Former federal prosecutor Glen Kirschner explained why the Southern District of New York might be holding back on the campaign finance charges against Michael Cohen.
President Donald Trump signed multiple hush-money payments as president of the United States.
Kirschner said that he reread Judge William Pauley’s orders from Wednesday to understand what the Southern District of New York prosecutors said about the documents being sealed or not.
Pauley said that the “government represents that it has concluded aspects of the investigation that justified the continued sealing of the portions of the materials related to Cohen’s campaign finance violations.”
He explained that most people are reading that and saying that the investigation is concluded so there won’t be further charges brought. But that may not be the case.
“I think we need to pull those two things apart,” he continued. “Mind you, I’m not saying this is an indication that there will be charges brought but here’s what I can tell you, Nicolle, when prosecutors look at a case that potentially involves multiple conspirators, we have one overarching goal: We want to try to bring a case that charges all of those conspirators in one case to be tried in one trial. Why? Because you don’t want to break it up, try two, three co-conspirators while the others wait in the wings and get a complete preview of your case and your evidence during the first trial.”
It’s already known that Michael Cohen is guilty of campaign finance violations at the urging, assistance and benefit of the president, he went on.
“We have some indication there may be exposure by Don Jr. and Allen Weisselberg on the money side and check-writing side,” he continued. “Let me hypothetically pose, if there’s a conspiracy with all four of these people and we know the Southern District cannot charge the president right now because the office of legal counsel memo says you can’t indict a sitting president, then it could be the Southern District of New York has an interest in bringing one unified conspiracy case against all four possible co-conspirators the day President Trump leaves office.”
He clarified he’s not sure if that would happen or will happen, but it could be what the prosecutors, in this case, are doing here.
Watch his take below:
Trump cancelled his trip to Denmark — because they won’t sell him Greenland
President Donald Trump unleashed a Twitter tirade on the Kindom of Denmark on Tuesday.
"Denmark is a very special country with incredible people, but based on Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s comments, that she would have no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland, I will be postponing our meeting scheduled in two weeks for another time," Trump Tweeted.
"The Prime Minister was able to save a great deal of expense and effort for both the United States and Denmark by being so direct. I thank her for that and look forward to rescheduling sometime in the future," Trump added.
‘I can take five points off him’: Scaramucci launchings SuperPAC to kill off Trump’s re-election
Former White House press secretary Anthony Scaramucci will be openly campaigning against President Donald Trump.
"I can no longer in good conscience support the president’s reelection," Scaramucci, also known as "The Mooch," wrote in a Washington Post op-ed published online Monday night.
Now he's going even further. Republican strategist Mike Murphy tweeted Tuesday that Scaramucci is "launching and funding a new SuperPAC to run ads against Trump."
New report exposes ‘sordid details’ of Jeffrey Epstein’s outrageous jail sentence as alleged in new lawsuit
Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking of young women continued even as he was supposed to be in jail in 2008, according to a new lawsuit detailed in the Miami Herald.
The financier and sex offender pleaded guilty to state charges of prostitution in 2008, mysteriously escaping much more severe federal sex trafficking charges via a non-prosecution agreement that is now under review. Epstein’s treatment by prosecutors has come under close scrutiny because of many such bizarre decisions, which nearly all observers agree constituted a “sweetheart deal” given the evidence against him.