Since it’s looking likely that the fallout from Michael Cohen and Donald Trump will look a lot like the John Edwards case in 2012 ==>

Then why don’t take a look at what Donald Trump was saying about Edward back then?

Yes, there is always a tweet for everything:

Andrew Young is the Michael Cohen of the John Edwards story if you don’t recall the details:

Trump then gave an interview with Greta Van Susteren where he basically said it was time for the government to move on from its prosecution of Edwards:

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, and another tweet today which I found particularly intriguing is this one. I have never been a fan of John Edwards,” referring to Senator John Edwards, former senator John Edwards, “but it’s time for the government to focus on more important things.”

Are you becoming chairman of the John Edwards defense committee, I…

TRUMP: Not at all. I’m not a fan at all. I never liked him. I never trusted him. I always thought he was a sleazebag, frankly. But you know what? With all that’s going on in this country, they’re going out — and this is a very, very tough trial, to start off with. And a lot of people are saying it’s not a trial that the government’s going to win.

But with all of that — everything going on, with the money that is being — just billions and trillions of dollars being thrown out the window, I really think we have better things to do.

And frankly, a lot of people say, and a lot of very good lawyers have told me, that the government doesn’t have a good case. They’re spending months and years on this case.

And I am, again, not a fan. I don’t believe him at all. But I hate to see resources wasted to this extent. His life is destroyed anyway, regardless. And I hate to see this kind of money and effort. We could put money and effort into something else that’s a lot more productive.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I’m certainly not a fan of Senator John Edwards. I’m a fan of trying to sort of keep the integrity of the system. And I am somewhat curious, since he is — you know, this is such — he’s such an unlikable guy — he’s, you know, cheating on his wife — she’s dying of cancer and lying about a baby, that I wonder if — you know, I do wonder if it’s humanly possible for jurors to sit there and look only at the evidence, knowing in the back of their mind that he’s such a cad.

And I wonder if sort of our personal opinions have so poisoned us to – – away from looking coldly and dispassionately at the evidence, and fairly.

TRUMP: Well, I think despite what the lawyers are all saying, that it’s not a very good case from the government, he may lose just because of what you just said. I mean, people are not thrilled with him.

And they really tended to like the wife. I just — I had a lot of respect for her. I met her once or twice, and I sort of had this respect for her. I thought she was very strong, very solid.

And you know, he was a bad guy in a lot of different ways. And he could take a case that really shouldn’t be won, he could make them win it. So let’s see what happens. But with all that’s happening in this world and in this country, I just think that maybe they have better things to do.

Trump was eventually proven right as the case against Edwards fell apart at trial and the charges were eventually dismissed:

And how about what Lanny Davis, Michael Cohen’s attorney, thought of Edwards? Back in 2011 — when Edwards was still considered a threat to his preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton — Davis wrote for the HuffPost that a case against Edwards should go forward:

At first blush, the decision to indict former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) for conspiracy to accept illegal campaign contributions, given the facts and circumstances, seems like a stretch, to say the least.

The definition of “campaign contributions” has never to date been used to apply in this particular fact pattern — when donations were made to a third party, not to the campaign itself, for the purpose of keeping quiet an embarrassing affair of the presidential candidate as well as a child conceived out of wedlock, all of which, if made public at the time, would have “destroyed” his campaign, according to the indictment.

But on second look, after reading the literal words of the definition of “campaign contribution,” and then the factual allegations of the government in the indictment, it does seem possible that the case could lead to a guilty verdict.

This might be the rare time in politics where both newsmakers are consistent?