Over the past month or so, a story has been circulating alleging that President Trump had an affair with a porn star who professionally goes by the name Stormy Daniels while his wife Melania was pregnant with Trump’s third son Barron Trump. The story originated in a London tabloid but quickly spread into the mainstream media for rather obvious reasons. The story received wider attention when an American supermarket tabloid printed an interview with Daniels that it had spiked back in 2011. (You can read that report at the link if you like.) That report included the allegation that Daniels was paid roughly $130,000 in October 2016 to keep silent about the matter. While neither party would initially confirm these reports about a payment, Daniels proceeded to go on a publicity tour that included appearances on late night television where she basically refused to answer questions but left viewers with the impression that there was at least some truth to the story. Based on Daniels’ lack of commentary, many people speculated that she was at least confirming that there had been a payment and that she was prohibited from commenting publicly due to the terms of a settlement agreement of some kind that included a non-disclosure agreement. Amid all of this, there were reports of tension in the White House between Trump and his wife that took on a new life when Mrs. Trump decided, apparently at the last minute, to skip a trip she was supposed to take with Trump to the World Economic Forum in Switzerland,
While the salacious side of the story no doubt was responsible for much of the interest on the part of the media and the public, the potentially more consequential issue revolves around the payment that was made. Initial reporting by CNN and other outlets revealed that the alleged payment to Daniels was made through a shell company that was set up in Delaware in October 2016, giving a mailing address that is apparently a nondescript office building there, and which apparently has never conducted business of any kind. The only reason to do something like this, of course, is to hide the true source of any money that might pass through the business entity. Now, Trump’s long-time personal lawyer is claiming that the payment to Daniels came from him:
Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, said on Tuesday that he had paid $130,000 out of his own pocket to a pornographic-film actress who had once claimed to have had an affair with Mr. Trump.
In the most detailed explanation of the 2016 payment made to the actress, Stephanie Clifford, Mr. Cohen, who worked as a counsel to the Trump Organization for more than a decade, said he was not reimbursed for the payment.
“Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly,” Mr. Cohen said in a statement to The New York Times. “The payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful, and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone.”
He declined to answer several follow-up questions, including whether Mr. Trump had been aware that Mr. Cohen made the payment, why he made the payment or whether he had made similar payments to other people over the years.
Mr. Cohen has previously said that Mr. Trump has denied an affair with Ms. Clifford, whose stage name is Stormy Daniels. She has said the affair took place soon after Mr. Trump’s wife, Melania, gave birth to the couple’s son, Barron.
Mr. Cohen’s statement about what he called “a private transaction” was the first time that he had acknowledged a role in the payment, which was first reported in January by The Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Cohen said that he had given a similar statement to the Federal Election Commission in response to a complaint filed by the government watchdog group Common Cause, which contended that the payment, made through a limited liability company that Mr. Cohen established, was an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign.
Officials with Common Cause also sought to determine whether the payment was made by the Trump Organization or another person.
“The complaint alleges that I somehow violated campaign finance laws by facilitating an excess, in-kind contribution,” Mr. Cohen said in his statement. “The allegations in the complaint are factually unsupported and without legal merit, and my counsel has submitted a response to the F.E.C.”
He said he would not make any additional comments about the commission complaint “or regarding Ms. Clifford.”
Mr. Cohen was among Mr. Trump’s fiercest defenders during his time at the Trump Organization, often telling reporters during the 2016 presidential campaign that even false information about Mr. Trump could be damaging if printed. Ms. Clifford had told her story to the magazine In Touch in 2011, as well as the gossip website TheDirty.com. Both accounts were published last month after the report of the 2016 payment.
Back in January, CNN’s Chris Cillizza argued that the Daniels story should be a bigger deal, and his observations only take on more importance with this revelation by Cohen:
I think this story merits more than that. After all, the Journal is not exactly a fly-by-night media company prone to blowing things out of proportion. And its reporting makes very clear that a) Cohen formed this shell company and b) the company made a payment of $130,000 to Daniels just before the election.
Unless I’ve missed it, Cohen hasn’t denied either of those two facts. (Denying Trump and Daniels had a relationship is not the same thing.) So, if Cohen is on the record saying the Trump-Daniels relationship is a myth, it seems to me he still owes an explanation of why he formed the company, why he did so in Delaware (a state renowned for its loose laws on corporate transparency) and, most importantly, why a $130,000 payment was made to Daniels.
Whether you like Trump or hate him, it’s hard to argue that an unexplained six-figure payment from his personal lawyer to a porn star in the runup to the election doesn’t warrant more attention — and more answers — than we are currently getting.
As I said, it was the salacious side of the story that has been responsible for much of the attention the story has gotten, but there could be some serious questions involved here based solely on the payment alone, and Cohen’s admission that a payment was made only raises further questions. Before this, all we had was innuendo and unconfirmed rumors. To no small degree, it’s the kind of story that would have been ignored and left to the tabloid pages had the issue of a last-minute payment a month before Election Day in 2016. As it stands, Cohen’s claim that he used personal funds to pay Daniels off for her silence and that neither Trump, his campaign, nor The Trump Organization was aware of what was happening. To be frank about it, that story just doesn’t sound plausible. No matter how close the relationship between Trump and Cohen might be, the idea that Cohen was giving money to a woman that had been rumored to have had an affair with his long-time client who was also running for President of the United States doesn’t really make much sense. Even if Daniels had gone public in the month before the election, for example, it doesn’t seem like the story would have had much of an impact. Everyone already knew about the affairs that Trump had in the past, including the one in the 80s with Marla Maples that ended his first marriage and resulted in his second, for example, and there had been rumors about others for years. Additionally, it’s worth noting that the payment appears to have been made around the same time that we learned about the Access Hollywood tape and the claims of nineteen women who alleged they had been harassed and even apparently assaulted by Trump in the past. While Trump took a temporary hit in the polls when those stories came out, he still ended up winning the election. Given that, the revelation that he’d apparently had a consensual affair with a porn star likely would not have harmed his campaign at all.
Taking all that into account, the relevant questions regarding the whole Michael Cohen/Stormy Daniels thing are these:
- (1) Was Cohen reimbursed for paying Daniels for her silence, either directly or indirectly?
- (2) How did Cohen document the payment?
- (3) What were the terms of the Settlement Agreement?
- (4) Did Daniels report the payment on her taxes as income? If so, how?
- (5) What were the terms of any Settlement Agreement that Daniels may have signed?
- (6) What did the President know and when did he know it?
Depending on the answers to these questions, there could be issues here regarding whether the payment was an unreported “in kind” donation to the Trump campaign, whether there was tax fraud, and whether or not this constitutes money laundering. Even before this latest report, for example, the watchdog group Common Cause had already filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the payment to Daniels was an illegal “in-kind” contribution intended to influence the outcome of the election. Additionally, the circumstances surrounding the payment could end up being problematic for Cohen from an ethical point of view even if there was no criminal violation due to the fact that his conduct here appears as if it could have violated one or more of the disciplinary rules governing attorney conduct in the State of New York. Specifically, Rule 1:8(e) provides that “a lawyer shall not advance or guarantee financial assistance to the client” while representing a client in connection with contemplated or pending litigation. There are exceptions to the rule, but they clearly would not apply in this situation. In addition to this, there are other disciplinary rules that Cohen may have violated in connection with the manner in which the payment was made, including but not limited to the question of whether he is improperly revealing information protected by whatever attorney/client privilege exists between Cohen and Trump. Finally, Cohen’s actions may have opened his client up to potential criminal charges. In the end, then, whether or not Trump actually had an affair with Daniels is irrelevant. What’s important are the facts and circumstances surrounding the payoff that Cohen now admits took place.
Update: A representative for Daniels is now saying that Cohen going public means that she is free to share her story:
NEW YORK (AP) — Stormy Daniels, the pornography star whom President Donald Trump’s personal attorney acknowledged paying $130,000 just before Election Day, believes she is now free to discuss her alleged sexual encounter with Trump, her manager told The Associated Press Wednesday.
Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, believes that Trump attorney Michael Cohen invalidated a non-disclosure agreement after two news stories were published Tuesday: One, in which Cohen told The New York Times that he made the six-figure payment with his personal funds, and another in the Daily Beast, which reported that Cohen was shopping a book proposal that would touch on Daniels’ story, said the manager, Gina Rodriguez.
“Everything is off now, and Stormy is going to tell her story,” Rodriguez said.
Without knowing the terms of the agreement, it is generally the case that the terms of a non-disclosure agreement are vitiated when one of the parties violates the terms of that agreement, so Daniels may indeed be free to discuss her alleged relationship with Trump.
Photo via Fox News
