Reflections on the Future Survival of the Donald Trump Presidency

The Trump presidency has always been a rocky and contentious one, but recent and coming events will try its soul in ways that have not previously been seen.  While repeatedly some speculate that Trump will not make it to the end of his term in 2021, realistically it would take a lot to change for him to be impeached, convicted of a crime, or resign.  What forces and events will impact his presidency in the coming months?

Trump Himself

The Death of President George Herbert Walker Bush points to a significant contrast in personalities and the weakness of Donald Trump as a person.  Bush’s death provides not just a retrospective on the 41st president’s legacy, but it speaks also to the deficiencies of the Trump presidency. 

Bush’s presidency illustrates many legacies–some good  and bad–but psychological temperament and style stand out.  Bush’s career in business and government–especially the latter as CIA director, UN ambassador, member of Congress, and vice-president before becoming president–point to someone with the skills, knowledge, and experience to lead the country.  Bush’s resume was one of understanding how Washington worked. It was also a resume that demonstrated a commitment to diplomacy, knowledge-based decision making, and  a respect for the processes of government.

Bush appointed knowledgeable and competent people to serve him, he approached the world, as in the case of the first Gulf War, with a sense of multilateralism and diplomacy that starkly contrast to what Trump displays.  Additionally, Bush, unlike Trump, was willing to accept responsibility for his actions and he made choices–such as correctly breaking his no new taxes pledge–that demonstrated real leadership and a willingness to compromise.

Whether many realize it or not, the passing of Bush will only highlight so much more the deficiencies of Trump and his presidency. 

Michael Cohen and the Looming Special Prosecutor Report

Perhaps the most significant event affecting the Trump presidency took place last week when Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen pled guilty to lying to Congress.  It was not so much the lying that was the issue, but it was what the lie was about–efforts well into June 2016 to pursue a business deal with Russia.  Why is this significant?

Central to the special prosecutor’s investigation on Russian interference with the 2016 US elections and the role that the Trump campaign had in colluding with them has been ascertaining of motive.  By that, the issue has been to try to explain why Trump and his associates may have wanted to collude with them, or why they seemed even now unwilling to take a hardline with Putin or otherwise condemn the investigation.  The simple answer is that Trump had possible economic ties then and perhaps now with Russia that he did not want to reveal and which may have then and now continue to cloud his judgments as president.

Keep in mind that Trump this week did confirm much of the details of Cohen’s confession about a Russian Trump tower deal.  This fact no longer seems in dispute.  The deal now speaks to how the Trump business empire, his campaign, and now presidency are intertwined, and how there may have been interest or motive to collude with Russians to get a better economic deal for Trump.  There is a possible quid pro quo emerging.  The Russians did not want Clinton elected, Trump wanted a business deal and perhaps a presidency, the art of the deal suggests strike a deal so that everyone gets what they want.  This quid pro quo is perhaps the core of everything which has thus far unfolded, and it goes far beyond accusations that Secretary of State Clinton extended special deals to countries and those who were donors to the Clinton Foundation.

Democratic Control of the House

Democrats taking control of the US House is significant on multiple fronts.  They will pose a policy limit on Trump, they will also be able to do many investigations and perform the oversight of the executive branch and agencies that the Republican House never was willing to do.  But House control by Democrats also closely connects to the special prosecutor’s actions.

One must also read between the lines in the Cohen plea.  It is no surprise that special prosecutor Robert Mueller knows more than the media is reporting.  One can surmise that once the Democrats take control of the House in January Mueller will be able to release a report to them, even if he is fired.  There is little chance that Mueller will indict Trump even if the evidence supports it. Instead, he will follow the March 1, 1974 Justice Department Memorandum which then referred allegations of Nixon’s criminality to the House.  The same will possibly happen here.

One can probably expect the special prosecutor to indict more individuals, especially given Cohen’s plea.  One might also see Trump pardoning many individuals such as Paul Manafort who remain  loyal to him.  But even if all this occurs, the one-two punch of a special prosecutor’s report and Democratic House control will constrain the Trump presidency even more than it has already.

Mounting Personal Lawsuits

Trump faces numerous civil lawsuits in state and federal court that will continue to dog him, and they cannot be halted by presidential pardons or judicial appointments.  These suits involve sexual harassment issues, the Trump Foundation, his business dealings and how they tie into whether he violated the Constitution’s Emolument clause, among others.  President’s cannot issue self-pardons, especially in civil matters, and his authority does not extend to state courts where he cannot control appointments to the federal bench or the Supreme Court.

 
2020 Economic Slowdown

Perhaps the biggest wild card is the economy.  The US is in the middle of one of the longest recoveries and bull markets in history.  But there are many signs that the end is coming.
Internationally, there is a slowing down of world economic growth that will affect US exports.  Also, as a globally interconnected economy, the US will be impacted by what happens elsewhere.  Rising interest rates are impacting an already slowing down housing market that seemed until recently to be overheated. 

The Trump tax cuts, according to analysts, either had little impact on economic growth–especially when most of the tax cuts were taken as profits and not reinvestments–or they have run their course.  The trade wars are beginning to impact many US sectors, including agriculture and the auto industry (as seen by GM’s plans to close facilities), and  the tightening of immigration is leading to labor shortages.

Finally, the Trump administration has failed to address longer term structural problems with the US economy such as the significant racial and economic gaps tht limit opportunities for many, unequal economic development, decaying infrastructure, and an inability to deal with global economic issues such as the increasing competitiveness of China and other major economies. Throw into this also a  growing budget deficit that will force the US to borrow more money at higher interest rates. All told, the recent Wall Street stock jitters highlight what many see as a first or second 2020 economic slowdown that  will impact the presidential race.

But Will the Republicans Abandon Trump?

All of the above forces will serve as manor checks on the remaining Trump presidency.  But does that mean that Republicans in the Senate or his base will abandon him?  As of now there is little sign of that.   It would take a significant combination of the above events for that to happen and for there to be a serious chance of Republicans calling for impeachment, or for there to be support for challenges to Trump were he to run for a second term.  Trump remains more popular among his base than do the rest of the Republicans and until such time as his base leaves him one cannot foresee  this scenario.

The Irony of Donald Trump–The System Works

Perhaps one of the most overused phrases in the news and among commentators is the phrase “constitutional crisis,” especially as it applies to a cluster of issues surrounding the Donald Trump
presidency including whether he can be indicted or if, as an anonymous NY Times op-ed asserts, administration officials are part of a resistence to limit his action. I am not sure what the term means, but there is no constitutional crisis when it comes to Donald Trump, the “system” is working.

A constitutional crisis means a situation where the Constitution and the laws cannot handle or address a specific situation and we are left totally with non-constitutional solutions to address a problem.  I do not see that   here.  When Trump was first elected, I began giving a series of talks that continue to today.  In those first talks I said that there was something remarkable the day after the election–there were no tanks in the streets or troops on the corner.  I said that what will largely happen is that the Trump administration will confront this nasty thing called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and both will largely do their job.   Lacking government experience and an inclination to want to learn, Trump would face the checks and balances and separation of powers limits that the Constitution imposes.  Moreover, for Trump to get anything done he and his administration needed to secure the assistance of the 3,000 or so members of the Senior  Executive Service–SES–the careerists who really run the federal government.  Finally, were Trump to exceed the political boundaries of what Americans could tolerate, elections would be the final remedy.  Largely, all of this is happening now.

Now 18 months later it is happening.  Legal investigations are tightening the noose around Trump. His and the Republican overreach and ineptness will produce electoral results that will hold him Trump accountable, or at least check him, and the complex system of administrative law and members of the SES or the bureaucracy also are checking the president.  All of this is consistent with the Constitution and its design.

Additionally, as the special prosecutor finishes his investigation, we may soon find Trump and others facing criminal charges.  If a sitting president can be indicted for federal crimes, then the criminal justice process will render a final verdict.  If a sitting president cannot be indicted–and we do not have a clear answer to that question–then possible impeachment or simply voter retribution against him or Republicans may occur.  Trump of course can pardon those accused of committing federal crimes, but he cannot issue pardons for impeachment, civil action, or state crimes.  It is also unlikely anyone would seriously argue the president can pardon himself.

Even if Trump were to fire the special prosecutor, he cannot remove the federal career prosecutor in New York who went after Michael Cohen, and even if he does fire him, Trump cannot fire the Manhattan Borough district attorney or New York State Attorney General who are investigating charges against Trump and his foundation.  It is also an open legal question regarding whether a sitting president could prevent facing state criminal charges.  And the Supreme Court has already ruled that a sitting president can  face civil law suits.  Federal courts have already ruled against Trump on many key issues, and more adverse decisions will come.  Overall, regarding of who sits on the Supreme Court, Trump will face monumental legal challenges that have already checked much of his behavior. 

Even if the legal process breaks down, the final verdict lies with the people.  Barack Obama said it well in his Friday, September 7, 2018 speech when he said that: “Because there is actually only on real check on bad policy and abuses of power, and that's you. You and your vote.”  Elections are the ultimate check on abuses of power, and they are provided for in the Constitution.  Trump's overreach appears to be producing renewed interest to vote and perhaps will yield significant Democrat Party  turnout that will correct and check the worst of the abuses.  2020 may too be another verdict.

The Constitution is proving to be able to address or anticipate many of the problems we are seeing.  I do not see a constitutional crisis. Maybe there is a political crisis but not a constitutional one.    The Constitution is mostly a process document, not one of substantive public policy.  Yes Trump and Congress have enacted many ugly policies that hurt people.  When I say the system works, I do not mean it produces the policy outcomes that I want or which liberals may desire.  The system is working for many of the ways it was designed to work.  The Electoral College is by today’s standards undemocratic but it may be working the way it is supposed in the sense that it checks populism.  Moreover, as Sandy Levinson makes clear in his book on  Our Undemocratic Constitution, the Constitution was not designed to “work” in ways that produce real majority rule.  The Constitution may be working in ways it was supposed to, it is just not the way many of us like.

Cohen, Manafort, and Trump? What do we know and what happens next?

So where are we as a result of the Paul Manafort conviction and Michael Cohen plea? Here are some possible answers.

How bad for Trump was the Michael Cohen plea and the Paul Manafort conviction?

Legally Paul Manafort really had nothing to do with Trump in terms of his campaign and allegations of Russian interference with US elections and allegations that Trump, his campaign, or staff aided and abetted or obstructed the investigation.  This was a trial involving Manafort’s private business dealings. 

It needs to be made absolutely clear that this trial was not about any alleged Russian connections between Trump, his campaign, or associates.  The trial neither refutes nor confirms any of this and has nothing to do with those contentions.  However, the Manafort conviction is a victory for the special prosecutor who uncovered this illegal activity during his investigation.  It supports the idea that the special prosecutor has reason to believe that a criminal investigation is warranted.  It is possible, but we do not know, that Manafort might appeal or even agree to plea to the remaining charges, or negotiate to cooperate with a sentence reduction in return for cooperation with the special prosecutor.  As Trump’s former campaign manager his may have important and relevant information.  We do not know.

Is all this a witch hunt?

Manafort is about issues unrelated to the Russian probe.  Does this not prove a witch hunt?  No.  First prosecutors all the time begin investigations into one matter and turn up illegal behavior unrelated to the initial investigation.  They do not and are supposed to turn a blind eye to these new allegations of illegal behavior and instead often prosecute, as is the case here.

Second, think of a parallel.  Kenneth Starr was the special prosecutor originally appointed to investigate alleged illegal behavior involving President Clinton when he was still governor of Arkansas.  This was the investigation into land dealings called Whitewater.  His investigation revealed no improper behavior there but did find in the course of his investigation that Clinton lied under oath about sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.  This became the basis of the impeachment against him.  Thus, the Manafort investigation/conviction is a similar outgrowth of Muller’s investigation in the way the Starr perjury claims were regarding Whitewater.

How serious is Cohen?

Cohen is a different legal matter.  Again this has nothing to do with the Russian investigation, per se.  However on a scale of 1-10 where 10 is Trump is impeached or convicted of a crime, and a 9 is Trump is indicted, this was an 8.  Cohen’s plea directly implicates the president in election-related charges which constitute a felony.  His plea also adds saliency and support to civil law suits brought by Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. But more importantly, Cohen as part of an agreement to reduce his sentence may provide other critical information that connects Trump to other possibly illegal activities.  We do not know what Cohen knows but it appears to be a lot.  The Judge who reviewed the attorney-client confidential information of Cohen’s involving the president is allowing a lot of it to be used, suggesting potentially a significant amount of incriminating information.


The Political Damage?

Collectively, the Cohen-Manafort plea and conviction takes enormous wind out of the claim by Trump that all this is a big witch hunt.  We now have proven assertions or illegal activity involving Trump and his associates, lending credence to claims that Trump or his associates had broken the law.  Politically, Tuesday was a major turning point in the sense that it makes it harder to say there is no merit to any illegal actions surrounding Trump or his associates.  Again, none of this touches the core issue of the Russian investigation; this is all periphery to it.

It is unlikely any of this changes the mind of core Trump supporters.  Its bigger impact is on swing voters, and also in terms of legitimizing the special prosecutor’s probe.

What can Trump do to shut down the legal problems?

Yes Trump can still fire Mueller but this close to an election I doubt even he risks that.  It would explode in his face.  The Muller investigation is probably within a month or so of concluding its fact-finding stage.  At that point a report will be released detailing what he knows and what steps will follow.   What it concludes about Trump no one knows and whether more indictments follow is a good question.

Can Trump be indicted?  Good question.  Watergate-era Justice Department memos suggest no but  a lot of law has changed since then to question that.  If he is indicted there is a major legal battle that goes to the Supreme Court.  I suspect Mueller, even if he concludes there is probable cause of presidential illegal behavior (direct primary liability or aiding and abetting), will opt not to indict and list the president as in Watergate as an unindicted co-conspirator.  This is a nightmare for Trump.  He cannot really clear his name here with a legal proceeding and if the Democrats take control of the House, this is the basis for impeachment.  Instead, I see Mueller potentially indicting many Trump associates, but I do not know since his report has not yet been finalized and released.

Trump can pardon Cohen, Manafort, and anyone else charged or convicted of federal crimes.  Trump cannot easily fire the US prosecutors in New York–they are careerists with a lot of legal protections on their side.

Trump cannot shut down the Daniels and McDougal law suits.  They are civil matters under state law and presidential pardons do not reach into state suits.  Plus, Clinton v. Jones established the legal ruling that sitting presidents can face civil law suits while in office.

Giuliani’s admission about paying hush money to Stormy Daniels strengthens special prosecutor’s obstruction of justice claims and why presidential pardons may make problems worse for Trump

Note:  This is a press release I am sending out today.

The obstruction of justice and other potential criminal charges against Donald Trump were
strengthened by Giuliani’s admission about paying hush money to Stormy Daniels, and the use of presidential pardons may make problems worse for the president.

SAINT PAUL, MN (PRWEB) May 3, 2018 -- Hamline University professor David Schultz, noted expert on constitutional law and legal ethics, argued today that obstruction of justice and other potential criminal charges against President Donald Trump were strengthened by Giuliani’s admission about paying hush money to Stormy Daniels.  He also argued that presidential pardons to shut down the investigations may constitute new evidence of obstruction of justice.

According to Schultz: “Giuliani’s admission closes an important circle, connects critical dots, and portends far more serious problems for Trump than simply a violation of campaign finance laws.  Trump always had plausible denial that his attorney Michael Cohen had gone rogue when he made payments to stormy Daniels to silence her, even though the general presumption is that lawyers act as agents for their clients.   Acting alone,  one could argue that Cohen’s payments were independent expenditures meant to influence the presidential campaign and therefore should have been  reported, as required by federal campaign finance law. Giuliani’s statement clearly ties Cohen, to Trump and Daniels and it now raises questions about possible illegal activity of Trump or the Trump campaign regarding the 2016 election.  Even more powerfully, for a president who claimed he has done nothing wrong, this connection impeaches Trump’s credibility, raising questions about his motives regarding other criminal allegations he is facing, as well as whether he took other action to obstruct justice.”

Schultz, author of more than 35 books and 150 articles on various aspects of American law and politics, including his most recent two volume Constitutional Law in Contemporary America, (West Academic), said on Thursday that critical to establishing obstruction of justice under federal law is showing a corrupt intent meant to impede a criminal investigation.  The acknowledgment of the Stormy Daniels payment provides evidence of an intent to hide or obstruct information, leaving open interesting questions regarding whether he has undertaken other actions with the intent of concealing information or obstructing the legal.

Additionally Schultz, who teaches government ethics and criminal law, also said: “If Trump thinks that issuing pardons to his attorney Michael Cohen or other will stop the criminal inquiry, he is wrong.  First, while presidents may issue pardons, if the purpose of the pardon is to impede a criminal investigation, that pardon may be evidence of obstruction of justice.  Second, the use of a pardon will remove the ability of individuals to assert their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, thereby making it more probable that people such as his attorney would potentially have to provide against evidence against the president.  Any pardons at this point by the president are suspect and potentially more damaging to the president than even Giuliani’s statements.

Schultz is a professor of political science at Hamline University. He has taught classes on American government and election law for more than 25 years. A  three time Fulbright scholar and winner of the Leslie A. Whittington national award for excellence in public affairs teaching,   David Schultz is the author and editor of 35 books and 150 articles on American politics and law and is a frequently quoted political analyst in the local, national, and international media.

--End–

Why Donald Trump should not be allowed to pardon Michael Cohen, his friends, or family members

Today's blog originally appeared in Counterpunch.


Donald Trump is perfectly within his constitutional authority to pardon his attorney Michael Cohen,
even before he is accused or convicted or a crime, as the president recently mused. Trump was also within his authority when he pardoned Scooter Libby, as well as ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio.  And Trump might be within his authority to pardon his children and many others in his administration, and there is little anyone can do about it.  And that is the problem.  The concept of unlimited discretion of the president to issue pardons and reprieves is clearly inconsistent with the concept of limited government and checks and balances and the courts need to rethink the constitutional doctrine that allows for such unchecked authority.

 The historical roots of presidential pardoning power are sourced in British monarchical power.  At one time British kings and queens had unlimited political power, subject to no checks and balances.  “Rex non potest peccare”–“The king could do no wrong”–was the legal theory that gave monarchs not just unimpeachable political power to command, but also the capacity to forgive and pardon.  To paraphrase The Merchant of Venice, the quality of mercy could be strained, as determined by the king.

 Yet the idea of unchecked monarchical power in England ended if not with the Magna Charta in 1215, it did so with the adoption of the English Bill of Rights in 1689 and the Glorious Revolution in 1688-89.  Kingly power was subject to limits and, as British philosopher John Locke would argue in his Two Treatises on Government, legitimate governments and authority are subject to limits defined by the rights and consent of the people.  No government official, including a king, should be given unlimited and unchecked authority.

 Locke is considered America’s philosopher; he heavily influenced the Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson.  In writing the Declaration of Independence, the famous second paragraph that begins with “We hold these truths to be self-evident” is homage to Locke.  So to is the opening words of the Constitution–“We the people”–and even the Bill of Rights.  All of these documents speak to the idea of a government of limited powers and authority, that no one person is above the law, and that the very idea of American constitutionalism is one where there are no inherent and unlimited powers vested in anyone person, office, or body.  The constitutional framers fear of kings and unbridled abuse of power and discretion is the reason for separation of powers and checks and balances.

 However some kingly like powers seemed to work their way into the Constitution. Article II, Section  2 grants that “The President . . . shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”  During the Constitutional Convention and debates surrounding its ratification critics feared that the power would be abused and that it needed to be checked, including perhaps by the Senate.  These calls were rejected, and as Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist number 74: The “prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed.” But it is not clear that all the Framers intended the pardoning power to be unchecked at all.  The debates at the Constitutional convention demonstrated many concerned with granting presidents unlimited power, others seeming to assume that presidents would excise appropriate discretion in its use.  Unfortunately the courts have not agreed to such checks.

 In Ex parte Garland (71 U.S. 333, 1867) the Supreme Court said of the pardoning power that the
 "power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions." The pardoning power scope is so broad that it even allowed President Gerald Ford to pardon Richard Nixon before he had been indicted for any crimes.

 President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon was controversial, and some say it was the reason why Gerald Ford eventually lost a very close presidential race to Jimmy Carter in 1976. Since this pardon, other presidents have used their powers to pardon for political reasons. In 1981 President Ronald Reagan pardoned two FBI agents convicted for authorizing illegal searches of property of antiwar protestors in 1973. In 1992 President George Bush pardoned former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger and other individuals associated with the Iran-Contra Affair during the Reagan administration, and in 2001 President Bill Clinton pardoned Patty Hearst, a kidnaped heiress turned member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, and Marc Rich, who had been indicted on charges of making illegal oil deals and tax evasion. The latter pardon was considered controversial because Rich’s wife was a significant political donor to Clinton campaigns. George W. Bush issued very few pardons and Barack Obama issued 212 complete pardons and another 1,715 commutations of sentences.  While all these pardons met constitutional muster, no  doubt some could be considered abuses of presidential power.

 Presidents do have a constitutional power to pardon and mercy is something they should be allowed to show, using the pardon as a way to correct injustices.  Yet pardons should not be beyond  constitutional limits and review.  Already there are some limits to the pardoning power.  Trump cannot use it to escape impeachment, or to protect himself from any civil law suits such as for sexual harassment.  Nor can he issue pardons for violations of state criminal laws.  Moreover, presidents who abuse their pardoning power might not get reelected–as in the case of Gerald Ford–or be subject to impeachment as Harvard law professor Noah Feldman contends.  But these checks are insufficient, and if the dicta in Garland is taken seriously then nothing would prevent presidents from pardoning themselves, relatives, political allies, and friends.  A constitutional morality that takes rights seriously and also believes that no one should   profit from their own wrong or stand beyond accountability should not allow for unchecked presidential pardoning power.  Presidents are not kings, they do and should not have inherent and unlimited authority to do anything, including pardon.

 The Supreme Court got it wrong in Garland and it is time for the Supreme Court to overturn that precedent.  That decision and dicta are a relic from a different era and legal system.  If the American Revolution and Constitution stand for anything it is that no one is above the law.  Granting presidents unchecked pardoning power, especially in how Trump might use it with Cohen, is inconsistent with separation of powers and checks and balances in that it undermines the ability of the judiciary to act and hold people responsible for contempt.  Unlike kings at one time, we do not presume that presidents can do no wrong and instead the logic of the Constitution is premised on the notion that–as James Madison said in Federalist number 51, that “Men are not angels"–and that there should be limits on all uses of power. Over time the Supreme Court has issued numerous decisions limiting presidential powers, and the same needs to occur with the pardoning power.

Trump, Cohen, and the Limits of Privilege

The limits of two privileges–executive and attorney/client–may determine the fate and future of the Trump presidency.  But if Donald Trump and his attorney Michael Cohen think that they can stand on the absolute nature of these two privileges as final fire walls that prevent prosecutors and attorneys from gaining access to potentially incriminating evidence, the law is clearly against them.
Executive privilege is what Donald Trump as president may try to invoke if he seeks to squash subpoenas issued by the special prosecutor in the criminal investigation into Russian collusion or other alleged illegal activities.  Executive privilege is grounded in the concept of separation of powers–found especially in Article II, section 2 of the Constitution.  The concept of executive recognizes that some conversations of the executive (which includes the president) are insulated from scrutiny by other branches.  There may be times when the president needs confidentiality to have candid high-level conversations, tossing about ideas or policy options, for example.  Yet this privilege is not absolute, as the Supreme Court said in U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).
In Nixon at issue was whether president had to comply with subpoenas from a special prosecutor seeking tapes of White House conversations that could possibly be evidence in a criminal matter.  Nixon asserted that executive privilege is absolute, the Court rejected that claim.    It declared: “[N]either the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.” (418 U.S. 706)  More specifically, when weighing executive privilege against the needs of the fair administration of justice, the Court declared:

We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.” (418 U.S. 713)

Any generalized assertions that Trump or the White House may make on claims of executive privilege to impede a criminal investigation would be rejected under Nixon.  Whether such action would then rise to the level of obstruction of justice is a different question.  But at the least Trump would lose here.
Similarly, Trump and the White House might seek to invoke attorney/client privilege as a means of protecting some conversations he had either with White House Counsel or his personal attorney Michael Cohen.  Attorney/client privilege protects communication made between privileged persons in confidence for the purposes of obtaining or providing legal assistance for the client.  As the Court said in cases such as Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981), this privilege encourages clients to talk frankly with their attorneys, allowing the latter to obtain the information needed to provide appropriate legal advice.  Clients would be hesitant to seek legal advice if they generally knew their conversations would not be confidential.
Generally, attorney/client privilege is absolute–no showing or hardship can overcome it.  The government cannot say that “We know you said incriminating things to your lawyer and we want to know what it was you said.”  The very purpose of the privilege is to protect individuals seeking legal advice from having their conversations exposed.  Yet there are limits to this apparent absoluteness of attorney-client privilege.  First, in In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum 112 F. 3d 910 (8th Cir. 1997), then president Clinton sought to invoke both executive and attorney/client privilege to prevent a special prosecutor from securing notes and documents regarding White House conversations with counsel.  These conversations related to the special prosecutor’s investigation of the Clintons’ dealings with Whitewater Development Corporation when he was governor of Arkansas.  Eventually because of Nixon, Clinton dropped  the executive privilege claim, but the Court ruled against him on the attorney/client claim.  It did so by arguing that the use of this privilege  by the White House undermined values such as transparency and the promotion of justice that the government should pursue.  Thus, attorney-client privilege will not protect the president acting in his White House or presidential capacity.
But there is another exception to attorney/client privilege applicable to Trump as a private person and to his attorney Michael Cohen.  It is the crime-fraud exception.   The crime-fraud rule is premised on the notion that lawyers should not be using their legal skills to commit crimes or help their clients break the law.  Such action would be aiding and abetting, for example.  If clients are suspected of using their lawyers to break the law (or attorneys are themselves suspected of the same), attorney-client privileged may be cracked.  How so?
In United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S.  554, 572 (1989) the Supreme Court articulated a test outlining when and how attorney/client privilege may be crack.  That test is best described in United States v Chen, 99 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1996).

First the government must satisfy the judge that there is “a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person that in camera review of the materials may reveal evidence to establish the claim that the crime-fraud exception applies,” and then if the judge decides this question in favor of the government, the otherwise privileged material may be submitted for in camera examination.(99 F. 3d at 1503).

Under the Zolin-Chen test, a judge must be persuaded that a preliminary showing has been made to think that examination of attorney/client conversations will indicate a crime has been committed.  In the case of the Michael Cohen, a prosecutor probably made that showing to a judge, resulting in the issuance of a search warrant to secure his records, including those with Trump.  The next step is a separate hearing for a judge to examine the materials to decide if the crime-fraud exception applies.  This is probably the hearing that is going to happen and which the media seemed perplexed about.  If then the judge is convinced that the exception applies, then it may be used against Cohen or Trump.
Finally, there is another privilege that Trump may invoke–the right of a president not to be  burdened by civil law suits in office because actions such as Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997).  Here, President Clinton was facing a sexual harassment suit by Paula Jones arising out of his actions as governor of Arkansas.  He argued that the civil case against him should not proceed because it would impede his duties as president.  In effect, separation of powers gave the presidency was a temporary immunity or privilege against civil lawsuits.  The Court against rejected this claim, asserting that the presidency did not provide the type of immunity Clinton asserted.
Collectively, Nixon, Zolin, and Jones stand for the proposition that presidents are not above the law.  They cannot invoke executive or attorney-client privilege to hide from criminal or civil liability.  These privileges are not absolute and at some point–which appears now–Trump and his attorney are confronting this reality, and the law will win.

Sex, Lies, and Trump Videotape–The Ethical and Legal Problems of the Trump-Daniels Contract

Donald Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen has major ethical and legal problems, potentially meriting

disbarment and prosecution for crimes.  In addition, in light of Ms. Daniels’ lawsuit challenging the enforceability of the agreement, was this contract even valid?
I have taught legal ethics in law school for nearly 15 years.  As I tell my students, attorneys are expected to conform to the law.  They also must follow ethical rules as lawyers, mandated by the states where they practice.  These rules generally follow the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC).  Failure to follow them invites disciplinary action, including in New York where Cohen is licensed.
In the circumstances surrounding his paying Stormy Daniels hush money out of his own pocket to silence her about her alleged affair with Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election, Cohen may have broken several laws and ethical rules.  First, Cohen seems to be admitting that he did make this payment.  If this admission is being made without the express or implied authorization of Trump, Cohen has violated MRPC 1.6.  Specifically, if Cohen is revealing information protected by attorney-client confidentiality without permission this is the first ethical problem.
Second, in paying money to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels), he is violating MRPC Rule 1.8 (e) that bars an attorney from providing “financial assistance to a client in connect with  pending or contemplated litigation.”  While it is not clear if there would have been litigation surrounding the possibility of Ms. Daniels disclosing the affair, suits for defamation of character or a contract not to disclose the affair could have been possible and therefore paying her to settle would have been a potential violation of 1.8 (e). Moreover, if Cohen badged Daniels into this settlement, that is a violation of Rule 3.4, fairness to opposing party.
In addition, Rule 1.8 (d) prohibit an attorney prior to conclusion of representation of a client from negotiating an agreement to get media or literary rights to issues relating to the representation.  The basis for this rule is to prevent attorneys from compromising their zealous advocacy for a client and perhaps altering their legal strategy or advice in the hope that a different outcome would make for a more profitable story.  This is an issue of conflict of interest.  Cohen is reportedly shopping a book about Trump, potentially including the telling of the story of the latter’s relationship with Ms. Daniels.  Not only might the book include information protected by attorney-client information, but it is possible that the representation with Trump is not done and that he violated this rule.  Even if the representation is done, if Cohen paid off Ms. Daniels or did anything in representation of Trump with the idea that he might be able to personally profit, that is a conflict of interest that violates Rule 1.8.   
It is also possible he violated Rule 1.1–competence–in not providing appropriate advice or representation to Trump and also perhaps committed malpractice in acting in a way that under-minded a duty to his client.  In fact one can also argue that if the payment was made to Ms. Daniels without Trump’s knowledge or consent, Cohen violated Rule 1.2, acting beyond his scope of representation for his client, and Rule 1.4, failure to communicate with his client and keep him informed about the status of a matter.
Another problem for Cohen is that if he made an expenditure of $130,000 to Ms. Daniels with the purpose of silencing her so as to prevent her disclosure from affecting the 2016 election, this might violate federal law.  This is an argument that Common Cause is making.   Federal election law would require expenditures such as this to be reported.  If Cohen then tried to hide this payment by working with Trump or others, it might constitute aiding and abetting or conspiracy to obstruct justice, both of which are violations of federal law.  Breaking the law is also a violation of Rule 8.4, in that such acts are either prejudicial to the administration of justice or that speak to the honesty or trustworthiness of an attorney.
Aside from raising the questions about the ethical and legal behavior of Trump’s attorney,  was this contract even valid without Trump’s signature.  On the one hand yes–this is the argument  based on detrimental reliance.  Did all the parties act in a way that they assumed there was a contract?  Yes, all parties did it seems act that way and it really is not required to have the agreement signed.  Many oral agreements are enforceable and since this was not a contract for goods the statute of frauds does not apply and no written agreement is needed.
However, I am still questioning whether there was a contract from the start that is enforceable.    By that, if the contract was made where money was exchanged for the purposes of silencing Ms. Daniels, that very contract may be illegal and void.  How so?  The exchange of money to silence her was done so with the intent of affecting the 2016 election.  Moreover, that silencing  includes, as alleged in Ms. Daniels’ suit, preventing her from releasing some materials (videotape?) about the affair. If that is the case and it was not reported as a campaign expenditure, this is a contract for an illegal purpose.  Conversely, if Ms. Daniels  was  paid money to remain silent about her sexual relationship with Trump, this may be a form of bribery meant to influence individuals to vote in a specific way, or to vote at all.  The quid is silence about the sexual relationship, the money is the quo, and the purpose is to affect voters.  Trump and his attorney bribed Ms. Daniels to remain silent about a sexual relationship in other to affect voting.  It is awkward, but a possible bribery case can be made here.
Finally, remember agency law.  Except in rare cases, we attribute the actions of lawyers to their clients.  Trump may be estopped from arguing that he did not know that his lawyer was doing all this unless he can show there was neither explicit not implicit authority from him for his attorney to bribe Ms. Daniels.
Overall, Cohen appears to have committed a lot of ethical and legal mistakes and it will be interesting to see what disciplinary action he faces and which actions of his cn be attributed back to  Trump.