McCarthy makes us think “Manhattan Slough”

  • Outside the Washington Swamp there is the Manhattan Slough
  • Really, There Is No Way Somebody Pleads Guilty To Something That Isn’t A Crime 
  • Contrived or shall we say “strained” tactical charges aimed at another from prosecutors even if to be the carrot to get a plea, nope never heard of such a thing
  • Underlying statutes could be wholly unconstitutional
  • Nope never heard of such a thing*

This Andrew McCarthy comment as reported by Guy Benson* at Townhall rankles us as it seems just another knee jerk defense by McCarthy for some cronies whose competence if not integrity should be questioned, his demurral notwithstanding. (bold emphasis ours)

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy told us last night on Benson and Harf that (a) he doesn’t agree with those who claim the feds induced Cohen to plead to actions that aren’t even crimes in order to jam up Trump (McCarthy personally worked alongside the prosecutor in the case, endorsed his professionalism and character, and insisted he wouldn’t play games), (b) Trump’s lack of legal knowledge and long history of NDAs and hush money could make proving criminal intent quite difficult, and (c) even if intent is established, he doesn’t view the alleged campaign finance infractions as “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the constitutional standard for impeachment:

Senior Fellow At National Review Institute @AndrewCMcCarthy On Cohen’s Campaign Finance Charges; There Is No Way Somebody Pleads Guilty To Something That Isn’t A Crime | @BensonAndHarf
— NR Institute (@NR_Institute) August 23, 2018

Alan Dershowitz, a liberal, and Mark Levin a conservative, and other constitutional or campaign finance law lawyers have other views.  Excerpt from Breitbart article:

Alan Dershowitz: Michael Cohen ‘Pleading Guilty to a Crime that Doesn’t Exist’ so Democrats Will Target Trump

Dershowitz continued, “Even if it’s true that President Trump contributed $280,000 for the explicit purpose of paying hush money in order to prevent the public from knowing that he had these alleged affairs with these two women, that would simply not be a crime. It might be a political sin, but it would not be a crime.”

Dershowitz advised political observers to maintain scrutiny when consuming “media … that is part of the posse of ‘let’s get Trump at all costs.’”

“There’s a hard question about whether any crime has been committed at all,” stated Dershowitz.

Dershowitz maintained that payment for a non-disclosure agreement from a candidate’s personal funds is entirely lawful. Mark Levin echoed this analysis on Tuesday.

Dershowitz explained, “A candidate can give contributions [to his campaign]. So even if it’s true that the only purpose was to help his campaign — obviously it had multiple purposes; it was obviously designed to also prevent embarrassment to his family, his wife, his children, and all that — but even if you could show, even if he had a memo saying, ‘I want you, my lawyer, to pay $80,000. I’ll pay you back. It’s my campaign contribution, and I want it to be hush money in order to help me be elected president,’ no crime. No crime.”

More reading here:  (note search, network delays possible)

Michael Cohen’s guilty plea for illegal campaign contributions was a plea to a non-criminal act by a non-credible actor

And bye the bye, wasn’t John Edwards up on similar sort of charges regarding the use  (or not in Trump’s case) of campaign funds?  See this 2012 Politco article

The Justice Department has dropped its prosecution of former Sen. John Edwards over nearly $1 million in payments his backers made to support his pregnant mistress during the 2008 presidential campaign.

The formal dismissal of charges was filed in federal court in Greensboro, N.C., on Wednesday. The decision came less than two weeks after Edwards’s trial on the campaign finance-related charges ended when a jury deadlocked on five felony counts and voted to acquit him on one charge.

The one-page filing concluded a prosecution that sparked significant criticism of the Justice Department by campaign finance lawyers who deemed the case legally flawed and by Democratic activists who considered it a form of political payback from a Republican prosecutor in North Carolina.

*And Guy Benson irritates us a again for reporting without rebuttal offered

This entry was posted in UNCATEGORIZED. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *