2 ms·
As far as I can tell, here's how the justification that it's a crime worth charging goes: 1. Would Stormy Daniels announcing weeks before the election that she
by ethbr0 4y ago
As far as I can tell, here's how the justification that it's a crime worth charging goes:
1. Would Stormy Daniels announcing weeks before the election that she and Donald Trump had an affair have impacted the election? Yes.
2. Was the (perfectly legal) money paid to Stormy Daniels to prevent that thus intending to influence the election? Yes. Ergo, it's a campaign expense.
And here's where it turns into what I believe they'll be charging.
3. Knowing the above, did Trump funnel the payment through Michael Cohen with the intent to conceal it from campaign finance disclosure transparency? If so, that's conspiracy and a felony through falsifying business records to conceal another crime.
If you break the law inadvertently, that's generally a lesser crime. If you specifically know you're breaking the law and still do it, that's usually a higher charge. And if you take additional actions to conceal the fact that you broke the law, that's an even higher charge.
And because these are financial crimes, it's easier to find records of the intermediate payments.
- Chris2048 4y ago> did Trump funnel the payment through Michael Cohen with the intent to conceal it from campaign finance disclosure transparency but if Trump paid directly himself, it wouldn't violate campaign finance laws? Because there is no campaign finance limit on Trump himself. That said, they still have to prove "Ergo, it's a campaign expense" - any individual is motivated to protect their reputation aside from campaigns.
- Anechoic 4y agobut if Trump paid directly himself, it wouldn't violate campaign finance laws? That's my (uneducated) understanding, but the speculation is that he didn't pay it himself because then he couldn't deny (to friends/family/fans/donors/voters) that he knew her.
- ethbr0 4y ago> but if Trump paid directly himself, it wouldn't violate campaign finance laws? Correct. My understanding is that if Trump had paid Stormy Daniels directly and classified it as a campaign expense, it would have been legal and there would be no case. As for intent, expect it will turn on the exact language in the charged campaign finance laws. If Trump can find a reason he wasn't required to disclose, there is no felony concealment. On the whole, a good thing for campaign finance law to have a high profile fight between two well-resourced legal teams. Hopefully it might drive some future reform and better law, as the boundaries are clarified.
- Tangurena2 4y ago> if Trump paid directly himself, it wouldn't violate campaign finance laws? That is still a campaign expense and needs to be reported to the state. Reporting on who donated money is a totally separate report.