In the affair the hush money payments to two former sexual partner has the inside reported of U.S. President Donald Trump his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, visibly angered. In an Interview with ABC, Cohen reiterated first of all, his testimony before the Federal court in New York that Trump had arranged the payments directly to condemned for Cohen on Wednesday, a three-year prison sentence. In addition, the lawyer added that The former presidential candidate, Trump knew that these payments “were wrong”.

The Interview came about rather spontaneously, after Trump had attacked this on Thursday in several Tweets. Trump has denied to be in the Law-breaking Cohen’s involved. Cohen had to know, as a lawyer, “the law”. Among other things, the US President wrote that Cohen had confessed only guilty of embarrassing the President and to receive a lower sentence. “The pressure on his family has been reduced,” said Trump.

That was for Cohen, that was obviously a remark to much. “First of all: That’s not true.”, so Cohen to “ABC”. The whole world knows that Trump tell the truth. “I’ve taken responsibility for my actions and what does he do? He attacks my family.” Cohen is visibly outraged. “The day before the court, the judgment of 36 months…” The lawyer shakes his head. “And the only thing that occurs to him is to tweet about my family?”

Trump should have threaded Deal personally include

In the affair the hush money payments to the porn actress Stormy Daniels and the former Playboy Model Karen McDougal during the presidential election campaign. In the first case, Cohen paid under a non-disclosure agreement 130’000 dollars in Daniels – you made your story after the election, but still public. In the second case, the American scandal sheet, the “National Enquirer” McDougal bought the exclusive rights to her story – without ever intending to publish the story. According to the Federal prosecutors it was “in consultation” with trump’s campaign team to keep the story under wraps. In addition to Cohen, also Pecker has confirmed this to be so, and his role in the affair is added.

This is tricky for the U.S. President, because these payments, in the case of Cohen, the court considers that Tiessen against the laws on campaign Finance verse. The Federal judge in New York agreed with the investigators that it was the undeclared payments to illegal campaign donations to trump’s campaign.

On Friday, several US media also reported unanimously that Trump had attended an important meeting for the Threading of the arrangements personally. The real estate Mogul had been at a Meeting in August 2015 in the room, as Cohen and the publisher of the “National Enquirers”, David Pecker, discussed the Plan, such as NBC and CNN reports, and an earlier Search of the “Wall Street journal” to confirm.

you should have discussed in the August 2015 schedule: US President Donald Trump (middle), his former lawyer Michael Cohen (l) and publisher David Pecker (r.). (Archive) photo: Keystone

Cohen said in court that he had arranged for these payments “in coordination with and on behalf of” Trumps and brought the President directly with the law violation. On Wednesday, it was also published a report of the investigator, in which it is mentioned that, in addition to Cohen and Pecker in addition, “one or more members of the Trump campaign” in the room. One of these persons should be the current US President himself.

High hurdles for prosecution of an incumbent

as Long as Trump is President, he must make himself mainly to the political consequences of this affair. Although the American Constitution does not say it explicitly, is in the Department of justice (DOJ) namely, the common practice that an incumbent can not be prosecuted. “According to this reading Trump could be indicted when he leaves office, either because his term of office ends, or because it comes to impeachment,” said about Joshua Dressler, a Professor of law at the Ohio State University, the “time”. The majority of legal experts in the country, it is also unlikely that Trump would still be accused during his term of office from justice and thus a new precedent was created.

Garrett Epps, a Professor of constitutional law at the University of Baltimore, has worked for the magazine “The Atlantic”, the four internal DOJ legal opinions of the last 50 years. The result: so Far, has only been proposed once more to bring charges against a sitting U.S. President. The three other reports–the cases of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton–advised of a charge. One of the Memos declared like this:

“considered The founder, who should the lead have extraordinary Power, impeachment proceedings against the President to enter. They gave this responsibility to the elected members of the Congress. It would be inconsistent with this carefully considered judgment, to allow a non-selected Grand Jury and a state attorney, to remove a President de facto, “” by filing a criminal complaint against him.”

The only opinion for a prosecution was a report from the year 1998 in the context of the affair to the Meineide Clinton. The constitutional lawyer Ronald W. Rotunda advised at that time, the independent investigator Kenneth Starr–the Robert Mueller of his time, and wrote to him in the Familiar, in the specific case of Clinton, the President could be indicted. Rotunda led three arguments:

The Supreme court has held repeatedly that no one is above the law not even the President. The independent investigation was established, with the consent of Clinton; so he had agreed, implicitly, to be possibly accused of. The crimes of the Clinton’s not related to his behavior as President.

After he had spoken with a half-dozen legal experts, came to Epps in the end, although the hurdles are high, it is ultimately a question of the offense and of the evidence. “We just don’t know whether it is allowed–until the evidence brings to an investigator, in the interest of justice, or the Survival of the Nation, a sitting President accuse. … And then all hell had broken loose. And then, when everything has settled, we would have our answer.”

In Clinton’s case, has circumvented this Problem in the end. The created office of the independent investigator had installed in their articles of Association, the statutory duty to make to the Congress information accessible, “which could potentially lead to impeachment”. And so the special investigator wrote his now-famous “Starr Report” to the attention of the Congress, and listed therein, of the possible grounds for impeachment. Ultimately, the house of representatives started the procedure. The Senate removed Clinton but of the office: in Spite of the clear evidence that the Democrats are not stuck together, as their President, and the necessary two-thirds majority came. As Hannah Arendt once wrote: “no one has ever doubted that truth and politics can tolerate rather poor.”

(With a single text extracts of the news Agency SDA.)

(editing Tamedia)

Created: 14.12.2018, 14:20 PM