Trump is in a big heap of trouble

I had not fully understood or appreciated the gravity of what the Southern District of New York's (SDNY) federal prosecutors are looking at in implications for Trump in Michael Cohen's revelations.

The focus on the hush money payments to women, while legally a campaign finance violation -- and therefore a felony -- still seemed a relatively minor part of the crimes of Donald Trump.   Surely it wouldn't be that, that brought down a presidency.   Evidence of obstruction of justice and violation of the emoluments clause seemed more serious to me.

But insiders say that it is the revelations from Michael Cohen that have Republicans most worried.   And, after all, Bill Clinton's impeachment charges were not for sex with a White House intern -- but for lying to Congress.

On Nicole Wallace's "Deadline: White House" news show on MSNBC Monday afternoon, former Assistant FBI Director Frank Figliuzzi put it this way, clarifying two points:   first, it's because these charges are the easiest to prove;  and, second, it's not just hush money payments to women.    Here is Figliuzzi speaking:

"With regard to the Southern District of New York filing, let's understand something:   If Donald Trump was not currently the President of the United States, he'd be looking at an indictment in a matter of weeks, not months.  In fact, he might already have been indicted, if he were not the President.

"The New York charges are the simplest set of facts to get your hands around legally.  He was directing this activity, allegedly.   And the activity is far more, Nicole, than simply trying to keep women quiet that you've had an affair with.

"W're talking about directing things like bank fraud, money laundering, wire fraud, federal campaign election violations;  and then, perhaps, using you own company, your own organization, as a slush fund for your campaign.

"All this is deeply problematic. . . . "

We've heard so much detail about the hush money payments -- and almost none about the financial crimes;   so we political observers have more or less equated "Michael Cohen" with the one issue we've heard about.    But Cohen was a Trump insider and fixer for decades, and he's undoubtedly revealed much more than has been publicly revealed.

Figliuzzi and Wallace went on to discuss the fact that prosecutors at the Southern District of New York are already talking about when to send their report to Congress.   They do not have to go through and get approval from the Justice Department, as Special Counsel Mueller does.   They can send a report directly to Congress, which could then begin impeachment proceedings . . . or not.

The question of indicting a sitting president remains the same as it does for Mueller.   But impeachment, of course, is another matter and could proceed.

In my opinion, they should not use the big stick of impeachment if all they have is paying hush money to women.   But apparently they have much much more than we yet know about.  If there is evidence of money laundering, bank fraud, etc. . .  . then it may not be premature.

Ralph
Fiogliuzzi also told Wallace that he continues to be concerned about Trump's being influenced by whatever compromising control the Russians had over him.  Even if they no longer have that control, because so much has been exposed and is therefore useless as blackmail, Figliuzzi points out that Trump might be inclined to over-react to "prove" to us that he is not under their control.   For example, he might order an over-reaching response to some Russian aggression that would be better handled another way -- in order to "prove" that he's not controlled by Putin.    So Figliuzzi says that it still makes Trump incapable of making good decisions.

In other words, the effects of blackmail do not all end when the blackmail is exposed and rendered useless itself.