4 ms·
> Overall this seems like a weak case to me. The Economist, no fan of Trump, made much the same point [1], archived at [2] > Prosecuting Mr Trump for the camp
by biorach 4y ago
> Overall this seems like a weak case to me.
The Economist, no fan of Trump, made much the same point [1], archived at [2]
> Prosecuting Mr Trump for the campaign-finance violation relies on a convoluted argument. In 2016 Michael Cohen, the president’s personal lawyer (who later went to prison himself), paid $130,000 to Ms Daniels out of his own pocket. Mr Trump allegedly reimbursed Mr Cohen with payments disguised as routine legal expenses. Falsifying business records can be a misdemeanour under New York law. The felony indictment would indicate that prosecutors are going to argue that the minor crime facilitated a more serious one: failing to declare the payment, which was made a few weeks before the election, as a de facto campaign expense.
> The payment probably did benefit the campaign and it was indeed undeclared. Mr Cohen, the lawyer, pleaded guilty to breaking campaign-finance law. But legal theory for prosecuting Mr Trump in Manhattan is untested. The campaign-finance rules that he may have broken are federal. The accounting rule is a state one. Linking the two in this way is unusual, and a judge may decide it is unwarranted.
And today it has a leader [3], archived at [4] which goes into greater detail, and concludes
> If Mr Trump is to be prosecuted, it should be for something that cannot be dismissed as a technicality, and where the law is clearer. The Manhattan DA’s case looks like a mistake.
[1] https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/03/23/the-cases-against-donald-trump-are-piling-up https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/03/23/the-cases...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20230329221711/https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/03/23/the-cases-against-donald-trump-are-piling-up https://web.archive.org/web/20230329221711/https://www.econo...
[3] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/03/30/prosecuting-donald-trump-over-stormy-daniels-looks-like-a-mistake https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/03/30/prosecuting-don...
[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20230331115631/https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/03/30/prosecuting-donald-trump-over-stormy-daniels-looks-like-a-mistake https://web.archive.org/web/20230331115631/https://www.econo...
- happythebob 4y agoWeak consequences doesn't mean legal. One state investigation has no impact on the others.
- abustamam 4y agoThe second archived link seems to still be pay walled. Here's a mirror just in case https://archive.is/0rJIh https://archive.is/0rJIh
- mcv 4y agoWhat I've been wondering about is: can he be prosecuted for multiple things in different courts? Can he be prosecuted for this, the Georgia election, and the classified documents, at the same time? Or is there a law against that because it's hard to defend yourself against 3 cases simultaneously?
- biorach 4y agoYes, he can be prosecuted for all 3 simultaneously. They are different cases, in different jurisdictions which will be handled by different prosecutors and different court systems.
- HeyLaughingBoy 4y agoThis is why you should only break one law at a time.
- biorach 4y agoOne law at a time? The guy can tell more than one lie at a time