For a witch hunt, they sure seem to be finding a lot of witches.
The investigation is finding a lot of criminal activity, although much of the found criminal activity was previously known to investigators and it was decided to not pursue charges, meaning the charges were political in nature.
This should be chilling. News organizations have 1st amendment exemptions to campaign finance laws, they are able to endorse candidates and otherwise provide favorable/unfavorable coverage to candidates (which is very valuable) without having to report the value of such on campaign reporting forms. It is also very common for a news outlet to investigate a story (regarding a candidate), only to not report said story because it is not credible (remember that anything a news outlet publishes will affect it's reputation). I would also point out that major news outlets frequently refrain from reporting favorable information about the current state of the economy and the county, even though they spend money obtaining this information -- none of this is reported on any campaign finance disclosure form.
From what I've heard, Cohen's guilty plea was unusual in that he seemed to plea guilty without actually cooperating with law enforcement or even seeking a typical plea deal. I wonder what that's about.
It is not entirely uncommon for defendants to plea guilty to a crime in exchange for some of the charges to be dropped. My understanding is that prosecutors were ready to charge Cohen with 20 counts of various crimes, and that the plea deal will prevent additional related charges from being brought.
And the campaign finance thing seems like a real stretch, since Trump has buried personally-damaging stories like this on several occasions before he was running for president.
The facts surrounding the bank fraud charges are likely illegal (the bringing of said charges are still political though), however the underlying facts around the campaign finance violations are almost certainly not illegal however. The test of if something is a campaign expense is to ask if someone would have incurred an expense if they were not running a campaign, and if they would have, it is not a campaign expense. For example, if you have a debate on Tuesday, you might get a massage on Monday to be relaxed for the debate, or get a haircut so you look sharp during the debate, however neither of these are campaign expenditures. Further, all campaign expenditures are paid out of the "campaign" so if one were to argue the campaign should have paid off Trump's former girlfriend for her silence, then the argument is that political donors (via the campaign) should be paying for this, which of course is hogwash. Even if one reason for the payment was to help his election chances, Trump would have made this payment if he was not running for office to protect his reputation and marriage, which makes this a personal expense.
In regards to Cohens tax fraud charges, it is more common for someone to get audited, and as a result of the audit, for the IRS to find shady business, charge the back taxes, and penalties, and to move on. My understanding is that the filing of an amended return (that results from an audit, although also otherwise) with correct information will prevent prosecutors from filing tax fraud charges.
In regards to all of the charges, I suspect that if Cohen had agreed to corporate to provide evidence against Trump, he likely would not have received any jail time, any fine, and the prosecutors likely would not have forced Cohen to file amended tax returns with corrected information (pay back taxes). See the deal that Gates got.
I think that Trump will pardon Manafort, which is a horrible move politically. Impeachment is unlikely, but if it does happen, we might end up looking back on that pardon as being the thing which ultimately resulted in Trump getting impeached. But a strong desire to pardon is understandable from Trump's perspective.
I think manafort should be pardoned. He should wait until the Mueller investigation is complete, or at least until Manafort is sentenced and it is clear he is unwilling (or much more likely, unable) to corporate.
I don't really understand that part, why does he want to pardon Manafort? Just because he didn't flip? It's not over yet, Manafort still has one federal suit pending and there's state-level tax fraud so he's likely going to jail even with the pardon.
Trump is friends with Manafort, he believes (maybe rightly) that Manafort would not be in any trouble if not for his association with Trump, and Manafort is remaining loyal. Trump has proven throughout his presidency that the #1 thing he cares about is personal loyalty, so he will feel obligated to protect Manafort here. Trump isn't the kind of person who can easily throw someone under the bus, and he will perceive not pardoning Manafort as doing so.
Manafort owns a condo in Trump tower in NY, and has likely known Trump for some time before his candidacy. Manafort was previously investigated and the FBI declined to pursue charges.
I don't think there is anything Manafort can say that would be harmful to Trump, however he can obviously make things up. If Manafort does makes things up, he is risking Trump allowing him to spend the rest of his life in jail, essentially for no reason.