He is a co-conspirator on election finance violation, this isn't even up for debate. Cohen is sitting in a cell over it and he's implicated Trump for it.
Cohen is in a cell because HE pleaded guilty. A candidate is free to contribute to his/her own campaign. It's not even up for debate. yuk, yuk, yuk
I am no expert on campaign finance law, but apparently it's not so cut and dried as you imply. Here is what WaPo said on 8/21/18 about the transaction My suggestion is that it would be worth your while to read this so that no one can claim you are living your life in a mushroom cave. see https://www.washingtonpost.com/ for the entire article ... There’s a natural question that emerges here: Is Trump himself exposed to criminal liability for these payments? Setting aside the question of whether a prosecutor would seek an indictment against a sitting president or even whether such an indictment is possible, it’s a question worth answering. Charlie Spies, who served as counsel for Mitt Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign, noted that Cohen’s admission of guilt didn’t necessarily mean that Trump was at risk. Trump could argue the expense was made for a personal purpose — to maintain his personal and professional reputation — rather than for a campaign purpose, he said. Lawrence Noble, former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission, suggested that Trump’s actions put him at risk. “If Trump on his own, or through Cohen, coordinated with AMI to buy her story to prevent it from coming out and hurting his campaign, then he solicited and accepted an illegal corporate contribution from AMI,” Noble said. That’s a violation of federal law. Moreover, Noble noted, the reimbursement by the Trump Organization for the Daniels payment was itself problematic. “If Trump authorized or coordinated the Trump Organization reimbursing Cohen for the Daniels payments,” Noble said, “then he is liable for the company making, and his campaign accepting, illegal corporate contributions.” Richard Hasen, election law expert at the University of California at Irvine, agreed. Hasen said that Cohen’s violations could pose “liability on behalf of the campaign and liability on behalf of the Trump Organization, but there’s potential that Trump himself could be personally liable for conspiring to engage in this activity.” “If the Justice Department were dealing with an ordinary case not dealing with the president, it sounds like he [Trump] could potentially be charged with a crime,” he added. Cohen’s attorney Lanny Davis offered his thoughts on Twitter. Today he stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election. If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn't they be a crime for Donald Trump? — Lanny Davis (@LannyDavis) August 21, 2018 For months — more than a year — Trump has insisted that he is not implicated in the broad investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. His refrain of “no collusion” has became a go-to mantra meant to distance himself and his campaign from wrongdoing. In court on Tuesday, his former attorney and “fixer” made clear that the Russia investigation is not Trump’s only worry. Michelle Ye Hee Lee contributed to this report. .
Key sentence... Trump could argue the expense was made for a personal purpose — to maintain his personal and professional reputation — rather than for a campaign purpose, he said. There is no way to prove Trump did this for any other purpose.
That's where I think you may be mistaken. Certainly the attorney who suggested Trump could argue this is very likely correct. He could argue that! Trump's problem however are the tapes. It is my understanding that in at least one of those tapes that were seized in the FBI raid., and possibly more than one, it is very clear that Trump is doing this to influence the election. That's apparently, as I understand it, what is illegal here. And then there is another equally serious problem for Trump. It seems that Cohen is ready to testify that he was directed to pay off those women by Trump for the specific purpose on influencing the election. That's not hearsay. It goes again to proof of intent. So I think you may not be correct when you say, "There is no way to prove Trump did this for any other purpose. " That would have to be adjudicated, and it doesn't look anything like a slam dunk for Trump as long as that tape is out there and Cohen is ready to talk.
What I think I have learned is that fucking with elections is taken very seriously and there is apparently a lot of statutory law dealing with just such. Some of the things that you or I might think a candidate would just be fined for, and maybe get a hand slap, are felonies! I don't see myself ever running for federal public office. But if I were to, I think the very first thing I would do is go over the statutes concerning elections with a fine tooth comb and make damn sure I don't violate any of them.