The "Hush Money" Bomb

Now that charges have been brought against Trump lawyer Michael Cohen for paying money to silence women with whom Mr. Trump had apparently had illicit relationships, Democrats are giddy at the prospect that the president will be implicated in a campaign finance violation which could lead to criminal charges.

It's not clear, though, whether Mr. Trump actually committed a crime or, if so, how serious a crime it is, but if the Democrats push for prosecution thinking they finally have the "bomb" that'll finish off the Trump presidency they might find themselves in the position of Wile E. Coyote who had the bomb blow up in his face every time he tried to use it to finish off the Roadrunner.

As Elad Hakim reminds us in a piece at The Federalist,

According to the Chicago Tribune, members of Congress have a “taxpayer hush money fund,” where claims for sexual harassment, discrimination and other workplace issues are settled and paid out with money supplied by the U.S. Treasury.

Unlike the payments in Trump’s case, which were seemingly made using personal funds, congressional settlements and payoffs used taxpayer funds. More importantly, if prosecutors take the position that hush-money payments made to protect a person’s reputation and family should be deemed campaign related expenditures (because they might affect an election), the precedent could be very problematic and far-reaching.

Indeed. If Trump is prosecuted how will our august legislators, whose number must rise to many dozens and include many Democrats, avoid similar legal jeopardy? If Trump is somehow legally "exposed" for using campaign funds, which may have been his own money, to pay off his paramours, how much more legal exposure should congresspersons have for using taxpayer money for the same purpose?

Hakim again:

If Trump’s payments are deemed to be campaign-related expenses for the purpose of impacting an election, should each and every House or Senate member who has engaged in such conduct face criminal charges?

According to The Daily Signal, “Last year, it was reported that Congress has secretly paid out over $17 million to settle close to 300 cases by staffers claiming sexual and other forms of harassment and discrimination.”

If prosecutors failed to pursue charges relating to each of these individual claims and payments (normally these are made in secret and the identities of the parties are withheld unless suit is filed), would they be applying the law arbitrarily and unfairly?

Hakim closes with this admonition:

Although some legal scholars have openly stated that the payments in Trump’s case do not appear to have violated campaign finance rules, Mueller, prosecutors in the Southern District of New York and congressional Democrats should think long and hard about the precedent they are attempting to set.

While their eyes are set on one particular person, the potential impact could end up netting many others who have engaged in similar (or worse) conduct.

Little wonder that some Democrats are now suggesting that, on second thought, maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to make a big deal out of Trump's hush money payments.