Most media attention has been on the story of President Trump’s crony – Cohen – and his having plead guilty to campaign finance violation. The mainstream media treat this as the final “Ah-HA! GOT him!” moment, and talk of impeachment has once again begun to recirculate (and ever more vibrantly).
But haven’t the media ALWAYS treated every policy, every tweet, and every comment the president has made as an excuse for impeachment? Have they not treated every minute of this presidency as scandalous? Let’s take a closer look. We’ll summarize the people involved, the chronology, and the potential ramifications.
The individuals who were bought off during the presidential campaign were Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels because these two women allegedly had an affair with Trump. Now, Cohen alleges that under the direction of candidate Trump, he was to “take care” of paying off these two women by illegally paying them off through convoluted means for the funds to largely disappear unnoticed.
To many people, this may seem like it is a HUGE scandal and the mainstream media are treating it as the silver bullet to ending the presidency of Donald Trump. But is it really? Remember, there was plenty of campaign fraud that happened on Obama’s watch (which our media dismissed and forgot about in a few days’ time). These problems seem to only be covered when it is a Republican candidate that is taking the heat. It’s fairly obvious that both parties are usually guilty of breaking at least a few rules.
However, that is not even something to be concerned about (at least in the conservative context). The blatant bias of the media has already demonstrated this pattern for the better part of two-score years! Since the American people to some extent DO acknowledge that this is a regular thing, let’s move on to the meat of the matter.
The meat of the matter would be that President Trump has a couple means of perfectly plausible legal defense. The first example would be that this was a personal expenditure, not a political one. We must ask ourselves – would it have been in the interest of Donald Trump to pay these women for silence even if he had not wanted to get into politics? I think that the answer here is obviously clear. Yes, Trump would certainly have had an interest in keeping these women silent as a married man and as a celebrity figure. I think it is perfectly safe to say that many men (and yes, women too) who have enough money to buy off women the way Trump has would very much wish to do so.
So, why is it that these have not affected the president’s approval ratings? Well, the answer to that is simple – Trump supporters kind of already knew that this man was a bit of a sleazebag. People already knew what kind of a man he was when they voted him, and many of them expected things like this to be brought to light about him. No one is surprised.
Secondly, President Trump is no lawyer. He could arguably claim that he was passing this duty on to Cohen specifically so that Cohen would do it in a legal way. If the realm of legalities is within Cohen’s comfort zone, why NOT leave it to Cohen? That’s just a smart way to go. This means that even if Cohen had violated the law, it does not mean that President Trump did. The president could easily say that he gave these instructions to Cohen “in good faith” thinking that Cohen would do nothing wrongful.
Both of these defenses are plausible, acceptable, and perfectly wholesome. Let’s not assume that any of this is so much as a speed bump to the Trumpian regime just yet!