Why Did Trump Knowingly Employ a 'Bad Lawyer'?
Introduction
The hiring of Michael Cohen by former U.S. President Donald Trump as his lawyer spanned over a decade, a testament to the intricacies of political and personal alliances. This article delves into the motivations behind Trump's decision, juxtaposing the legitimacy of Trump's choice of counsel and the ethical implications of Cohen's actions.
The Role of a 'Bad Lawyer'
Michael Cohen, often described as a fixer or 'consultant,' played a pivotal role in assisting Trump with various controversial and often ethically questionable ventures. His duties ranged from arranging hush payments to securing legal advice and negotiating deals. Cohen's unwavering loyalty and willingness to carry out illicit activities made him a valuable asset to Trump, despite the inherent ethical and legal issues.
Crucial Motivations
Cozy Relationship with a Dirty Tasker: Trump's primary goal was to avoid the messy and unethical undertakings that most lawyers would shy away from. Cohen's expertise and willingness to 'get his hands dirty' made him an ideal choice for handling sensitive and potentially damaging situations.
Hush Payments and Legal Tactics
Trump often turned to Cohen for legal advice and execution of tactics such as hush payments, tax scams, and legal threats. These actions, while briskly handled, frequently bypassed the ethical and legal guidelines, placing both Trump and Cohen under significant scrutiny. For example, Cohen managed payments to porn stars involved in sex disputes with Trump and advised on legal strategies to obstruct investigations and lawsuits.
The Ethical Paradox
Michael Cohen's actions raise significant questions about the expectations of a lawyer and the limits of professional conduct. While his competence in handling these tasks may have been lauded, his methods often violated the ethical codes of the legal profession. This duality—of a highly capable yet ethically questionable lawyer—presents a complex and unsettling scenario.
Questions of Oversight and Genius
Ignorance or Indifference: Was Trump unaware of Cohen's lapses in ethics and legality? This seems unlikely given his portrayal as a 'stable genius.' Alternatively, was Trump indifferent to these transgressions due to his strong dependence on Cohen for various shrewd business strategies? These questions probe deeply into the dynamics of the trust between employer and employee, where business often outweighs personal ethics.
Patrick J. Buchanan's Analysis
Patrick J. Buchanan, in his article, highlights the intricate nature of Trump's relationship with Cohen, suggesting that Cohen's loyalty was so strong that he was willing to 'do Trump's dirty work,' often at the expense of ethical and legal norms.
Expert Opinions and Ethical Considerations
Why Trump Employed a Bad Lawyer: Shielded from Reality: Could it be that Trump's vast business empire and public persona shielded him from the true extent of Cohen's unethical conduct? Busy Schedule: Was Trump's busy schedule and focus on his business ventures a plausible excuse for not closely managing Cohen's work? Scope of Work Discrepancies: Did Trump's directives and Cohen's execution of tasks often differ, leading to a disconnect in accountability? Former Employee Scapegoat: Was Trump's current attempt to discredit Cohen a strategic move to deflect blame from himself?
Conclusion
The interplay between Trump and Cohen is a prime example of how business and personal alliances can blur the lines of ethics and legality, often leading to profound consequences. While Michael Cohen's actions highlighted the darker aspects of corporate interests, the underlying questions about trust, oversight, and ethical conduct within the legal profession remain pertinent. Understanding these complexities is crucial for comprehending the multifaceted nature of political and social interactions.
As we reflect on the legacy of Michael Cohen and his role in shaping Donald Trump's presidency, it becomes clear that the divide between professional ethics and practical business strategies is often thin and perilous.