There is little precedent for how to handle a president’s infidelity from either a moral or legal standpoint. The closest thing the American public has to compare Trump’s actions prior to his presidency to are Bill Clinton’s actions with Monica Lewinsky.
There are a number of factors to compare, and many differences to consider, when approaching this issue.
- President Clinton’s affair took place while he was in office; President Trump’s affairs allegedly took place prior to his presidency.
- President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19th, 1998. President Clinton was impeached for perjuring himself during testimony about the Lewinsky affair, not for the affair itself.
- Can President Trump’s accusers force him into court the way Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr was able to with President Clinton?
- Why should we care?
The most glaring difference to me are the circumstances. President Trump’s affairs took place before he was president, at least based on the evidence to date. President Clinton’s affair took place while he was in office, which paved the road for investigating the act, Clinton perjuring himself, and his ultimate impeachment by the House of Representatives, prior to the impeachment proceedings stonewalling in the Senate by Democrats. The precedent was set not for infidelity being bad for a president, but for perjury being bad for a president.
So how would President Trump’s primary accusers, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, bring this to a courtroom?
Stormy Daniels’ lawyer is seeking to depose President Trump. Simply put, to force him to testify under oath about the affair, setting a president notorious for lying up to perjure himself. This would put the Republican party in a very difficult position were Trump to lie, and even if he we were to tell the truth.
On the one, and I believe more likely, hand, President Trump could deny the affair, in which case Stormy Daniels’ attorney will counter with evidence purportedly in his possession proving the affair. As politics runs its due course Democrats would demand that the Republicans do the same to Trump as they did to Clinton, though the obvious counter to that is that the Democrats themselves would then be hypocrites, as they did not support impeaching Clinton at the time.
Additionally, the payment by former Trump attorney Michael Cohen of $130,000 to Stormy Daniels may have violated campaign finance laws. This affords Stormy Daniels and her attorney another avenue by which to keep the focus on the legality of the events surrounding the aftermath of the affair.
On top of all of that, there is the alleged threat to Stormy Daniels by what appears to have been a man working on behalf of Trump to keep her silent.
So there are many ways for Stormy Daniels to bring Trump to a courtroom over the issue, and to keep this all in the spotlight, though how it plays out isn’t particularly damning to Trump in my estimation. Of course, that is provided he does not perjure himself. But even if he were to perjure himself, would it matter? The Democrats of the late 90’s ensured that card wouldn’t play well with their defense of Bill Clinton. In some ways similar circumstances, i.e. perjuring himself, would perhaps be one of the easiest ways out for Trump.
This would allow Trump to spin it as a biased, liberal media attack on his credibility, part of the ‘fake news’, as Republicans hammer away at the hypocrisy of the Democrats.
Where it could hurt Trump is with Robert Mueller. Were Trump to perjure himself and were the events surrounding the Stormy Daniels threat or payments proven to be directly tied to Trump then Mueller could add that to his ‘obstruction of justice’ case, which appears to be gaining steam.
Ultimately, should we care?
The answer is yes.
Presidents are the ultimate intelligence target. Turn a president and you have turned a nation. There are rumors that the Russians have ‘kompromat’, or compromising intelligence, on President Trump. Threatening to release that information and ruin Trump would, in theory, allow the Russians to exercise great control over him. The same is true for any sort of compromising information against, well, anyone. Many people will go to great lengths to protect their name and image. This would go double for a larger-than-life figure such as President Trump.
Morality aside, affairs are dangerous for any president as they allow a president to be exposed to threats and influence. The fact of the matter is if a background investigator found out that an applicant to any government service had paid an accuser $130,000 to stay silent on a matter then the likelihood of that applicant receiving a security clearance is next to nil.
Dealing with the fallout of improper acts, whether they be sexual, financial, or other, means that a president is focused on personal matters and not matters of state.
Frankly, I agree with the Republican attempts to impeach Bill Clinton for his crime. We are a national of laws, and those laws should be universally applied. If President Trump is found to have committed an illegal act then I believe he should be held to that standard as well.
Abiding by the law, especially for the President of the United States, should not be a partisan issue.
The Rushin Perspective 
Leave a comment