OK, so Mark Levin thinks this is legal BS, and I’m inclined to agree with him.
So, if this “crime” is not a crime, why is he copping a plea? Why would his legal team agree to it (assuming they’re competent, not necessarily a good assumption when it comes to Lanny Davis).
My guess is that they have him on a lot more serious stuff, so he was advised to accept this plea down in return for testimony against the president. The prosecutors knew they could never get an actual conviction for this “crime” with a jury, but now that he’s plead, they’ll claim, “See, he wouldn’t have copped a plea if he wasn’t guilty of this ‘crime,’ and the president did it, too!”
Thus providing additional impeachment fodder should the country be nuts enough to put Democrats back in power.
But funny thing, I recall a mid-term election in which the opposing party not only talked about impeachment, but actually did it, and took a beating at the polls. If I were Republicans, I’d be running non-stop campaign ads of loony, low-IQ Maxine screaming “Impeach, impeach, impeach!”
Thoughts on this and Manafort from Andrew McCarthy and Mollie Hemingway, via Instapundit.
[Update a while later]
From an email list:
Lanny Davis, long time Clinton lawyer and fixer, approaches Michael Cohen. He says, “You hate Trump, me and my clients hate Trump, let’s work together. You are facing 30+ years and happen to be one of the least sympathetic defendants of all the people in Trump’s orbit. I’ll work with the prosecutors, who would much rather get something on Trump than on you, to get you only 3-5 years. All you have to do is plead guilty to something that is a little shaky, but implicates Trump. Do you think you could possibly find it within your moral wheelhouse to agree to such a deal?”
Sounds about right to me.
[Update a few minutes later]
Steve Bannon: “November is a referendum on impeachment.”