AS one of the world’s most famous malts, The Glenlivet hardly needs the publicity. Let the record show, however, that Michael Cohen, former lawyer to Donald Trump, opted for a glass of the 12-year-old single malt as his drink of choice the night before pleading guilty in a New York court to breaking campaign finance laws.
Let it also show that Cohen, who once said he would “take a bullet” for his client, prefers his whisky like his revenge, on the rocks and ice cold.
History does not yet relate what Paul Manafort, Mr Trump’s former campaign manager, drank the night before he was found guilty of fraud charges. Given the expensive tastes revealed during his trial, including an ostrich skin jacket costing £11,000, one would like to think he supped on something rare and Scots.
- David Pratt: Under-fire Donald Trump starts to feel heat
Nor do we know if Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for Stormy Daniels, the adult film star and one of the two women Cohen pleaded guilty to paying off at the direction of "a candidate for federal office", raised a glass. He certainly had some words for Rudy Giuliani, Mr Trump’s legal representative: “Buckle up, Buttercup. You and your client completely misplayed this.” Ah, American lawyers, may you never change.
One could hardly begrudge Mr Trump’s opponents their moment of glee. Not one but two of the President’s former aides could be off to jail. All this before special counsel Robert Mueller delivers the findings of his investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and any links to the Trump campaign. After a year and a half of watching criticism slide off the Teflon Don, the president is in a decidedly sticky spot.
Manafort is easier to explain away than Cohen, the former’s misdemeanours occurring before he became Mr Trump’s campaign manager. Cohen is different. While he did not name the “candidate” on whose behalf he acted when he made payments to two women who claim they had sex with Mr Trump, it hardly needs a Lieutenant Columbo to find him. What is wrong for a lawyer to do is wrong for a candidate.
- Eamonn O'Neill: Familiar echoes of Watergate
Not that the president was showing any sign of panic yesterday. “Where is the collusion?” he asked a rally of cheering supporters. As a chant, it lacks the snap of “Lock her up!”, as used against Hillary, but the President has time to work on it. He is nothing if not resourceful in his own defence. He will need to be.
Mr Trump cannot be prosecuted while he is president. He can be impeached and removed from office, but the odds in favour of that happening are slim to non-existent at the moment. It would require a majority in the House of Representatives, which is do-able after the mid-terms, but it is the next step, achieving the two-thirds majority required in the Senate to convict, which is a barrier as tall as the wall Mr Trump wants to build between the US and Mexico. Even if the Democrats do well in November they would still require Republican senators to join them in moving against a Republican president. That will not happen as long as Mr Trump continues to enjoy the support of his party. At the moment, his approval rating among Republicans is 88 per cent.
Where, then, does all this leave America? There are two scenarios: he goes of his own accord, or he stays and fights.
In the first, Mr Trump, either because he acknowledges the damage being done to the office of president, or more likely fears the possibility of being prosecuted if he stays on and loses the next election, “does a Nixon” and goes of his own accord.
Judging by past performance and personality, that is a risky bet. From the start of his presidential adventure, indeed as far back as anyone can remember, Mr Trump has regarded himself as an outsider looking in. As the son of a very rich man that required towering levels of self-delusion. He believes himself to be a victim, but one, paradoxically, who has a lot of people on his side. As Mr Trump said during his campaign: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” He is almost allergic to the thought that he might be a loser, to him the ultimate insult. As for going quietly, forget it. His book was called The Art of the Deal but he draws a distinction between winning on his terms and “settling”, which he despises. His early years in business found him fighting with everyone, learning at the feet of his lawyer, Roy Cohn, once described by the New Yorker’s Ken Auletta as “a legal executioner – the toughest, meanest, loyalest, vilest and one of the most brilliant lawyers in America."
Still, the fallout from the Manafort and Cohen cases is not yet clear. Both could accept their punishment and slink off. But Mr Cohen, with his predisposition to taping his meetings with Mr Trump, seems like the kind of man who likes to keep things in reserve for a rainy day. Mr Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, said yesterday his client was happy to speak to the Mueller investigation and "tell everything about Donald Trump that he knows”. Manafort, meanwhile, is 69-years-old and looking at serious jail time, plus another court case.
It may yet come down to what politics always comes down to, the economy. Obama handed it over in good shape, and courtesy of Mr Trump’s tax cuts, Americans have more money in their pockets and feel confident about the future. Should the economy start to slow in 2019, as some predict, and the accusations against Mr Trump continue to pile up, the landscape changes. He begins to look like more of a liability to his party, more susceptible to an offer of standing down in 2020 in return for being pardoned by his successor.
If he fights on the country will become even more polarised than it is now. There will be no centre to hold. It is a grim outlook. The man himself joked yesterday that if anyone was looking for a good lawyer, he would strongly suggest they did not retain the services of Michael Cohen.
Well, you did, Mr President, so what does that say about you?
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel