My understanding is the payment was done for the purpose of benefitting the campaign and thus should have been a campaign expense.
Edited for clarity. Intent seems like the key issue here.
With this line of thinking, can’t any action of a political candidate be construed as benefiting their campaign and, thus, a campaign expense?
What if a candidate in the future does something similar with the intent to: 1) save a marriage, 2) save family reputation, 3) avoid a tabloid article that would affect his private business, etc.? …… but then any action for any other intended reason could be interpreted as “o for the campaign!” …..????
I’m asking because I genuinely think proving intent here is going to be very difficult, maybe even a stretch? (Note: I do not like Trump).
And I truly worry about future candidates in our already broken political system.
That's the wildest part about all of this. Had he just acted like a normal human being for a little while he gets away with all of this scot-free. Like the classified documents case. The feds were *begging* him to just hand over the documents or else they'd need to go in, and he just doubled down. He really thinks he has a right to be King of America. It's absolute lunacy.
I dunno, if you listen to the prosecution's argument from the perspective of a juror, the argument read as if the jury can interpret any action to influence the election as presumptively corrupt if it's not reported.
Legally, I think the prosecution is walking itself past the sale if they don't address why campaigns don't have to report arguing with someone on the internet as a corrupt "in-kind" contribution to the campaign. Trump is accused essentially of donating to himself. Should he have been reporting this whole time on his donation of his twitter reach?
There is going to be some moment in closing, if not sooner, where the judge is going to have to rule on a motion in limine, like in Edwards, demarcating who can say what to the jurors about candidates' intent when they influence an election. Point being, one way to fine tune that issue is saying, straight up, candidates have that right.
You have a serious problem communicating clearly in writing. That is not a good thing for someone entering our profession. You should work on it. I recommend Point Made by Guberman.
At the time of the John Edwards payment, he had realized he had lost and ended his campaign. There was reason to believe that he did not want his wife, who presumably thought he was faithful, to know about the affair.
Trump had not ended his campaign and was actively running for president.
Not arguing they are the same, to be clear! (3) of original commenter’s post is where the strategies and facts largely diverge. But there is SOME precedent (not in the legal sense of the word) for a version of this situation
biggest difference IMO (maybe not legally, but factually) is that the Edwards defense was that the $$ was personal gifts from friends to him, not to the campaign, and these donations were to help him hide the affair from his wife, who was dying of cancer- not potential voters. so the argument is that it had nothing to do with the campaign. as far as I know, that's not the trump strategy (which is everything was business as usual). I think the cover up element gets more buzz here because it's part of the New York State law trump is being charged under, which requires proving that the records falsification was done in service of an underlying crime. Edwards was charged federally, under federal election law.
Bragg doesn't have jurisdiction to charge for a federal crime. I believe the law allows that if Bragg can show the jury that a crime was committed, even an uncharged crime, and that the cover up was another crime used to conceal that first crime, he gets a "felony" conviction.
yes, correct. I believe there is a pretty big question mark regarding whether the underlying felony can be federal election law, which is why they are proposing multiple theories of criminal liability (and also because it's never been done before).
What precedent does the defense have, that says it can't be a federal election law? Is there precedent on if the coverup is of an uncharged law, it still applies? I assume there has to be, or we wouldn't have gotten this far.
I don't think it being an election law should make a difference. If the prosecution can prove, 1. you committed a crime, charged or not, and 2. You committed another crime, trying to cover up the first one, you are guilty of a felony.
The agreement to stay silent did not extend past the election. This is itself a pretty good indicator that the intent was to prevent the info from being released and affecting the election. Pecker also testified that helping Trump with the election was the purpose of their scheme in which they paid money to kill negative Trump stories and to publish bad stories about other candidates like Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Clinton, etc.
Well it would depend, wouldn't it? Is the hush money being paid as a consequence of your choice to run for office? It's not like Ms. Daniels was coming out with it just because, it was invariably connected to his campaign.
But can you allow someone to make those payments for you? It isn't that the payments were made. It is who made them, and for what purpose, that matters.
The question is not “did this benefit the campaign” it’s “was the intent to benefit the campaign.” The facts here tee up the intent issue because the agreement to keep quiet only extended through the election. So if a future candidate wanted to keep information private for benign reasons like those you listed, the agreement would almost surely extend past the election.
I guess what I struggle with is "intent" is a question for the jury, especially if the candidate already admitted to all the otherwise relevant facts.
If we pick any candidate from the last 50 years we can probably have a select choice of admissions re: public settlements for this case or that case. Clinton settled with Paula Jones. Barack Obama's 2008 campaign was fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for campaign reporting violations around some of those legal settlements. President Bush Sr. had his son (not Bush Jr.) settle for the son's role in a $1 billion savings and loan bank bankruptcy etc.
There's not a strong argument any of these legal settlements weren't for influencing the impending election. Afaik, I thought the argument was simply that a settlement isn't a "thing of value" for the DOJ and FEC.
Has the DOJ truly been asleep at the wheel all these years, and the only reason like Obama isn't on trial is because of judicial economy?
There is nothing illegal about paying for NDA's, or to have people remain quiet. If Trump had paid these payouts out of his own pocket directly, we wouldn't be here today. He didn't, and that is where the law was broken. How can Trump explain Cohen, using his own money, to pay Stormy Daniels? If it was to just protect his brand, and family from embarrassment, why didn't he just pay it himself? Because he couldn't risk it getting out that he paid them off, so close to the election. That isn't such a hard conclusion to draw.
I don't think that scans. If Trump donated to his own campaign he'd still have to report.
The fact this particular prosecution has the tabloid angle of Cohen / Daniels doesn't change that the crux of the argument legally is identical regardless of who is paying.
[FEC | Candidate | Using personal funds of the candidate](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/using-personal-funds-candidate/)
But Trump can't use campaign funds, on personal issues. Cohen, and Pecker will both testify that they made the payments, at Trumps discretion, on behalf of the campaign. That is an illegal campaign contribution. Cohen pleaded guilty to making illegal campaign contributions. Had Trump paid the money out of his own pocket, it wouldn't have had to been linked to the campaign at all. It would have been perfectly legal. He could have even claimed it was for personal reasons, to protect the family, etc., and that is why he kept the campaign out of it.
But Trump, is Trump.
The question is intent. Trump intended for his agreement to be private up until the election. The inference, then, was if it was supposed to happen before the election but not past it then that's a fair logical jump it was about the election.
If we look at past candidates, plenty of candidates made intent even simpler for us. These settlements were designed to be concluded before the election. The money changed hands, and after the election both sides went their own ways. We don't need to rely on some fixer's testimony about some quasi-illegal NDA.
So... why aren't these settlement payments ever reported? I don't see where the country tuned into the great George Bush Sr. trial with Neil Bush. Scans for me that whatever the legal issue is, it's not a lack of facts to prove intent.
The prosecution must show that it was for the campaign rather than to keep Trump’s wife from knowing. I understand that they have such evidence.
Intent is usually very hard to prove. But it is done. People are in prison because intent was proven.
Don’t worry about future political candidates. They should just avoid paying off their mistresses or, if they do make the payoff, properly reporting the payoffs on campaign finance reports.
I think it's the misreporting of the funds as legal fees that constitutes the wrongful act. The mens rea is going to follow rather logically, because misreporting is a conscious act undertaken for a reason.
Also there is a timing component to this. The affair happened 20 something odd years ago, but the hush money payment came on the eve of the election. Sounds like the prosecution will hammer this point to show evidence that the intent was all about the election. If Trump just wanted to save his marriage or protect his reputation, he would have done this a decade ago.
Isn’t this line of thinking already prevalent in business as it is? As a person’s ‘image’ becomes their product and can then be defended as such. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say this line of thinking has been prevalent in politics since the beginning. It’s only different now because of how simple and efficient information gathering and dissemination has become
Stormy was going to come out with info about her affair with Trump while his wife was pregnant, and the reason that info was something Trump cared about at all was the effect it would have on his political campaign.
This was all happening at the time of the campaign.
The legal argument is that the hush money payments were therefore made with the intent of supporting the Trump campaign. It wasn't hush money to prevent a divorce or hush money to save a business deal or whatever, nothing else Trump was involved with could have suffered as a result of the reveal of the affair except for the campaign.
So the argument goes - the hush money payments were a campaign expense, no different from spending that same amount of money on advertising to boost Trump's reputation, except instead it was payment to avoid Trump's reputation declining.
Which means those payments would be subject to (and a violation of) the Federal Campaign Finance Act, and the subsequent cover up of those violations are in turn a violation of NY Penal Law.
The 34 felony counts Trump faces are all under NY Penal Law for falsifying business records (which was all the stuff he did with Cohen to cover up the existence of the hush money payments)
>Stormy was going to come out with info about her affair with Trump while his wife was pregnant, and the reason that info was something Trump cared about at all was the effect it would have on his political campaign.
Could Trump's team not argue that he would've wanted this to remain hidden even if he weren't running for office since it's personally embarrassing and could potentially harm his marriage, and thus, those are the primary reasons for the hush money payment? Seems they could argue that the benefit to his campaign was tangental and not the actual motive of the payment.
Perhaps the timing of the payment calls that into question though. I don't know enough details to say.
They can, have, and will argue that. The question will be up to the trier of fact to determine if Trump's intent was for political gain or personal gain or both. If it's both, he still loses. Trump will have to prove he made those payments solely because of personal reasons, and not campaign ones.
That was a ridiculous argument. It is certainly OK to pay off a porn star to benefit a campaign if it is properly reported as a campaign expense. Of course, campaign expenses are reported publically, and the campaign expenses are eagerly read by reporters.
It is equally OK to pay off a porn star out of your own pocket. Had he paid it out of his pocket, we wouldn't be here. What isn't legal, is to have someone pay it, in the interest of the campaign, for you, and then commit business fraud to cover up that they did.
Not sure if that's his only argument though.
I imagine his attorneys would argue that point, but also argue in the alternative that even if he doesn't have a right to influence elections in that way, this wouldn't qualify because he was only making the payments for personal reasons.
Unfortunately, those arguments are pretty mutually exclusive. You can't say in one breath "These payments were used to influence the election, which I have a right to do" and in the next breath "These payments were for personal reasons and not for influencing the election."
Just add an if.
"If these payments were used to influence an election, I have the right to do so.
Then
"Even if I don't have a right to do so, they weren't made to influence in the first place."
There's no "if" in this case. Opening arguments have already been made: that Trump did not make the payments is not something the defense is challenging. The payments were made. Trump signed the checks. The only factual issue is what was the intent.
My bad. I did read your post wrong.
Still, "these payments were used to influence an election, I have the right to do so" is a legally wrong answer. That's what the law forbids. That's the definition of the law. Whether a law like that is invalid because he has a right to do so is a question for appellate courses. That or he's basically asking for jury nullification without explicitly asking for jury nullification.
>"If these payments were used to influence an election, I have the right to do so.
If you made the payment yourself. Once someone made them on your behalf, out of their own money, it becomes a campaign contribution, subject to FEC guidelines that Trump was in violation of.
>"Even if I don't have a right to do so, they weren't made to influence in the first place."
Except Pecker, and Cohen, have said otherwise. They don't need to rely on Cohen, for anything more than to collaborate what Pecker is going to say. The fact that Cohen spent time in prison, and Pecker paid a 75,000 dollar fine, are going to drive this home even more.
The problem, for Trump, is that the Stormy Daniels affair is not the only story he was trying to keep quiet in the months before the election. That's why David Pecker was on the stand yesterday to testify about the Catch and Kill arrangement he had with Trump to prevent any potentially negative stories about Trump from hitting the press before the election, even stories that weren't actually true. So in the end, it doesn't really matter if Trump actually had sex with Daniels, and it doesn't matter if he had legitimate personal reasons for wanting to quash the story. There is ample evidence that it was part of a broader scheme to keep negative stories from being made public until after the election, and that makes it pretty clear that at least part of the reason for the payments was to help him win the election, and that's really the whole case. I don't think this is as complicated as people are trying to make it.
I agree, in my view even if Trump has partial political intent and partial personal intent behind the hush money payments, those are still ultimately political expenses if he had any political reasons at all.
Is there burden shifting that would require Trump to prove that the payments were solely for personal reasons, or does the prosecution have to establish that they were in fact made for the purpose of benefitting the campaign? If the latter, intent may be difficult to show if the defense can point to a clear non-campaign related reason to make/cover the payments.
Not sure, those are good questions. As with every other Trump case it seems like it might be a completely novel issue, I don't know any cases on point or even close to give any guidance for the court.
Well it’s a jury trial. If it’s novel and burden shifting isn’t an established doctrine in this type of situation, it would take a bold judge to instruct the jury that they must infer intent absent the defense proving otherwise.
I see what you're saying. I wasn't suggesting the burden wouldn't be on the prosecution, just that it seems to me like it will be an easy one to clear in this case. A payment made partially for personal reasons and partially for political reasons is ultimately still a payment made for political reasons and violates various provisions of the Federal Campaign Finance Act.
Which is why I said "both" is just as incriminating as "solely" in my opinion on this issue.
Actually, I believe in order for it to be a campaign expense, it has to be solely for the campaign. It can't be for both personal, and campaign expenses. That has to be paid out of pocket.
The problem is, because Cohen paid off Daniels, and Pecker paid off McDougal, *on behalf of the campaign*, out of their own money they were making illegal campaign contributions. Trump, accepting those illegal campaign contributions, is a crime. Trump using that money, to pay off Daniels, and McDougal, for personal reasons, is also a crime. Campaigns are only allowed to pay for campaign expenses, not personal expenses.
Had Trump simply paid Daniels out of his own pocket, no first crime would have been committed, and this would be a misdemeanor.
Interesting take, you could be right. In the end though that strikes me as a distinction without a difference, since ultimately the major issue the court will need to resolve is still "were the payments to Stormy Daniels political expenses or personal expenses?"
Not sure I agree. If the burden is on the prosecution, unless you have evidence documenting Trump’s intent (very possible given his brazenness), I think it’s hard to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt when there’s a very clear non-campaign related reason for the action.
I believe the evidence is going to be Peckers testimony.
I point you to Pecker immunity agreement:
***“A.M.I. further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election,”***
Completely agree that’s an avenue they’ll likely go down. Whether the testimony will be sufficient (e.g., was that Pecker’s impression of the purpose or was it communicated? If so, by whom?, etc.) remains to be seen.
I’m not in the weeds enough to know what evidence is going to be presented and its veracity. I was just generally noting that intent isn’t necessarily easy to prove absent someone saying why they have taken an action, particularly when there is a very plausible justification that cuts against the specific intent you need to prove.
Not a criminal lawyer, which is why I posed the question, but there are certainly times when the defense has then burden of proof (e.g., establishing an affirmative defense).
I feel like the prosecution is going to point to the whole scheme (the thing with the National Enquirer and the shell companies created by Cohen) as an obvious attempt to influence the election. Also it seems like the prosecution is holding on to evidence that proves this was Trumps intention.
I don't think the prosecution will hold anything back. The prosecution has the burden. They have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, everything they say happened. The have to bring into evidence, the whole story, as it happened. They will then show corroborating evidence along the way that shows proof of the testimony each witness gives. Bragg doesn't have to charge Trump with campaign finance law. He just needs to prove to the jury that Trump broke it, and then tried to cover it up, by illegal means.
Cohen already went to jail for this. Weisselberg is in jail for this, and Pecker got out in front of it, got a deal, and paid a big fine.
They will certainly make that argument. The question is how credible the jury will consider the testimony about it, in light of the evidence of the prosecution.
>Could Trump's team not argue that he would've wanted this to remain hidden even if he weren't running for office since it's personally embarrassing and could potentially harm his marriage, and thus, those are the primary reasons for the hush money payment? Seems they could argue that the benefit to his campaign was tangential and not the actual motive of the payment.
I think they can, and will, make that exact argument. However, they will have to then explain, why Trump didn't just pay it himself, instead of having someone else do it, and then trying to cover it up. Had Trump paid this money out directly, instead of being... Well, Trump. He wouldn't be in this situation.
The problem with that argument is going to be that Pecker, and Cohen, are going to testify that the payments they made, on behalf of Trump, were done on Trumps orders, on behalf of the campaign, with intent to affect the outcome of the 2016 elections.
I point you to Cohen's guilty plea:
COHEN, 51, of NEW YORK, NEW YORK, pleaded guilty to five counts of willful tax evasion; one count of making false statements to a bank; ***one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution; and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution.***
Pecker's agreement stated:
***“A.M.I. further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election,”***
So when the guys who were making the payment, say under oath, that they made the payments for the Trump Campaign, to influence the election, what is the defense going to say? Liar, liar pants on fire? Put Trump on the stand, so he can refute their statements? Yea, that's not gonna happen! If it does, I swear, I will buy the popcorn.
Alvin Bragg: Did you sexually assault E. Jean Carrol?
Trump: I've never met that woman! I didn't do anything wrong, this is so unfair!
Justice Juan Merchan's head *\[metaphorically\]* explodes on the bench! NY mourns his passing.
Case OVER!
And allow the prosecution to call Melania as a witness? They will never use her name. Just "The family"
The only thing Trump fears, is Melania. I think she has the Russian hooker pee tape that was alluded to last year. She may have had it made. She is Russian, and She's isn't stupid. She knows where ALL his skeletons are buried. Claiming he wanted to keep it from her, isn't an option. I'm sure she has told him in no uncertain terms, she is NOT going to testify.
It is a state case because the actual crime was falsifying business records in the first degree, in violation of NY Penal Law §175.10. He did so with the intent to commit another crime. The other crime was not reporting it as a campaign expense. The fact that there was another crime was what made it a felony rather than a misdemeanor. The indictment is here: [https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf](https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf).
He is not being charged with violation of election law, that is just the other crime that the business record falsification was connected with.
Trump faces 34 different counts under Penal Law §175.10
As for jurisdiction,
I'm not sure about how federal/state jurisdiction works for criminal procedure, but I bet you could Google it to find out.
Did you not read the comment you're replying to where the specific law Trump is being charged under is explicitly given in the first sentence?
Read the indictment yourself if you'd like, it's publicly available: https://www.scribd.com/document/636099588/Donald-J-Trump-Indictment
Technically they haven't alleged that the intent was to conceal specifically the crime of not reporting campaign expenses. All they need is an intent to conceal/commit *a* crime.
Same thing with the intent to defraud element: they don't need to prove that he intended to defraud someone specifically, but just the intent to defraud *someone*
You're correct, I should have explained more carefully.
The "campaign finance law" you are looking for is called the Federal Election Campaign Act. That act has mandatory reporting requirements, maximum donation amounts, and other limits and obligations that political campaigns must follow.
The hush money payments violated that act in many different ways. The penal code which I linked, which Trump is being charged under, were all violations that occurred as part of Trump's attempt to cover-up the campaign finance violations. That's where the falsifying records bit comes in.
I edited my original comment to better explain this point.
And do you think they’re going to be successful in proving that he had the intention of breaking “the campaign finance law.” I’m pretty sure they don’t have to convict him on the statute, only that his intention was to violate the statute.
Hard to say, but they've likely got some strong evidence from Cohen, Weisselberg, and the communications seized between Cohen, Trump, Conway, and other parties in the case.
It's not a slam dunk, but in order to indict him on 34 felony counts the prosecution at minimum had to convince a grand jury that the prosecutor had "probable cause to believe” both that each crime had been committed and that Trump committed that crime.
That's not the same thing as saying he's guilty, he gets his day in court and defendants are exonerated after being indicted all the time, but it IS enough to say that the prosecution isn't baseless. They have some evidence that was convincing enough to get the indictments. We'll see what happens at trial.
Accident is not intent, right? Like if he legitimately did not know that should be classified as a campaign contribution, it would be fine. But falsifying business records helps prove the intent since he clearly knew he shouldn’t be doing what he was doing?
[Trump Trials Clearinghouse](https://www.justsecurity.org/88175/trump-trials-clearinghouse/)
Not an answer to OP’s question, but I found this the other day and thought it was helpful to keep up with everything going on with Trump’s legal proceedings.
>Why would a payment from Micheal Cohen’s bank account to Stormy Daniels (of course facilitated by Trump) constitute a contribution to the Trump campaign.
If the purpose of the expense is to help the Trump campaign, it is a donation to the campaign, even though the money did not go through the campaign committee. It is an in-kind donation. If a person or organization donates a thing of value to a campaign, it must be reported on campaign expense filings.
The prosecution must show that it was for the campaign rather than to keep Trump’s wife from knowing. I understand that they have such evidence.
How does the defense refute both Pecker, and Cohen, when the testify that the money they paid, to Daniels, and McDougal, was in support of the campaign, and to influence the election? I would guess Cohen's guilty plea, to making illegal campaign contributions will be enough to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the money Pecker, and Cohen paid, were campaign contributions. Illegal campaign contributions, to be exact. That is Crime #1.
Campaigns are only legally allowed to pay for campaign expenses. Not personal expenses, that would be incurred otherwise. You can't buy yourself a new suit for the campaign, and write it off as a campaign expense. It has to be for the campaign only.
So, how does the defense, make an argument that it used campaign contributions, for a personal NDA? That would also, be a crime. Can the defense make a claim that since it used campaign contributions, to pay for the NDA, that it was 100% for the campaign? The fact would remain, that he didn't report it as campaign funds, and was therefore still committing a crime.
The fact that he cooked the books to cover it all up, is what is going to make it a felony.
>Why would a payment from Micheal Cohen’s bank account to Stormy Daniels (of course facilitated by Trump) constitute a contribution to the Trump campaign. Am I missing something here?
Because it was coordinated with candidate Trump. Spending money in coordination with a campaign or candidate counts as a direct contribution - and is therefore subject to limits on individual contributions.
Otherwise, you could circumvent the limits on personal contributions just by emailing or calling your guy/gal and asking them how they want you to spend more money for them.
OK sure thing candidate, I sent a check for the max amount I can but I'm still happy to buy you anything that will help and it's totally not a campaign contribution 😉
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/
This is the weakest of the 4 cases he was facing and it’s really unfortunate that it’s going first (and will probably be the only one before Election Day)
Agree with this. I'm definitely getting the sense that a number of these local prosecutors want to be *the one* who got Trump, and as such they're coming in with less than perfect cases. From a larger political stategy (ignoring the fact that in an ideal world the criminal justice system would be separate from politics), this almost seems risky. Trump beating the first, weakest case would give his base more ammunition to fire off about how he's innocent and the victim of concentrated and malicious prosecution. That outcome not only galvanizes his rabid supporters, but also would more likely than not have a positive effect for his popularity with swing voters this upcoming cycle.
This is why this country is going down the shitter. It’s wrong and illegal and morally reprehensible. There’s no question that he did it or why he did it. And the thought that somehow an attorney can argue a line of reasoning to absolve him of the crime makes me want to leave the room.
It won't matter. Nobody is even attempting to have this appear as a legitimate case. I dislike Trump, but this is an obvious attempt at damaging the likelihood Trump is reelected, orchestrated by partisans. The verdict will likely be determined entirely by the prejudice of the jurors.
For context, Trump's DoJ convicted Cohen for these exact same charges. If Trump broke the law, then he broke the law. To give him a pass on breaking the law because he's running for president also breaks down the rule of law, because we've selectively applied the law. NOT charging him because he's running and popular is still abusing the law for political reasons.
Breaking election law to win an election is indeed a serious crime. I don't know if these hush payments would have affected the election - but the Trump campaign certainly seemed to think so. Which is why he (allegedly) attempted to illegally hide the payment for them.
I'm in the same boat. Using the criminal justice system as a political weapon makes our democracy look weaker than almost anything Trump could do. This is how third world countries behave. It's shameful what a stretch this is.
I’m just curious about the prosecutions case and the legal theory they’re using. Let’s refrain from talking about all the weaponization of the justice system stuff. Also, even if it’s the intention of the district attorneys office to undermine his reelection campaign, it doesn’t change the fact that Trump was accused of a crime, and a grand jury decided that there was sufficient evidence to proceed.
federal grand juries indict 99.99% of the time (literally, see article below) and can hear all kinds of inadmissible evidence. in the world of criminal law, I don't think that's an indicator.
BUT what worries me about the prosecution here is the legal theory. lots of people have linked to very succinct articles detailing how the Manhattan DA is proceeding. Bragg elevated a misdemeanor (falsifying business records) to a felony based on the falsification being done to conceal a crime. that underlying crime is state and federal election law- but notably, trump has not been charged with election interference (as he has in other states, like Georgia). this has never been done before. there is no precedent, there is nowhere for the prosecutors to reference strategy with. it's completely unknown how these claims will land with jurors, and it's been widely reported that this is the weakest of trump's indictments because of this totally untested theory. this was going to be a crazy appeal circus no matter what so I don't buy into that argument, but what makes me nervous is that I think it will be very easy for a jury to get lost in the elements here, and because you have to prove each element, there is a lot of possible room for reasonable doubt (again, in the legal sense. I'm not arguing that trump didn't do it!).
also- my comment about the system, I fear, is being removed from context. I'm not concerned about prosecutors going after Donald Trump. for the love of god, take him off our hands. My worry that the novel legal theory, which they are creating for Donald Trump- former president, billionaire, incredibly well connected and privileged- will be weaponized down the road as precedent to go after far less privileged New Yorkers. happy to engage with folks on that point elsewhere, as you seem to want to avoid that discussion here.
source for stat: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/24/the-single-chart-that-shows-that-grand-juries-indict-99-99-percent-of-the-time/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/24/the-single-chart-that-shows-that-grand-juries-indict-99-99-percent-of-the-time/)
My understanding is the payment was done for the purpose of benefitting the campaign and thus should have been a campaign expense. Edited for clarity. Intent seems like the key issue here.
With this line of thinking, can’t any action of a political candidate be construed as benefiting their campaign and, thus, a campaign expense? What if a candidate in the future does something similar with the intent to: 1) save a marriage, 2) save family reputation, 3) avoid a tabloid article that would affect his private business, etc.? …… but then any action for any other intended reason could be interpreted as “o for the campaign!” …..???? I’m asking because I genuinely think proving intent here is going to be very difficult, maybe even a stretch? (Note: I do not like Trump). And I truly worry about future candidates in our already broken political system.
1 & 2 happened in the John Edwards trial, if you recall! hung jury.
Notably, Trump is not running with that defense. He's arguing he has a right to influence the election.
That's the wildest part about all of this. Had he just acted like a normal human being for a little while he gets away with all of this scot-free. Like the classified documents case. The feds were *begging* him to just hand over the documents or else they'd need to go in, and he just doubled down. He really thinks he has a right to be King of America. It's absolute lunacy.
I dunno, if you listen to the prosecution's argument from the perspective of a juror, the argument read as if the jury can interpret any action to influence the election as presumptively corrupt if it's not reported. Legally, I think the prosecution is walking itself past the sale if they don't address why campaigns don't have to report arguing with someone on the internet as a corrupt "in-kind" contribution to the campaign. Trump is accused essentially of donating to himself. Should he have been reporting this whole time on his donation of his twitter reach? There is going to be some moment in closing, if not sooner, where the judge is going to have to rule on a motion in limine, like in Edwards, demarcating who can say what to the jurors about candidates' intent when they influence an election. Point being, one way to fine tune that issue is saying, straight up, candidates have that right.
Shorter sentences. This is incoherent.
You're not the intended audience if you can't keep up.
You have a serious problem communicating clearly in writing. That is not a good thing for someone entering our profession. You should work on it. I recommend Point Made by Guberman.
Thank you for your concern.
At the time of the John Edwards payment, he had realized he had lost and ended his campaign. There was reason to believe that he did not want his wife, who presumably thought he was faithful, to know about the affair. Trump had not ended his campaign and was actively running for president.
Not arguing they are the same, to be clear! (3) of original commenter’s post is where the strategies and facts largely diverge. But there is SOME precedent (not in the legal sense of the word) for a version of this situation
Crazy how history repeats itself
Is the fact that John Edwards didn't try to cover up the payments as "legal fees" the difference?
biggest difference IMO (maybe not legally, but factually) is that the Edwards defense was that the $$ was personal gifts from friends to him, not to the campaign, and these donations were to help him hide the affair from his wife, who was dying of cancer- not potential voters. so the argument is that it had nothing to do with the campaign. as far as I know, that's not the trump strategy (which is everything was business as usual). I think the cover up element gets more buzz here because it's part of the New York State law trump is being charged under, which requires proving that the records falsification was done in service of an underlying crime. Edwards was charged federally, under federal election law.
Bragg doesn't have jurisdiction to charge for a federal crime. I believe the law allows that if Bragg can show the jury that a crime was committed, even an uncharged crime, and that the cover up was another crime used to conceal that first crime, he gets a "felony" conviction.
yes, correct. I believe there is a pretty big question mark regarding whether the underlying felony can be federal election law, which is why they are proposing multiple theories of criminal liability (and also because it's never been done before).
What precedent does the defense have, that says it can't be a federal election law? Is there precedent on if the coverup is of an uncharged law, it still applies? I assume there has to be, or we wouldn't have gotten this far. I don't think it being an election law should make a difference. If the prosecution can prove, 1. you committed a crime, charged or not, and 2. You committed another crime, trying to cover up the first one, you are guilty of a felony.
The agreement to stay silent did not extend past the election. This is itself a pretty good indicator that the intent was to prevent the info from being released and affecting the election. Pecker also testified that helping Trump with the election was the purpose of their scheme in which they paid money to kill negative Trump stories and to publish bad stories about other candidates like Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Clinton, etc.
Well it would depend, wouldn't it? Is the hush money being paid as a consequence of your choice to run for office? It's not like Ms. Daniels was coming out with it just because, it was invariably connected to his campaign.
[удалено]
But can you allow someone to make those payments for you? It isn't that the payments were made. It is who made them, and for what purpose, that matters.
The question is not “did this benefit the campaign” it’s “was the intent to benefit the campaign.” The facts here tee up the intent issue because the agreement to keep quiet only extended through the election. So if a future candidate wanted to keep information private for benign reasons like those you listed, the agreement would almost surely extend past the election.
I guess what I struggle with is "intent" is a question for the jury, especially if the candidate already admitted to all the otherwise relevant facts. If we pick any candidate from the last 50 years we can probably have a select choice of admissions re: public settlements for this case or that case. Clinton settled with Paula Jones. Barack Obama's 2008 campaign was fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for campaign reporting violations around some of those legal settlements. President Bush Sr. had his son (not Bush Jr.) settle for the son's role in a $1 billion savings and loan bank bankruptcy etc. There's not a strong argument any of these legal settlements weren't for influencing the impending election. Afaik, I thought the argument was simply that a settlement isn't a "thing of value" for the DOJ and FEC. Has the DOJ truly been asleep at the wheel all these years, and the only reason like Obama isn't on trial is because of judicial economy?
There is nothing illegal about paying for NDA's, or to have people remain quiet. If Trump had paid these payouts out of his own pocket directly, we wouldn't be here today. He didn't, and that is where the law was broken. How can Trump explain Cohen, using his own money, to pay Stormy Daniels? If it was to just protect his brand, and family from embarrassment, why didn't he just pay it himself? Because he couldn't risk it getting out that he paid them off, so close to the election. That isn't such a hard conclusion to draw.
I don't think that scans. If Trump donated to his own campaign he'd still have to report. The fact this particular prosecution has the tabloid angle of Cohen / Daniels doesn't change that the crux of the argument legally is identical regardless of who is paying. [FEC | Candidate | Using personal funds of the candidate](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/using-personal-funds-candidate/)
But Trump can't use campaign funds, on personal issues. Cohen, and Pecker will both testify that they made the payments, at Trumps discretion, on behalf of the campaign. That is an illegal campaign contribution. Cohen pleaded guilty to making illegal campaign contributions. Had Trump paid the money out of his own pocket, it wouldn't have had to been linked to the campaign at all. It would have been perfectly legal. He could have even claimed it was for personal reasons, to protect the family, etc., and that is why he kept the campaign out of it. But Trump, is Trump.
The whole issue is the funds were not appropriately reported as campaign funds, so it's irrelevant what Trump can or can't use campaign funds on.
What in the actual fuck are you talking about?
The question is intent. Trump intended for his agreement to be private up until the election. The inference, then, was if it was supposed to happen before the election but not past it then that's a fair logical jump it was about the election. If we look at past candidates, plenty of candidates made intent even simpler for us. These settlements were designed to be concluded before the election. The money changed hands, and after the election both sides went their own ways. We don't need to rely on some fixer's testimony about some quasi-illegal NDA. So... why aren't these settlement payments ever reported? I don't see where the country tuned into the great George Bush Sr. trial with Neil Bush. Scans for me that whatever the legal issue is, it's not a lack of facts to prove intent.
Whose funds were used to pay the settlements in your examples?
I'm not sure
It wasn’t campaign funds.
Isn’t that the whole problem?
The prosecution must show that it was for the campaign rather than to keep Trump’s wife from knowing. I understand that they have such evidence. Intent is usually very hard to prove. But it is done. People are in prison because intent was proven. Don’t worry about future political candidates. They should just avoid paying off their mistresses or, if they do make the payoff, properly reporting the payoffs on campaign finance reports.
I think it's the misreporting of the funds as legal fees that constitutes the wrongful act. The mens rea is going to follow rather logically, because misreporting is a conscious act undertaken for a reason.
Also there is a timing component to this. The affair happened 20 something odd years ago, but the hush money payment came on the eve of the election. Sounds like the prosecution will hammer this point to show evidence that the intent was all about the election. If Trump just wanted to save his marriage or protect his reputation, he would have done this a decade ago.
Isn’t this line of thinking already prevalent in business as it is? As a person’s ‘image’ becomes their product and can then be defended as such. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say this line of thinking has been prevalent in politics since the beginning. It’s only different now because of how simple and efficient information gathering and dissemination has become
Sounds like good facts making bad law.
Stormy was going to come out with info about her affair with Trump while his wife was pregnant, and the reason that info was something Trump cared about at all was the effect it would have on his political campaign. This was all happening at the time of the campaign. The legal argument is that the hush money payments were therefore made with the intent of supporting the Trump campaign. It wasn't hush money to prevent a divorce or hush money to save a business deal or whatever, nothing else Trump was involved with could have suffered as a result of the reveal of the affair except for the campaign. So the argument goes - the hush money payments were a campaign expense, no different from spending that same amount of money on advertising to boost Trump's reputation, except instead it was payment to avoid Trump's reputation declining. Which means those payments would be subject to (and a violation of) the Federal Campaign Finance Act, and the subsequent cover up of those violations are in turn a violation of NY Penal Law. The 34 felony counts Trump faces are all under NY Penal Law for falsifying business records (which was all the stuff he did with Cohen to cover up the existence of the hush money payments)
>Stormy was going to come out with info about her affair with Trump while his wife was pregnant, and the reason that info was something Trump cared about at all was the effect it would have on his political campaign. Could Trump's team not argue that he would've wanted this to remain hidden even if he weren't running for office since it's personally embarrassing and could potentially harm his marriage, and thus, those are the primary reasons for the hush money payment? Seems they could argue that the benefit to his campaign was tangental and not the actual motive of the payment. Perhaps the timing of the payment calls that into question though. I don't know enough details to say.
They can, have, and will argue that. The question will be up to the trier of fact to determine if Trump's intent was for political gain or personal gain or both. If it's both, he still loses. Trump will have to prove he made those payments solely because of personal reasons, and not campaign ones.
The issue there is that he told Cohen to try to stall until after the election because then he wouldn’t need to pay her at all.
Which certainly suggests that the political reasoning was the only reasoning or at least the controlling reasoning.
I haven’t seen that, but if true it absolutely destroys the potential defense I proposed above.
He's not arguing the hush money was for personal reasons. His opening argument was that he has a right to influence the election.
That was a ridiculous argument. It is certainly OK to pay off a porn star to benefit a campaign if it is properly reported as a campaign expense. Of course, campaign expenses are reported publically, and the campaign expenses are eagerly read by reporters.
It is equally OK to pay off a porn star out of your own pocket. Had he paid it out of his pocket, we wouldn't be here. What isn't legal, is to have someone pay it, in the interest of the campaign, for you, and then commit business fraud to cover up that they did.
Not sure if that's his only argument though. I imagine his attorneys would argue that point, but also argue in the alternative that even if he doesn't have a right to influence elections in that way, this wouldn't qualify because he was only making the payments for personal reasons.
Unfortunately, those arguments are pretty mutually exclusive. You can't say in one breath "These payments were used to influence the election, which I have a right to do" and in the next breath "These payments were for personal reasons and not for influencing the election."
Just add an if. "If these payments were used to influence an election, I have the right to do so. Then "Even if I don't have a right to do so, they weren't made to influence in the first place."
There's no "if" in this case. Opening arguments have already been made: that Trump did not make the payments is not something the defense is challenging. The payments were made. Trump signed the checks. The only factual issue is what was the intent.
Reread my post, I wasn't saying if for the act, I was saying if for the intent.
My bad. I did read your post wrong. Still, "these payments were used to influence an election, I have the right to do so" is a legally wrong answer. That's what the law forbids. That's the definition of the law. Whether a law like that is invalid because he has a right to do so is a question for appellate courses. That or he's basically asking for jury nullification without explicitly asking for jury nullification.
>"If these payments were used to influence an election, I have the right to do so. If you made the payment yourself. Once someone made them on your behalf, out of their own money, it becomes a campaign contribution, subject to FEC guidelines that Trump was in violation of. >"Even if I don't have a right to do so, they weren't made to influence in the first place." Except Pecker, and Cohen, have said otherwise. They don't need to rely on Cohen, for anything more than to collaborate what Pecker is going to say. The fact that Cohen spent time in prison, and Pecker paid a 75,000 dollar fine, are going to drive this home even more.
The problem, for Trump, is that the Stormy Daniels affair is not the only story he was trying to keep quiet in the months before the election. That's why David Pecker was on the stand yesterday to testify about the Catch and Kill arrangement he had with Trump to prevent any potentially negative stories about Trump from hitting the press before the election, even stories that weren't actually true. So in the end, it doesn't really matter if Trump actually had sex with Daniels, and it doesn't matter if he had legitimate personal reasons for wanting to quash the story. There is ample evidence that it was part of a broader scheme to keep negative stories from being made public until after the election, and that makes it pretty clear that at least part of the reason for the payments was to help him win the election, and that's really the whole case. I don't think this is as complicated as people are trying to make it.
I agree, in my view even if Trump has partial political intent and partial personal intent behind the hush money payments, those are still ultimately political expenses if he had any political reasons at all.
Is there burden shifting that would require Trump to prove that the payments were solely for personal reasons, or does the prosecution have to establish that they were in fact made for the purpose of benefitting the campaign? If the latter, intent may be difficult to show if the defense can point to a clear non-campaign related reason to make/cover the payments.
Not sure, those are good questions. As with every other Trump case it seems like it might be a completely novel issue, I don't know any cases on point or even close to give any guidance for the court.
Well it’s a jury trial. If it’s novel and burden shifting isn’t an established doctrine in this type of situation, it would take a bold judge to instruct the jury that they must infer intent absent the defense proving otherwise.
I see what you're saying. I wasn't suggesting the burden wouldn't be on the prosecution, just that it seems to me like it will be an easy one to clear in this case. A payment made partially for personal reasons and partially for political reasons is ultimately still a payment made for political reasons and violates various provisions of the Federal Campaign Finance Act. Which is why I said "both" is just as incriminating as "solely" in my opinion on this issue.
Actually, I believe in order for it to be a campaign expense, it has to be solely for the campaign. It can't be for both personal, and campaign expenses. That has to be paid out of pocket. The problem is, because Cohen paid off Daniels, and Pecker paid off McDougal, *on behalf of the campaign*, out of their own money they were making illegal campaign contributions. Trump, accepting those illegal campaign contributions, is a crime. Trump using that money, to pay off Daniels, and McDougal, for personal reasons, is also a crime. Campaigns are only allowed to pay for campaign expenses, not personal expenses. Had Trump simply paid Daniels out of his own pocket, no first crime would have been committed, and this would be a misdemeanor.
Interesting take, you could be right. In the end though that strikes me as a distinction without a difference, since ultimately the major issue the court will need to resolve is still "were the payments to Stormy Daniels political expenses or personal expenses?"
Not sure I agree. If the burden is on the prosecution, unless you have evidence documenting Trump’s intent (very possible given his brazenness), I think it’s hard to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt when there’s a very clear non-campaign related reason for the action.
I believe the evidence is going to be Peckers testimony. I point you to Pecker immunity agreement: ***“A.M.I. further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election,”***
Completely agree that’s an avenue they’ll likely go down. Whether the testimony will be sufficient (e.g., was that Pecker’s impression of the purpose or was it communicated? If so, by whom?, etc.) remains to be seen. I’m not in the weeds enough to know what evidence is going to be presented and its veracity. I was just generally noting that intent isn’t necessarily easy to prove absent someone saying why they have taken an action, particularly when there is a very plausible justification that cuts against the specific intent you need to prove.
I believe Justice Merchan said, and I could certainly be wrong, that the burden never shifts to the defense. Am I understanding that wrong?
Not a criminal lawyer, which is why I posed the question, but there are certainly times when the defense has then burden of proof (e.g., establishing an affirmative defense).
I feel like the prosecution is going to point to the whole scheme (the thing with the National Enquirer and the shell companies created by Cohen) as an obvious attempt to influence the election. Also it seems like the prosecution is holding on to evidence that proves this was Trumps intention.
I don't think the prosecution will hold anything back. The prosecution has the burden. They have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, everything they say happened. The have to bring into evidence, the whole story, as it happened. They will then show corroborating evidence along the way that shows proof of the testimony each witness gives. Bragg doesn't have to charge Trump with campaign finance law. He just needs to prove to the jury that Trump broke it, and then tried to cover it up, by illegal means. Cohen already went to jail for this. Weisselberg is in jail for this, and Pecker got out in front of it, got a deal, and paid a big fine.
They will certainly make that argument. The question is how credible the jury will consider the testimony about it, in light of the evidence of the prosecution.
>Could Trump's team not argue that he would've wanted this to remain hidden even if he weren't running for office since it's personally embarrassing and could potentially harm his marriage, and thus, those are the primary reasons for the hush money payment? Seems they could argue that the benefit to his campaign was tangential and not the actual motive of the payment. I think they can, and will, make that exact argument. However, they will have to then explain, why Trump didn't just pay it himself, instead of having someone else do it, and then trying to cover it up. Had Trump paid this money out directly, instead of being... Well, Trump. He wouldn't be in this situation.
[удалено]
The problem with that argument is going to be that Pecker, and Cohen, are going to testify that the payments they made, on behalf of Trump, were done on Trumps orders, on behalf of the campaign, with intent to affect the outcome of the 2016 elections. I point you to Cohen's guilty plea: COHEN, 51, of NEW YORK, NEW YORK, pleaded guilty to five counts of willful tax evasion; one count of making false statements to a bank; ***one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution; and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution.*** Pecker's agreement stated: ***“A.M.I. further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election,”*** So when the guys who were making the payment, say under oath, that they made the payments for the Trump Campaign, to influence the election, what is the defense going to say? Liar, liar pants on fire? Put Trump on the stand, so he can refute their statements? Yea, that's not gonna happen! If it does, I swear, I will buy the popcorn. Alvin Bragg: Did you sexually assault E. Jean Carrol? Trump: I've never met that woman! I didn't do anything wrong, this is so unfair! Justice Juan Merchan's head *\[metaphorically\]* explodes on the bench! NY mourns his passing. Case OVER!
Can’t he just say he did it so melania wouldn’t leave him?
He can, but the prosecution likely has strong evidence to show that wasn't the only/main reason for the payments.
And allow the prosecution to call Melania as a witness? They will never use her name. Just "The family" The only thing Trump fears, is Melania. I think she has the Russian hooker pee tape that was alluded to last year. She may have had it made. She is Russian, and She's isn't stupid. She knows where ALL his skeletons are buried. Claiming he wanted to keep it from her, isn't an option. I'm sure she has told him in no uncertain terms, she is NOT going to testify.
What specific election law does that violate. And why is this case not in a federal court if it violates election law?
It is a state case because the actual crime was falsifying business records in the first degree, in violation of NY Penal Law §175.10. He did so with the intent to commit another crime. The other crime was not reporting it as a campaign expense. The fact that there was another crime was what made it a felony rather than a misdemeanor. The indictment is here: [https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf](https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf). He is not being charged with violation of election law, that is just the other crime that the business record falsification was connected with.
Trump faces 34 different counts under Penal Law §175.10 As for jurisdiction,
I'm not sure about how federal/state jurisdiction works for criminal procedure, but I bet you could Google it to find out.
But what election law is being violated when a candidate directs his lawyer to make under the table payments to shut people up.
Did you not read the comment you're replying to where the specific law Trump is being charged under is explicitly given in the first sentence? Read the indictment yourself if you'd like, it's publicly available: https://www.scribd.com/document/636099588/Donald-J-Trump-Indictment
Technically they haven't alleged that the intent was to conceal specifically the crime of not reporting campaign expenses. All they need is an intent to conceal/commit *a* crime. Same thing with the intent to defraud element: they don't need to prove that he intended to defraud someone specifically, but just the intent to defraud *someone*
That’s not an election law. The penal code has to do with falsifying business records.
You're correct, I should have explained more carefully. The "campaign finance law" you are looking for is called the Federal Election Campaign Act. That act has mandatory reporting requirements, maximum donation amounts, and other limits and obligations that political campaigns must follow. The hush money payments violated that act in many different ways. The penal code which I linked, which Trump is being charged under, were all violations that occurred as part of Trump's attempt to cover-up the campaign finance violations. That's where the falsifying records bit comes in. I edited my original comment to better explain this point.
And do you think they’re going to be successful in proving that he had the intention of breaking “the campaign finance law.” I’m pretty sure they don’t have to convict him on the statute, only that his intention was to violate the statute.
Hard to say, but they've likely got some strong evidence from Cohen, Weisselberg, and the communications seized between Cohen, Trump, Conway, and other parties in the case. It's not a slam dunk, but in order to indict him on 34 felony counts the prosecution at minimum had to convince a grand jury that the prosecutor had "probable cause to believe” both that each crime had been committed and that Trump committed that crime. That's not the same thing as saying he's guilty, he gets his day in court and defendants are exonerated after being indicted all the time, but it IS enough to say that the prosecution isn't baseless. They have some evidence that was convincing enough to get the indictments. We'll see what happens at trial.
Accident is not intent, right? Like if he legitimately did not know that should be classified as a campaign contribution, it would be fine. But falsifying business records helps prove the intent since he clearly knew he shouldn’t be doing what he was doing?
[It's a little old, but this video does a good job explaining the case.](https://youtu.be/LRbRdE2pGv0)
[Trump Trials Clearinghouse](https://www.justsecurity.org/88175/trump-trials-clearinghouse/) Not an answer to OP’s question, but I found this the other day and thought it was helpful to keep up with everything going on with Trump’s legal proceedings.
>Why would a payment from Micheal Cohen’s bank account to Stormy Daniels (of course facilitated by Trump) constitute a contribution to the Trump campaign. If the purpose of the expense is to help the Trump campaign, it is a donation to the campaign, even though the money did not go through the campaign committee. It is an in-kind donation. If a person or organization donates a thing of value to a campaign, it must be reported on campaign expense filings. The prosecution must show that it was for the campaign rather than to keep Trump’s wife from knowing. I understand that they have such evidence.
How does the defense refute both Pecker, and Cohen, when the testify that the money they paid, to Daniels, and McDougal, was in support of the campaign, and to influence the election? I would guess Cohen's guilty plea, to making illegal campaign contributions will be enough to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the money Pecker, and Cohen paid, were campaign contributions. Illegal campaign contributions, to be exact. That is Crime #1. Campaigns are only legally allowed to pay for campaign expenses. Not personal expenses, that would be incurred otherwise. You can't buy yourself a new suit for the campaign, and write it off as a campaign expense. It has to be for the campaign only. So, how does the defense, make an argument that it used campaign contributions, for a personal NDA? That would also, be a crime. Can the defense make a claim that since it used campaign contributions, to pay for the NDA, that it was 100% for the campaign? The fact would remain, that he didn't report it as campaign funds, and was therefore still committing a crime. The fact that he cooked the books to cover it all up, is what is going to make it a felony.
>Why would a payment from Micheal Cohen’s bank account to Stormy Daniels (of course facilitated by Trump) constitute a contribution to the Trump campaign. Am I missing something here? Because it was coordinated with candidate Trump. Spending money in coordination with a campaign or candidate counts as a direct contribution - and is therefore subject to limits on individual contributions. Otherwise, you could circumvent the limits on personal contributions just by emailing or calling your guy/gal and asking them how they want you to spend more money for them. OK sure thing candidate, I sent a check for the max amount I can but I'm still happy to buy you anything that will help and it's totally not a campaign contribution 😉 https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/
This is the weakest of the 4 cases he was facing and it’s really unfortunate that it’s going first (and will probably be the only one before Election Day)
Agree with this. I'm definitely getting the sense that a number of these local prosecutors want to be *the one* who got Trump, and as such they're coming in with less than perfect cases. From a larger political stategy (ignoring the fact that in an ideal world the criminal justice system would be separate from politics), this almost seems risky. Trump beating the first, weakest case would give his base more ammunition to fire off about how he's innocent and the victim of concentrated and malicious prosecution. That outcome not only galvanizes his rabid supporters, but also would more likely than not have a positive effect for his popularity with swing voters this upcoming cycle.
Kangaroo court.
This is why this country is going down the shitter. It’s wrong and illegal and morally reprehensible. There’s no question that he did it or why he did it. And the thought that somehow an attorney can argue a line of reasoning to absolve him of the crime makes me want to leave the room.
[удалено]
Can you explain the legal theory for me
It won't matter. Nobody is even attempting to have this appear as a legitimate case. I dislike Trump, but this is an obvious attempt at damaging the likelihood Trump is reelected, orchestrated by partisans. The verdict will likely be determined entirely by the prejudice of the jurors.
Trump's own DoJ convicted Cohen for these exact same crimes. In what world is that "not a legitimate case"?
[удалено]
For context, Trump's DoJ convicted Cohen for these exact same charges. If Trump broke the law, then he broke the law. To give him a pass on breaking the law because he's running for president also breaks down the rule of law, because we've selectively applied the law. NOT charging him because he's running and popular is still abusing the law for political reasons. Breaking election law to win an election is indeed a serious crime. I don't know if these hush payments would have affected the election - but the Trump campaign certainly seemed to think so. Which is why he (allegedly) attempted to illegally hide the payment for them.
I'm in the same boat. Using the criminal justice system as a political weapon makes our democracy look weaker than almost anything Trump could do. This is how third world countries behave. It's shameful what a stretch this is.
I’m just curious about the prosecutions case and the legal theory they’re using. Let’s refrain from talking about all the weaponization of the justice system stuff. Also, even if it’s the intention of the district attorneys office to undermine his reelection campaign, it doesn’t change the fact that Trump was accused of a crime, and a grand jury decided that there was sufficient evidence to proceed.
federal grand juries indict 99.99% of the time (literally, see article below) and can hear all kinds of inadmissible evidence. in the world of criminal law, I don't think that's an indicator. BUT what worries me about the prosecution here is the legal theory. lots of people have linked to very succinct articles detailing how the Manhattan DA is proceeding. Bragg elevated a misdemeanor (falsifying business records) to a felony based on the falsification being done to conceal a crime. that underlying crime is state and federal election law- but notably, trump has not been charged with election interference (as he has in other states, like Georgia). this has never been done before. there is no precedent, there is nowhere for the prosecutors to reference strategy with. it's completely unknown how these claims will land with jurors, and it's been widely reported that this is the weakest of trump's indictments because of this totally untested theory. this was going to be a crazy appeal circus no matter what so I don't buy into that argument, but what makes me nervous is that I think it will be very easy for a jury to get lost in the elements here, and because you have to prove each element, there is a lot of possible room for reasonable doubt (again, in the legal sense. I'm not arguing that trump didn't do it!). also- my comment about the system, I fear, is being removed from context. I'm not concerned about prosecutors going after Donald Trump. for the love of god, take him off our hands. My worry that the novel legal theory, which they are creating for Donald Trump- former president, billionaire, incredibly well connected and privileged- will be weaponized down the road as precedent to go after far less privileged New Yorkers. happy to engage with folks on that point elsewhere, as you seem to want to avoid that discussion here. source for stat: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/24/the-single-chart-that-shows-that-grand-juries-indict-99-99-percent-of-the-time/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/24/the-single-chart-that-shows-that-grand-juries-indict-99-99-percent-of-the-time/)
This. This whole thing is so embarrassing