Episode 191 Scott Adams: Talking About Cohen, Manafort
Date: 2018-08-21 | Duration: 18:31
Topics
Manafort thing…nothing to do with the President? Cohen thing…is there a victim here, why should I care?
Transcript
Introduction: Suddenly, Lots of News
Hey everybody, come on in here. It seems so long ago—perhaps several hours ago—in which I was complaining there’s no news. Hey, what happened to those days when there was no news?
Suddenly we have a lot of news. Let’s talk about it. I’ll give you my flash opinions. Now, I like to talk about the news in the context of an average idiot who doesn’t really understand the law or a lot of the details of these issues, so I’m going to come at it the same way you would probably.
The Manafort Verdict
Let’s talk about Manafort first. I had predicted, based on what we knew from the jury’s question about a reasonable cause—sorry, reasonable doubt—that they had reasonable doubt. Sure enough, 10 of the 18 counts they were hung on, so the signals that they had sent were essentially correct.
Now, it turns out that only being guilty of eight of 18 counts in this case didn’t help him a bit. Apparently, it wouldn’t have mattered if it had been one count; as long as he was guilty of that one count, he was going to go to jail for life unless he figures out some way out. But it’s good to know because I made the prediction in front of you and in public. I said that they’re clearly signaling that they’re at least partially hung, meaning on some of the counts, and sure enough, that was the case.
Michael Cohen and Campaign Violations
It might be that Manafort will now get out of the news a little bit and I suppose that would be good, but let’s talk about Cohen. Cohen pleaded guilty to some banking fraud and then also said that he did a campaign contribution violation by acting on the direction and in coordination with the President.
The leap that people are making is that therefore, if he’s pleading guilty to this and he would certainly know, that clearly indicates that the President is also guilty of it. Therefore, the President is in legal jeopardy and/or jeopardy of being impeached. Even if a sitting president can’t be indicted, he could be indicted after, but he could be impeached before if what Cohen says is true. And why wouldn’t it be true? He’s doing a plea bargain.
But here’s my question—I may not be summarizing it as well as I could, but I think you get the point: Why is it a campaign violation for the President to pay somebody to be quiet so that he’ll look good when running for president?
Defining Campaign Expenses vs. Personal Improvement
I’m wondering how that’s a campaign violation even if they talked about it in terms of the campaign. Would it be a campaign violation to get plastic surgery so that you look better when running for office? Because I’m sure that’s happened. Would it be a campaign violation to paint your house before you run for office? Because that would be to make you look better. It’s your own money paying to spruce up something in your personal life.
Would it be illegal to do anything that made you look good by either concealing or painting or rehabbing or fixing something up about your personal life? How in the world could that be illegal if it’s more than 10K or over whatever is a reportable limit? It doesn’t have to be the one specific expense. If the sum of it is all to make them look good to the public in their personal life, how could that ever be illegal?
I’ve got a feeling that there’s got to be at least some argument that says people can spend money making themselves look good, which is different from hiring people to campaign and running ads on TV. Those are more unambiguously campaign expenses. But where’s the limit of what you can spend in just making yourself look good? If I get a personal trainer, do I have to add that to the list with the other things? What if I get cosmetic dentistry? What if Hillary wears Depends? Does she have to put that on the list and count that toward her campaign contributions? Where do you draw the line?
There’s a separate argument whether what Cohen did of trying to conceal the nature of it was illegal separately from the campaign part of it. But am I wrong that that doesn’t feel like it should be something that’s illegal? The fact that they’ve just automatically said “you did this because you’re running for president”—I don’t think that’s a good enough reason, because people pay for lots of stuff to make themselves look good if they’re running for office. I’ll bet that’s not on their campaign stuff.
Precedent and Mutually Assured Destruction
My commentary on this is with the understanding that I’m speaking as an uninformed non-lawyer who is confused. I’m not saying that I’m giving you my legal opinion that it shouldn’t be legal; I’m just not being able to imagine how it could be illegal.
Now, here’s the best part: Let’s say that precedent is established that if anybody who’s in politics and running for election—or planning to run for election or even planning to stay elected—if they give any money to their person they’re having their affair with, is that a campaign contribution just automatically?
If some Congressperson is paying somebody generously for not much of a job, for example, because there are other benefits, is that a campaign expense? Because if she talked because she wasn’t happy about not getting money, does that make it by its nature a campaign contribution because it’s keeping the politician looking electable? There’s nothing illegal about paying someone to keep quiet. I believe the charge is not that that’s illegal; the charge is that it wasn’t reported as a campaign contribution. I might be wrong about that.
Is This a “High Crime”?
There’s some talk that maybe the President wouldn’t be indicted because he’s a sitting president, but the Congress could impeach because it’s a “high crime and misdemeanor.” Is it a high crime to give money to your mistress so that she doesn’t cause trouble? Does that feel like a high crime?
I realize that the context is a campaign contribution that was not reported, but if the campaign contribution that wasn’t reported was something that was completely legal but not directly related to the campaign—even if it’s technically a crime—is it a high crime? I don’t know what qualifies as a high crime other than what I’m doing right now.
I can’t imagine that you could be impeached for it. If that started, imagine the Mutually Assured Destruction that would start, because every Democratic Congressperson who had ever given a dime to someone who wasn’t their spouse is going to have a lot of explaining to do.
Here’s my prediction: It looks like a big news day that is very bad for the President. That’s the way it’s being presented certainly on CNN; I’m sure MSNBC and Fox are a little bit all over the place here. I don’t think any of this makes any difference. I don’t know if anybody cares and I certainly don’t think it’s going to get him impeached. I don’t think that there’s much of a legal problem even if they waited until he was no longer president. I think it’s just a fine, isn’t it? I don’t know if you’re going to even go to jail for that.
Addressing Accusations and Political Consistency
Give me your opinion, with the understanding that I’m not a lawyer and you’re not a lawyer. Do you think that it has to be considered a campaign contribution if the candidate does something to make themselves look good with their own money? In this case, the President’s money allegedly went to Cohen, who went to Stormy in a sort of clandestine way, but it’s still the candidate’s money. How many of you think it’s illegal for somebody to make themselves look good with their own money when they’re running for any office?
Somebody just made a terrible accusation. They said that I would defend President Trump even if he had murdered a family member of my own. I think that’s going too far. I’d really need to know which family member you’re talking about. Maybe one of the unfavorable family members? You could go either way. If it was somebody popular in my family, no way am I going to be okay with that. But somebody marginal? You never know. Just kidding.
If you pay attention at all, you would know that I don’t defend the President on a number of topics such as statues, healthcare, race relations, and immigration. But if you’re looking for my consistency on this matter, I would refer you to Bill Clinton, who I said much the same as I’m saying now: this is the least important thing we should worry about. I didn’t care if Bill Clinton did things that Hillary didn’t like—that was between them. I don’t care if President Trump does things that his family doesn’t like—that’s between them. But I do care if the economy is good and the world is doing well.
Final Thoughts: Victims and Impact
What if the candidate buys a real expensive suit? Let’s say suits that cost over a thousand dollars. How about this: What do you think Hillary Clinton paid for her campaign wardrobe? I’m talking about all the clothing she wore over the course of the campaign. It was probably over fifty thousand, over a hundred thousand, would you say? And did the campaign pay for her clothes? If she paid for her own clothes, isn’t that a campaign contribution? Did she note it?
Again, the context is I’m the ignorant citizen who just doesn’t know the answer to these questions, but these are the ones I’d like to know the answers to. So far, based on what I’ve seen and what I’ve heard, the Manafort thing has no impact on the President. The President is like free and clear; Manafort turned up nothing that mattered to the President.
Secondly, the Cohen thing looks like I can see why they’re saying it’s technically a crime. But even if I knew it were illegal—the payment to Stormy, etc., and the thing with the National Enquirer to get the rights to the story—even if I knew all that was true and even if I knew it was technically illegal, is there a victim here? Who exactly is the victim of this crime? Would I care? I think I’m fairly consistent in being soft on victimless crimes generally speaking.
Yeah, what if he gets his teeth whitened? Is that a campaign expense? I actually do want to know the answer to these questions. I’m not just saying them to be provocative. I’m curious whether a person campaigning can spend their own money to make themselves look good for the purpose of winning an election. Does every bit of that then become a campaign expense? Where is the line?
I’m going to sign off for now. There must be more news coming. I’ll talk to you later.