Under What Circumstances Can A Payment Made To An Extortionist Be Considered A Felony? Answer: When You Are Donald Trump

(Note:  Trump did not claim payments to Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougal as election expenses. However, since Robert Mueller, all Democrats and the mainstream media consider these payments to be election law violations, I will continue under that assumption.)


Michael Cohen’s sentencing memo telegraphed what Robert Mueller is planning next for President Trump. Unable to find evidence that Trump conspired with the Kremlin to win the presidency, or any other crimes, he’s planning to use a payment made to an extortionist who threatened to publicize a one-night stand which occurred twelve years ago, to destroy him. Unlike anyone else who has ever been charged with campaign finance law violations, prosecutors are choosing to treat Trump’s potential violation as a felony.

The National Review’s Andrew McCarthy appeared on Fox News (video above) to discuss the differences between how election law violation cases are routinely dealt with and the way Trump’s case is being handled. McCarthy said:

The campaign finance stuff is not usually handled as a felony prosecution. I think that’s characteristic of a lot of what’s gone on in this investigation. So you have these Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) violations which are typically not handled as a felony prosecution. In this investigation, they are. You have everybody who tells a lie to the FBI agent being, it seems, prosecuted for lying to the FBI. That’s not typically how these investigations go. They’ve ratcheted up the formal standards or the very technical standards of criminality in this investigation vs. other investigations and I think what upsets people is the difference in the quality of justice that Hillary Clinton got vs. what is happening to the Trump campaign.


The treatment of Trump’s payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal as a felony is without precedent in election history.

First, hush payments happen all the time in Washington. Consider the Congressional slush fund that has paid out millions in hush money over the years to preserve the reputations of lawmakers.

What does Mueller call then-candidate Barack Obama’s hush payment to his one-time spiritual guide, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? That payment certainly benefitted Obama and influenced an election. Americans were appalled by Wright’s Black Liberation Theology rhetoric and wondered about the judgement of the man who sat in his church for 20 years. If Wright had not been quieted by Obama’s bribe during the Iowa primaries, Obama may never have won the presidency. I don’t recall Obama being charged with any felonies over that. If Trump’s hush payments to a porn star and a Playboy model are considered to be campaign finance law violations, how would the payment to Wright be treated?

Next, why was Hillary Clinton not charged with a violation of election law for the $12 million paid by her campaign and the DNC, which she essentially controlled? This payment influenced not only the election but everything that has happened since. This money was “laundered” through the Perkins, Coie law firm by partner Mark Elias, who was serving as the Clinton campaign’s general counsel, to pay op research firm Fusion GPS to create the infamous Steele dossier. Neither the campaign nor the DNC filed the legally required paperwork for this expenditure. Would Mueller characterize this as a felony?


When “an FEC audit of Obama for America’s 2008 records found the committee failed to disclose millions of dollars in contributions and dragged its feet in refunding millions more in excess contributions,” the campaign returned the money and paid a fine of $375,000. Nobody accused Obama of committing a felony.

Tucker Carlson debated the question of how Trump’s “election law violation” could be regarded as a felony on Monday night.


The mainstream media’s reaction outrage to news of Trump’s felony begins at 0:30 in the video. Starting at 4:40, Democrats discuss the “very real prospect of jail time” for Trump. Watch it “if you can.”

Carlson laid out the case.

If you were a federal prosecutor on a political mission, you would construe those extortion payments as campaign contributions. You would do this even though the funds did not go to or come from Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Then you would claim that Donald Trump and Michael Cohen violated campaign finance laws because they didn’t publicly disclose those payments despite the fact that disclosing them would nullify the reason for making them in the first place which was to keep the whole thing secret. That is the argument you would make both in federal court and through your proxies on cable television. It is insultingly stupid, but because everyone in power hates the target of your investigation, nobody would question you. And that’s what’s happening right now.


Alan Dershowitz weighed in. He called for people to employ the “shoe on the other foot test.”

If Hillary Clinton were president and Republicans were saying ‘Lock Her Up,’ everybody would be on the other side…How dare you expand criminal statutes? How dare you expand the criteria for impeachment?…Now all these liberal Democrat fair-weather civil libertarians are saying the hell with the constitution, the hell with civil liberties, put all that aside. Get Trump. That’s the most important consideration. Get him by any means possible.

Dershowitz agrees that this is a classic textbook example of extortion. Therefore, I ask again, how can a victim of extortion be considered a felon? The answer is: When his name is Donald Trump.

Luke 6:37-38 says “the measure you give will be the measure you get back.” Call it karma if you’d like. But the funny thing about life is that events have a way of coming back to us. One day a Democrat will find him or herself in a similar situation and we will be hearing crickets from prosecutors and the mainstream media.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos