Nothing to see here? Donald Trump's inaugural committee reportedly at center of federal criminal probe

All’s well in Trump Land! Or maybe not:

NEW from the WSJ: A federal probe is looking at whether Trump’s inaugural committee misspent funds and top donors gave money in exchange for access to administration. https://t.co/GiuBUYuoAg

— Byron Tau (@ByronTau) December 13, 2018

NEW: Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trump’s 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations. https://t.co/RabObXYlB6

— Yashar Ali ? (@yashar) December 13, 2018

This is fine:

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trump’s 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations, people familiar with the matter said.

The criminal probe by the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office, which is in its early stages, also is examining whether some of the committee’s top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming Trump administration, policy concessions or to influence official administration positions, some of the people said.

…

The investigation represents another potential legal threat to people who are or were in Mr. Trump’s orbit. Their business dealings and activities during and since the campaign have led to a number of indictments and guilty pleas. Many of the president’s biggest campaign backers were involved in the inaugural fund.

The investigation partly arises out of materials seized in the federal probe of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s business dealings, according to people familiar with the matter.

Surely it’s nothing. If there’s one thing we know about Donald Trump and his many associates, it’s that they like to make sure everything’s always above-board.

The Wall Street Journal has previously reported that Donald Trump was the third person in the room with David Pecker and Michael Cohen when possible payments to women were discussed in August of 2015, NBC News has now also confirmed that reporting: https://t.co/o4vv6uymF8

— Tom Winter (@Tom_Winter) December 13, 2018

Excellent. Just excellent.

"Hush money payoffs to mistresses aren't campaign contributions" . . . unless a magazine exec asks the candidate how he can help the campaign, and the candidate responds, "you can help pay hush money to my mistresses."

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) December 13, 2018

It was obvious from the beginning this is where it was going when they gave Pecker immunity. It wasn't to go after Cohen.

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) December 13, 2018

Apparently not.

Just imagine how Trump supporters would react if there was evidence that Obama or Hillary were in the room as an illegal action was being discussed… https://t.co/Z9GqYfN2oU

— Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) December 13, 2018

They’d be rightly outraged. The morality of alleged illegal activity shouldn’t be dependent on political party. Wrong is wrong. And if Donald Trump or his associates are indeed guilty of illegal activity, they need to be held to account.

But in the interest of balance, here’s another way of looking at the Wall Street Journal’s report:

Wait! What do they think, why do people make large political contributions? Just out of the goodness of their hearts?

Not arguing that it should be this way, but every large political contribution to any politician is to buy influence. https://t.co/W70I9LmlhF

— The Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) December 13, 2018

Still, this really doesn’t look too good for Team Trump.

This is the rest of the Trump presidency right here. Careening from corruption scandal to corruption scandal. https://t.co/z59BFGsUrd

— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) December 13, 2018

Better buckle up … this is gonna get a lot bumpier before the smoke clears.

Editor’s note: This post has been updated with additional text.