Blog

Levin: Media ‘Don’t Know What They’re Talking About’ on Cohen Case

Michael Morris
By Michael Morris | August 22, 2018 | 2:24 PM EDT

Nationally syndicated radio talk show host, TV host, author and American lawyer Mark Levin (Screenshot)

On his nationally syndicated radio talk show Tuesday, host Mark Levin called out the media for its reporting on the Michael Cohen case, saying, the media “don’t know what they’re talking about.”

“The media are excited, thrilled – even our favorite news channel – and yet, they don’t know what they’re talking about,” said Mark Levin about the media concerning the Michael Cohen’s case.

Mark Levin’s comments came after President Donald Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, plead guilty to eight federal charges, according to TIME, and after Cohen reportedly said, according to Politico, that he “participated in the conduct” of payments made to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and ex-Playboy model Karen McDougal “for the purposes of influencing the election.”

Below is a transcript of Levin’s remarks from his show Tuesday:

“The media are excited, thrilled – even our favorite news channel – and yet, they don’t know what they’re talking about.

“You know, I was asked to go on my buddies show today, tonight ‘Hannity,’ and I said no because I’m working on my book and so forth. All this stuff broke. I’m watching what’s being reported, and I said, ‘I think I’d better come on.’ So, I will be on ‘Hannity’ tonight on the Fox News channel 9:30PM EST, 6:30PM PT.

“Now, a number of legal matters, and in my opinion, everything that’s being said about the Cohen case is wrong. And remember who Cohen’s lawyer is, Lanny Davis, who hates Trump, who is a Hillary consigliere.

“Michael Cohen is a sleazeball, an attorney. He plead, he plead to eight counts. It was not adjudicated in a court. The prosecution didn’t have to prove its case. Cohen plead to eight counts. That’s important. Five counts, tax evasion, from 2012 to 2016. One count false statement in a loan application. Two counts, campaign finance violations. The prosecution said unlawful corporate contributions and excessive personal contributions paid at the direction of the candidate to influence the election.

“Sounds pretty terrible. Sound pretty black and white, cut and dry. That’s the way it’s being reported.

 

“Now, let’s look at this for a minute. Rather than taking up the prosecution’s cudgel and running with it – which is what the media do. It’s amazing.

“This is a guilty plea. It’s not an adjudication. Prosecutors and Cohen cut a deal. It’s a plea bargain. It’s not a precedent. It won’t be cited for anything. Nobody cites plea bargains for precedent.

“They obviously had more on Michael Cohen, or Michael Cohen wouldn’t have cut a deal. Cohen cut a deal.

“Now, a campaign expenditure must be solely for a campaign activity. It must come from a campaign activity, not an activity that occurred before the campaign. A candidate who spends his own money, or even corporate money, for an event that occurred, not as a result of the campaign, is not making a campaign expenditure.

“Now, let me give you some examples.

“Let’s say a candidate had said, who was a big business man, ‘We owe vendors money. There’s some dispute over this. Let’s get them paid, so it doesn’t look bad for my campaign. And so I look good.’ Or let’s say he settles a lawsuit that was initiated before the campaign or outside the campaign, but he doesn’t want it to be an issue during the campaign. And he says to his lawyer, ‘Let’s go ahead and settle that.’ There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it.

“Now, all you talk show hosts and lawyers who are listening to me, take notes. I want you to copy what I say.

“Let’s say a candidate says, ‘Get a nondisclosure agreement, pay the funds out of my pocket because I don’t want this person to attack me during the campaign for something that occurred before the campaign.’ That’s perfectly legal. That’s not a campaign expenditure.

“What the prosecution has done here, paid at the direction of the candidate to influence the election, is contorted the law. Could you imagine if the prosecutor’s right and I’m wrong? How do we even work through these issues?

“So the fact that Michael Cohen cuts a deal, the fact that Michael Cohen’s been recording his clients, the fact that Michael Cohen didn’t pay his taxes for five or six years and lied on a loan application, and then agreed to two campaign finance violations, that doesn’t create precedent, legal precedent of any kind.

“There’s been no judge. There’s been no jury.

“I just want to be abundantly clear about— ‘Well, the president’s in the crosshairs now. Now he’s a target.’ The president’s been in the crosshairs. The president’s been a target.

“Why do you think the prosecution wanted those two counts? Why do you think the prosecution wanted those two counts? So they can claim that this is what the law says through the plea bargain that was cut with Cohen. But just because they say it doesn’t make it true. It’s not precedent for anything.”

Sponsored Links