex, with new news several times a day.  And none of it is good news for Trump.   Rather than trying to explain all those different moving parts, let me just say that the noose around Trump is getting tighter and coming closer to evidence of possible financial crimes.   With all the millions coming in to Michael Cohen -- supposedly for access to Trump for the donors -- where did the money go?

But here's the over-arching question.   Trump, in his tweets and campaign rally rants, talks a lot about the witch hunt.   And his so-called lawyer Giuliani goes on TV and blathers all over the airwaves.   And what does he talk about?

"You can't indict a sitting president."  But why is Giuliani focusing so much on that if he's confident that Trump has done nothing to be indicted for? 

Let's look at the question anyway, because I do believe that Trump is indictable.  Giuliani claims that Mueller told him that they can't indict a sitting president, but if you parse what actually was said, according to witnesses in the meeting, Mueller didn't say that.   There was some discussion about it, apparently, and one of his assistants finally said that "We follow the policies of the Justice Department," or something like that.

Neal Katyal, former Solicitor General in the Justice Department, says that the Constitution is vague about the question.   The Watergate case, to some people's thinking, led to the conclusion that you can't indict a sitting president.

Katyal puts it in a different context.   He says (1) there are possibly exceptions depending on the seriousness of the crime.   The Constitution is not specific, and it's never really been tested in the courts.   And (2) he says that it's not just a matter of can you or cant' you indict.   The fact is, even if the answer is that you can't indict a sitting president, the other part of that sentence is that "the remedy is impeachment."    It's not just yes or no about indictment.   It's more a question of is the proper course (1) indictment or (2) impeachment.

But even with all that, Katyal personally thinks that there are some cases the seriousness of which would make indictment appropriate.    My words, not his, but it seems to me that murder would be one example.    Or gross corruption that was likely to continue if the president is not stopped immediately.

Interesting times.   We may find this question tested and answered by the courts.

Ralph