There’s Nothing Legally Wrong with Paying-off Your Ex-Mistress: The Latest Trump Indictment Debunked

Despite the constant assurances of the political class, those pesky walls refuse to close in. Between the release of former President Trump’s tax returns, the ostentatious handwringing over January 6th, and now the rather tiresome return of pornographic actress and notorious Trump accuser Stormy Daniels, nothing seems to stick.
Perhaps that’s because none of the accusations are particularly adhesive. 

One needn’t seek to bury Trump—nor to praise him—in commenting upon the grim specter of his unending prosecution by those powers who would otherwise see the man utterly destroyed for having opposed them. It is indeed possible for reasonable people to both judge the former President on account of his own misbehaviors, without engaging in the petty and malicious quarrels that discontented actors are now daily embracing.

Among the worst of these complaints is the forementioned intrigue concerning his alleged relationship with Ms. Daniels; best known as the mistreated one-time client of the disgraced attorney Michael Avenatti, who is serving a twenty-year federal prison sentence for his extensive professional misconduct. A New York grand jury is now in session to consider whether Mr. Trump’s indirect payments to the ‘actress’ were in fact illicit bribes, designed to stop her from publicly revealing the intimate details of their purported dalliance during his 2016 presidential campaign.

Most observant people have been aware of this imbroglio for years, and it has done remarkably little to shift opinion in either direction. Even the most devout Trump detractors seem consistently unconcerned with the private exploits of this their grandest adversary. After all, little more could be unveiled following the infamous “pussy grabbing” hot-mic incident of 2005. 

Why then is Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg engaged in such a bootless prosecution? Is he merely an incorrigible hack, or does he hold some senseless hope that this time he may ensnare the erstwhile President? 

The facts of the case suggest the likeliness of the former.

The Associated Press reports that Federal prosecutors contend the payments allegedly connected with the Daniels case were miscategorized as ‘legal fees’ by the Trump Organization, and have enlisted the testimony of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen to support their claims. According to the AP, Cohen’s Grand Jury testimony will prove that—while still a private citizen—the former President sanctioned the controversial payments to Daniels. While this may once again verify that he makes unwise hiring choices (especially with his attorneys), it betrays no criminality.

Why shouldn’t a highly influential public figure offset the cost of his legal expenses in preventing an injurious allegation from reaching the public? When one’s reputation is inextricably bound-up with the success of his business, there is a manifest rationale for mitigating reputational damage at a reasonable cost. If lawyers are engaged in that process, it is not only advisable but necessary.

The general fact that Mr. Trump may have entertained a mistress speaks against his decency; but should not pollute an analysis of any potential lawbreaking. What’s more, even the basic legal sins potentially committed here seem vanishingly unimportant, especially when viewed in connection with the high renown of the executive office. Woe betide us if we begin to prosecute our former Presidents for ancient misdemeanors whenever their enemies come into power.

Subsequent AP reporting has placed Ms. Daniels herself before the Grand Jurors as recently as the seventeenth of March, the ultimate legal purpose of which is seemingly no more than to confirm that the $100k (or so) paid to her by unimportant intermediaries was once actually owing.

Over the past two-thousand years of human history the idea of a powerful leader paying-off a partner has been expressed by vastly more unethical means than pure money. The English King Edward II was detested for his choice of favorites, having compensated his lovers with whole Earldoms and other important rights. To pay for the silence of an alleged paramour with one’s own cash frankly seems like small potatoes in this or any other serious comparison.  

Even more recently, when President Nixon sought to control his potential adversaries, he used campaign money to manipulate authentic political opponents. Neither accusation appears to be true in the flimsy case of Daniels vs. Trump.

Recent headlines are aglow over the likely result of insider testimony in this case. The lunatic prosecutor Bragg may well pursue it to the point of arrest. But who really cares? 
Reasonable people remain uninterested in these trivial disputes.

D.S. Dexter Tarbox, Jr., Special to Louder.News