Former Clinton Strategist Blows Them Away - Reveals True Motive Behind Cohen's Plea Deal!

Former Clinton Strategist, Mark Penn, blew the doors wide open on the Cohen plea deal story. While the mainstream media is busy rejoicing over the obvious witch hunt victory, someone from the most unlikely places stepped in to shed some truth in the mix.

Micheal Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, took a plea deal that seemed unnecessary and easy to beat… but why?

Trump Tweeted, “Michael Cohen plead guilty to two counts of campaign finance violations that are not a crime. President Obama had a big campaign finance violation and it was easily settled!”

Cohen may have taken the deal because he knew prosecution was NOT going to rest until they got him on something.

Mark Penn, the former chief strategist for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential run and former advisor to President Bill Clinton, claims that Michael Cohen’s plea deal is the prosecutors’ “attempt to set up Trump.”

Penn made this claim in an Op-Ed in The Hill where he claims that the campaign finance violations that Cohen pleaded guilty to on Tuesday “were not campaign finance violations.”

“Money paid to people who come out of the woodwork and shake down people under threat of revealing bad sexual stories are not legitimate campaign expenditures,” he says. “They are personal expenditures. That is true for both candidates we like and candidates we don’t.”

He claims that if “candidates used campaign funds instead of their own money to pay folks like Storm Daniels to keep quiet about affairs; they would get indicted for misuse of campaign funds for personal purposes and for tax evasion.

Just part of his Op-Ed with The Hill he reads:

“Think about this for a minute: Suppose ABC had paid Stormy Daniels for her story in coordination with Michael Avenatti or maybe even the Democratic National Committee’s law firm on the eve of the election; by this reasoning, if the purpose of this money paid, just before the election, would be to hurt Trump and help Clinton win, this payment would be a corporate political contribution. If using it not to get Trump would be a corporate contribution, then using it to get Trump also has to be a corporate contribution.”

“That’s why neither are corporate contributions and this is a bogus approach to federal election law. (Note that none of the donors in the 2012 John Edwards case faced any legal issues and the Federal Election Commission [FEC] ruled their payments were not campaign contributions that had to be reported — facts that prosecutors tried to suppress at trial.)”

If you get a chance I suggest you read his full piece: Cohen’s plea deal is prosecutor’s attempt to set up Trump

It was truly insightful…

Anyone who has been paying attention can see that prosecutors have been throwing everything and ANYTHING at Cohen as well as Paul Manafort to “make something stick”. So is it really far-fetched to believe that this is just part of the ‘get Trump’ scheme?

Take a look at Manafort, for example. They released this ‘bombshell’ report about ties to Ukraine but riddle him with tax evasion charges. Most of which were thrown out?