Disclosure of Trump Reimbursement to Cohen May Raise More Legal Questions Than It Answers
The payment appears to represent Trump's reimbursement of funds his attorney Michael Cohen paid an adult film actress to keep her from going public about an alleged affair.
May 16, 2018 at 06:12 PM
4 minute read
President Donald Trump. Photo: Bloomberg
President Donald Trump disclosed the reimbursement of at least $100,000 to Michael Cohen, his personal attorney, in a financial disclosure filing covering 2017 with the federal Office of Government Ethics on Tuesday. According to a note at the bottom of one of the 92 pages filed with ethics officials, Cohen sought reimbursement for expenses in 2016, which Trump “fully reimbursed” Cohen for last year.
The note identified the reimbursement as being more than $100,001 and less than $250,000, and claimed that the repayment was not required to be disclosed as a reportable liability.
Yet in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Acting Director of OGE David Apol flagged the note because, he said, he had determined the reimbursement did, in fact, require reporting.
“OGE has concluded that, based on the information provided … the payment made by Mr. Cohen is required to be reported as a liability,” Apol stated, adding that the note met legal disclosure requirements.
The reporting raised more questions than it answered. The amount reimbursed to Cohen appears to have covered the $130,000 he paid to adult film actress Stephanie Clifford, who goes by the stage name Stormy Daniels, shortly before the 2016 election, as part of an agreement to keep her from going public about a sexual encounter she claims to have had with Trump a decade earlier.
Cohen's payment, and the nondisclosure agreement that went along with it, has created a cyclone of chaos and controversy for the president's attorney and the White House. Cohen and Trump are now battling Clifford in California federal court, where she is suing to have the NDA nullified. They are also the subject of defamation suits filed by Clifford for publicly calling her claims of an affair with Trump lies.
There have been multiple public explanations of the payment. Cohen initially said the payment was made solely by him, and was covered by a home equity line to cover the cost. Cohen stated that Trump was not party to the transaction, nor had he reimbursed Cohen for the transaction.
Cohen's own one-time attorney, David Schwartz, would later state that Trump had no knowledge of the payment ahead of time, which was why he never signed the agreement with Daniels—a fact the adult film actress argues makes the agreement void.
More recently, former U.S. attorney and New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, now working as a member of Trump's legal team, stated that Trump had, in fact, reimbursed Cohen for the payment to Clifford, among a number of legal services.
On Wednesday, Clifford's outspoken attorney, Michael Avenatti, took to Twitter to lambaste Trump and his team.
“Mr. Trump's disclosure today conclusively proves that the American people were deceived by Mr. Cohen, Mr. Trump, Mr. Schwartz, the WH, and Mr. Giuliani,” Avenatti said. “This was NOT an accident and it was not isolated. Cover-ups should always matter.”
The one consistent element that each person on Trump's side has maintained is that the payment was not illegal and did not run afoul of any campaign finance laws. Clifford, in her complaint in the California suit, has alleged the $130,000 constituted an in-kind campaign contribution. However, absent more information, election lawyers say it's impossible to determine whether this is the case.
“No one can honestly weigh in on this without knowing what the parties knew about the law and what they intended,” Stroock & Stroock & Lavan special counsel Jerry Goldfeder said in an email.
Additionally, before the disclosure Wednesday, a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has requested the DOJ investigate the repayment by Cohen as a potential loan the president should have been required to disclose. In his letter, Apol referenced the lawsuit as the reason he was alerting the DOJ about the note.
In a statement, CREW executive director Noah Bookbinder took credit for the president's disclosure.
“It is good that in the face of overwhelming evidence and public pressure, the president came clean about this liability on this year's form, but we now have to wonder how many other liabilities for similar payments he has that he still has not disclosed because he has not been publicly called out on them,” Bookbinder said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrade Fixtures In New York Eminent Domain Cases - What Qualifies and How Are They Valued?
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Daniel Habib to Serve as Next Attorney-in-Charge of NY Federal Defender Appeals Unit
- 2Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege in the Modern Age of Communications
- 3High-Profile Sidley M&A Partner Heads to Covington
- 4Stars and Gripes: Firms Need a 'Superstar Culture' to Crack the U.S. Market
- 5BCLP Exploring Merger Prospects as Profitability Lags, Partnership Shrinks
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250