Michael Cohen needs to tell the truth.
In addition to contributing money, (click here) a nonconnected committee may donate goods or services to candidates and their committees. Gifts of goods or services are called in-kind contributions. For example, a committee makes an in-kind contribution when it:
- Pays for consulting, polling or printing services provided to a candidate committee
- Donates office supplies or mailing lists to a campaign
- Sponsors a fundraising event benefiting a candidate; or
- Pays for a campaign advertisement on behalf of a candidate (if the advertisement does not qualify as an independent expenditure)
Hm.
See, I don't think it was an in-kind donation. Hush money is a form of intimidation. That is a very different animal than the 'normal' in-kind donation.
If it was an in-kind donation, all Mr. Cohen would have to do to clear this up, is report it and pay fines for not reporting it on a timely basis. I believe this is different and is criminal. The fact Ms. Stephanie A. Gregory Clifford was provided a non-disclosure agreement to protect Donald Trump's reputation before an election makes the entire scenario a really odd thing.
To begin, why didn't Mr. Cohen expect Ms. Clifford to be represented in the agreement? There is no doubt Michael Cohen was acting in the interest of candidate Trump. Why didn't Ms. Clifford have her own lawyer to speak to her about the non-disclosure agreement, whether or not she was an employee of Trump and to what capacity.
See, this was about a personal relationship and I think legally that gets very murky when linked to non-disclosure agreements. This was not at all the same as a prenuptial agreement. This is a document that negates an entire segment of her life with Donald Trump.
This is different than the issue with the non-disclosure agreement Ms. McDougal had with American Media. Ms. McDougal was sort of an employee of the company. She was under contract with the company. Ms. Daniels and Mr. Trump had no contract prior to their affair.
Additionally, Ms. Clifford was threatened with her life by someone who knew the details of the relationship with Donald Trump.
The issues surrounding Ms. Clifford is very different than Ms. McDougal. There is an element of danger and fear both in signing the non-disclosure agreement AFTER THE FACT and the threat. No one is saying Mr. Cohen knew about the threat either, but, it is plain there was a lot going on with Ms. Daniels she never counted on when first having a relationship with Trump.
In signing a nondisclosure agreement for money without the benefit of counsel presents the FACT that while Ms. Clifford was an adult and can decide to sign or not to sign she was still in the dark about her own rights and what exactly all the legal implications mean. It has the appearance of intimidation rather than trust.
So, Mr. Cohen needs to be honest. He needs to tell the truth.
Ms. Daniels needs to be safe in her person and with her family. That element of danger that exists with Ms. Daniels is very dark. It is highly problematic and carries no guarantees. I believe she has a civil suit beyond the issues with Michael Cohen so she can have enough of a financial cushion to protect her and her family (daughter) the rest of their lives. She never bargained for any of this and now her life is imposed on in a way she cannot handle.
I think this case is important and needs the truth, fact finding and the entire weight the law can bring to insure her safety and that of her family.
