The legal situation explained...

So I spend a little time over my lunch catching up on some of the legal experts who are currently combing over the revelations of the Michael Cohen plea. There are obviously several different opinions as to whether or not Michael Cohen plead to an act that wasn't criminal, As many have pointed out, both the law and precedent seems to be on the President's side on this one.

But even if you concede that the payment to Stormy Daniels was in fact a "campaign contribution" there is still a fairly steep climb to get from Michael Cohen to the President. The most obvious is that the President is "allowed" to make campaign contributions for any amount. Even though Cohen "admits" to making the campaign contribution, the facts show that he was paid back. A plea bargain is not going to trump the financial facts of the situation (pun intended).

The second issue is that while a prosecutor might be able to convince a jury that an attorney might understand complex campaign contribution laws and had an intent to break them, it's less likely that you can claim that Trump (who seemed to handle almost none of this personally) was understanding of all of the ramifications. Without proving an absolute "intent" by the President, a campaign violation is simply a civil manner.

While some are making a big deal that immunity was provided to David Pecker, and Allen Weisselberg (CEO of Trump organization), those revelations might not be that harmful to the President. Contrary to what many are "implying" it is very likely that these immunity agreements are literally months old, and came at the beginning of the investigation into Michael Cohen. There is (at this point) no indication that it signals anything specific as it pertains to the President.

Apparently how it worked is that much of Trump's funds were tied up (due to the election) in a trust that was being handled by the Trump organization. So when the funds were transferred from Trump to Cohen, the transfer was actually handled by the Trump Organization (out of Trump's personal trust). The money (which turned out to be $420,000 all in all) was transferred to the Corporation that Cohen set up. $360,000 was provided to Daniels (as to net to $180,000 after taxes). $50,000 was for technology services. Another $60,000 was provided to Cohen as a bonus.

Now all of this all took place in the height of the Presidential campaign when Trump was out campaigning. To pretend that he understood anything about this deal, other than he was paying Stormy Daniels to keep her mouth shut, would be a tough case to make. To make a campaign violation a criminal offense requires intent to break the law. Only by parsing this down to the microscopic level, does this become a campaign violation, and most certainly a violation that most people would not see as obvious.

So, what exactly is the Trump Organization on the hook for?

Apparently, the problem here is that the agreement between the Trump Organization (representing the Trump trust) and Michael Cohen was that Cohen would provide monthly invoices to the Trump organization for $35,000, which over the course of a year would make up the $420,000 overall reimbursement.  The State of New York are apparently investigating whether those invoices should be considered "fraudulent" because they reference a legal retainer (which the State would claim never existed).  Not sure what the criminal or civil liability is for "fraudulent invoicing" but I am guessing we will all find out soon.