Blackmail Risk to Legal Mess: US Media on Trump’s ‘Stormy Affair’

Here’s a look at how some of the reputed US newspapers viewed the scandal.

Sunday, 25 March, was a highly anticipated day for American news enthusiasts, with former adult film star Stormy Daniels opening up on her alleged affair with the incumbent US President Donald Trump on television.

In an interview to CBS’ Anderson Cooper on ‘60 Minutes’, Daniels lay bare the details of her affair with Trump, including the threats to her family in the aftermath.

Here’s a look at how some of the reputed newspapers across the US reported and wrote editorials on her prime-time interview.

An ‘Unapologetic’ Daniels Speaks: New York Times

In an opinion piece titled “How Stormy Daniels Out-Trumped Trump”, James Poniewozik for The New York Times lauds Daniels for being unapologetic.

Recounting how Daniels regaled Cooper with ‘playful one-liners’, Poniewozik comments on how the former porn star “owned her story and life.”

There’s a familiar script for discrediting women who accuse powerful men. They’re attacked as opportunistic and promiscuous, out to make a buck. If they deny any of that, it still ends up making the moral conversation about them.

James Poniewozik

Poniewozik observes Daniels as having played Trump at his own game, noting how she had gone on to decide how her story gets told, and on what terms – by making the interview about power play, and the ability of wealthy men to pressurise women into silence.

He also draws parallels between Daniels and former Playboy model Karen Mcdougall, who had an interview with Cooper on ‘60 minutes’ earlier last week.

While McDougal agreed to having been in love with Trump , and guilty for having carried on an affair with a married man, Daniels remained unapologetic and unenthusiastic about the affair, stating that she knew “what she was getting into”, and hence was not a victim.

And this is where, Poniewozik points out that Daniels may have truly ‘out-trumped Trump’.

As an argument, that was 100 percent Trump. Mr Trump did not put Ms Clifford on his TV show. But she did make it on TV, where she proved an adept apprentice in his media techniques. Maybe even a master.

Is the Daniels Affair a Blackmail Risk?: Washington Post

In an analysis piece titled Why the Stormy Daniels agreement was a blackmail risk for Trump, Philip Bump from the Washington Post examines angles beyond the political and legal implications the Daniels affair is pointing at.

Citing Michael Wolf’s book ‘Fire and Fury’, Bump states that the fact that Trump and his allies took care of several women women during the 2016 presidential campaign by way off paying them off, puts him at risk of blackmail by foreign adversaries.

The idea, then, is that this gives foreign adversaries potential leverage over the president.

Philip Bump

Bump also spoke to Joseph Lewis, a former assistant director of the FBI, which undertakes the security clearance process with regard to highly classified information.

Speaking to Bump, Lewis states that “if you get into paying hush money, there are consequences – or at least some indication that there might be something that you don’t want exposed, and therefore something that had to be looked into.”

However, he notes that not many cases of blackmail involving government officials hinged on sexual relationships.

However Bump, in closing, states that the matter with Daniels indicates a broader idea that “Trump had some secrets to hide.”

The Legal Implications of the Stormy Affair: USA Today

In an opinion piece titled Stormy Daniels on '60 Minutes' makes Donald Trump's legal problems even worse, USA Today’s contributors Norman Eisen and Virginia Canter, outline two violations that are bound to make the affair a legal mess for Trump and his associates.

Noting that Daniels’ NDA comes under scrutiny after she was allegedly threatened to sign it, the duo state that this discovery could drag the case on or even years at length.

Jotting down two areas of potential criminal liability, Elsen and Canter pin the fist one to be “alleged potential campaign-finance violations”.

The argument here is that the $130,000 payment to Daniels, which Cohen says he “facilitated,” was intended by all concerned to benefit the Trump campaign and so was an in-kind contribution, which was illegal in size and non-disclosure.

Elsen and Canter in the article

The second possibility arises from Trump’s nondisclosure of any Stormy-related information in his 2017 financial disclosure forms. The form requires Trump to disclose any liabilities or assets worth above $1,000, and the Daniels agreement is clearly worth either $130,000 or more, the article states.

The article further notes, that as an offshoot from the same possibility, lies the fact that Trump also did not mention the debt he owed Cohen – of $130,000.

The notion that this was anything other than a loan to Trump – and so also required to be disclosed on the president’s federal filings – strains logic. It is so absurd that even Cohen, by using the word “facilitate,” doesn’t seem to deny it.

And stemming from this same argument arises the fact that this could potentially raise bar issues for Cohen, as a lawyer cannot make loans to his/her clients.

Finally, the article also states that the affair runs the risk of the Mueller investigation branching out into the case to establish a pattern of “personal peccadilloes.”