4 ms·

The difficulty here, as I understand it, is that Trump could have plenty of reasons for paying off someone, not all of which are to do with political campaignin

The difficulty here, as I understand it, is that Trump could have plenty of reasons for paying off someone, not all of which are to do with political campaigning. For instance, he could argue that he paid off SD to avoid damage to his relationship with his wife or family, and that it had nothing to do with his campaigning. (In fact, you could argue that this defence is even stronger because he is Donald Trump. He has plenty of dedicated supporters who seem to stick with him regardless of his transgressions; accusations of infidelity might be less damaging to him politically than to other politicians!) So, the prosecutors have to somehow convince a court what his intent really was, i.e. it's less about what he did and more about why he did it.

abigail95 4y ago
Even worse for the intent angle is that he did it through his lawyer. Proving someone acted with illegal intent by following the advice of their lawyer seems to be an oxymoron.
- pdpi 4y ago
  It's well understood that Cohen was Trump's fixer, so I don't think that'll be that big a hurdle.
  - overlordalex 4y ago
    It's even easier than that - Cohen already pled guilty and was convicted for this campaign finance violation. During the trial Cohen explicitly named Trump as a co-conspirator while the prosecutor decided to call him "Individual 1" in the filings
einpoklum 4y ago
In criminal law, for intent, the prosecution doesn't have to prove no other intent, or what the "main intent" was. In fact, in some legal systems (perhaps the US as well) it is often enough to establish that the accused: 1. Was aware of his relevant actions 2. Was aware the actions are likely to have the relevant effect 3. Acted anyway and - again, in some legal systems - this creates a presumption of intent. The onus is then on the accused to establish that they had an entirely different intent (in which case they acted "recklessly") or was not actually aware of the consequences (in which case they acted "negligently" because they should have been aware). I am not a (US) lawyer, so I'm not sure that's the exact legal situation for Trump.
- pc86 4y ago
  Luckily in the US an accused isn't required to prove the absence of a given intent just because a third party believes that intent might have been there.
  - einpoklum 4y ago
    Suppose you point a gun at someone and shoot someone. There are witnesses of you having done so, and of you being alert and sane at the time. But the prosecution cannot find any evidence of your intent to hurt that person. Would you not be convicted for having shot that person?
    - pc86 4y ago
      Contrived strawman aside, this is exactly why there are different legal definitions for murder in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degrees, as well as manslaughter. And different punishments for each based. In this example, it's probably open-and-shut 2nd degree but the prosecution now has to prove that you premeditated this if they want to go for 1st degree (IANAL). They don't get to just say "it was clearly premeditated" and then put the onus of proof on the defendant.
      - einpoklum 4y ago
        Oh, ok, certainly, there can be different levels of gravity for the same offense. But it's not the case of "you haven't positively proven intent so no conviction".
    - abigail95 4y ago
      That depends on whether the fact you shot someone is a disputed fact in the case. you can't have direct evidence of someones alertness or state of mind, only circumstantial. the direct evidence from witness testimony is only needed if the shooting is disputed. assuming the shooting is proven, with no evidence of intent, you can't have murder 1, and likely can't have murder 2 either and are probably stuck with involuntary manslaughter. obviously it depends on the state. however even manslaughter requires some requisite knowledge and intention of what you are doing - but proving something like insanity or incapacity is usually on the defense to prove.
notahacker 4y ago
I'm not convinced it's the strongest possible case that could be brought against Trump, but I think he'd have a tough job convincing people that he arranged to pay someone in the middle of an election campaign in 2016 not to talk about something that happened in 2006 without any expectation of it having any impact upon his campaign, particularly not when his lawyer already pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance laws for his part in the payment.
- meragrin_ 4y ago
  > I think he'd have a tough job convincing people that he arranged to pay someone in the middle of an election campaign in 2016 not to talk about something that happened in 2006 without any expectation of it having any impact upon his campaign You must have not seen much of the 2016 election crap then. It was pretty clear that it would not have any impact on his campaign by the time she was paid in October. So much crap was said about him by then, it would have been a small side story.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    > It was pretty clear that it would not have any impact on his campaign by the time she was paid in October. So much crap was said about him by then, it would have been a small side story. All election ads and promotional activities are small side stories in the scope of the overall campaign (and his family heard all the other crap said about him too!). Fact remains that the time Trump's lawyer paid off Stormy Daniels was years after the event but weeks before an election, and Cohen has already pleaded guilty to it being a campaign finance violation. In the scope of campaign finance violations it doesn't sound like a particularly massive one and the reasons for not wanting to declare it are obvious and unlikely to be related to any sort of wider conspiracy, but it stretches credulity to imagine that the election wasn't a consideration.
dukeofdoom 4y ago
How exactly do you prove that this wasn't paid to prevent further embarrassment to his wife and to salvage his relationship? He did go around at the time calling Stormy Daniels "Horse Face". Which does directly relate to his wife being a former model, being more beautiful, and can be seen as an attempt to reassure her. Intent is hard to prove.

abigail95 4y ago

Even worse for the intent angle is that he did it through his lawyer. Proving someone acted with illegal intent by following the advice of their lawyer seems to be an oxymoron.

pdpi 4y ago
It's well understood that Cohen was Trump's fixer, so I don't think that'll be that big a hurdle.
- overlordalex 4y ago
  It's even easier than that - Cohen already pled guilty and was convicted for this campaign finance violation. During the trial Cohen explicitly named Trump as a co-conspirator while the prosecutor decided to call him "Individual 1" in the filings

einpoklum 4y ago

In criminal law, for intent, the prosecution doesn't have to prove no other intent, or what the "main intent" was. In fact, in some legal systems (perhaps the US as well) it is often enough to establish that the accused: 1. Was aware of his relevant actions 2. Was aware the actions are likely to have the relevant effect 3. Acted anyway and - again, in some legal systems - this creates a presumption of intent. The onus is then on the accused to establish that they had an entirely different intent (in which case they acted "recklessly") or was not actually aware of the consequences (in which case they acted "negligently" because they should have been aware). I am not a (US) lawyer, so I'm not sure that's the exact legal situation for Trump.

pc86 4y ago
Luckily in the US an accused isn't required to prove the absence of a given intent just because a third party believes that intent might have been there.
- einpoklum 4y ago
  Suppose you point a gun at someone and shoot someone. There are witnesses of you having done so, and of you being alert and sane at the time. But the prosecution cannot find any evidence of your intent to hurt that person. Would you not be convicted for having shot that person?
  - pc86 4y ago
    Contrived strawman aside, this is exactly why there are different legal definitions for murder in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degrees, as well as manslaughter. And different punishments for each based. In this example, it's probably open-and-shut 2nd degree but the prosecution now has to prove that you premeditated this if they want to go for 1st degree (IANAL). They don't get to just say "it was clearly premeditated" and then put the onus of proof on the defendant.
    - einpoklum 4y ago
      Oh, ok, certainly, there can be different levels of gravity for the same offense. But it's not the case of "you haven't positively proven intent so no conviction".
  - abigail95 4y ago
    That depends on whether the fact you shot someone is a disputed fact in the case. you can't have direct evidence of someones alertness or state of mind, only circumstantial. the direct evidence from witness testimony is only needed if the shooting is disputed. assuming the shooting is proven, with no evidence of intent, you can't have murder 1, and likely can't have murder 2 either and are probably stuck with involuntary manslaughter. obviously it depends on the state. however even manslaughter requires some requisite knowledge and intention of what you are doing - but proving something like insanity or incapacity is usually on the defense to prove.

notahacker 4y ago

I'm not convinced it's the strongest possible case that could be brought against Trump, but I think he'd have a tough job convincing people that he arranged to pay someone in the middle of an election campaign in 2016 not to talk about something that happened in 2006 without any expectation of it having any impact upon his campaign, particularly not when his lawyer already pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance laws for his part in the payment.

meragrin_ 4y ago
> I think he'd have a tough job convincing people that he arranged to pay someone in the middle of an election campaign in 2016 not to talk about something that happened in 2006 without any expectation of it having any impact upon his campaign You must have not seen much of the 2016 election crap then. It was pretty clear that it would not have any impact on his campaign by the time she was paid in October. So much crap was said about him by then, it would have been a small side story.
- notahacker 4y ago
  > It was pretty clear that it would not have any impact on his campaign by the time she was paid in October. So much crap was said about him by then, it would have been a small side story. All election ads and promotional activities are small side stories in the scope of the overall campaign (and his family heard all the other crap said about him too!). Fact remains that the time Trump's lawyer paid off Stormy Daniels was years after the event but weeks before an election, and Cohen has already pleaded guilty to it being a campaign finance violation. In the scope of campaign finance violations it doesn't sound like a particularly massive one and the reasons for not wanting to declare it are obvious and unlikely to be related to any sort of wider conspiracy, but it stretches credulity to imagine that the election wasn't a consideration.

dukeofdoom 4y ago

How exactly do you prove that this wasn't paid to prevent further embarrassment to his wife and to salvage his relationship? He did go around at the time calling Stormy Daniels "Horse Face". Which does directly relate to his wife being a former model, being more beautiful, and can be seen as an attempt to reassure her. Intent is hard to prove.