4 ms·

This isn't about campaign contribution limits, it's about declaring campaign expenses. As far as I've read, it was money his campaign legally had, spent on som

by ethbr0 4y ago

This isn't about campaign contribution limits, it's about declaring campaign expenses. As far as I've read, it was money his campaign legally had, spent on something he could legally spend it on... that he attempted to conceal the payment for, so it wouldn't show up in campaign finance reports. Ironically, if he'd just paid it directly from campaign funds and given it an obfuscated name ("PR Services"), he'd be in much less legal trouble now.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
Those sound like very tenuous grounds. Most peoples' lawyers bill them for ancillary expenses, from printing/copying to first-class flights and other purchases in the line of work. It's not inconceivable that hush money would be in that category. Anything on a legal bill tends to go on most peoples' books as a "legal expense." In New York, there's no requirement to give clients itemized legal bills, although the client can request them. High-end lawyers tend to avoid itemizing their bills unless you ask (implying some sort of fee dispute). At the same time, is this really the kind of thing you want a prosecutor to go after a former president and likely future presidential candidate from the opposing party for?
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Why would you have a lawyer pay hush money? The concealment of the payment (having Cohen pay from his company, then reimbursing him as part of a larger payment) is the crime, not the payment. And yes, I think all politicians should be gone after for breaking any campaign-finance-related law. The legal ways to use money have so many loopholes (wink-nudge a PAC to pay off Stormy Daniels) that we shouldn't compromise an inch on what few restrictions we do have on the books. This is a campaign finance violation. If we're not going to hold politicians beholden to those laws, then where is the line?
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    Lawyers often pay ancillary expenses for their jobs (including hush money), and bill their clients afterwards. In my own life, my lawyer pays my fees to the PTAB and then puts them on my monthly bill. That goes in my accounting books as "patent-related legal expenses," and this is fine according to my accountant - it's a bill from a lawyer, so it's a legal expense. I don't even know how much the PTAB bills me - the line on my itemized bills is a lump sum that includes administrative work in that line item (and as I understand it, the administrative work is actually quite expensive for a patent). I think classifying this as "breaking any campaign-finance-related law" is a little bit of a strawman based on the fact pattern. It's one thing to go after someone for giving/accepting donations that are clearly illegal, but it's another thing to go after them for classifying hush money paid through a lawyer as a "legal expense" rather than a "PR expense." However, if New York were serious about justice, they would have had a clearly-politically-motivated prosecutor assign a special counsel to look for malfeasance here instead of running the prosecution himself. Also, you should read the book "3 felonies a day," and it will give you more context on how much gray area there actually is in most crimes. The thesis of the book is that there is enough of a gray area that the average American commits 3 felonies a day.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      This isn't an accounting crime. He's entitled to account for it in a variety of legal ways. It's a campaign finance disclosure crime. Either he properly classified and disclosed a campaign related expense, or he didn't. The difference with your example is that you presumably aren't running for office, and hence aren't required to formally disclose campaign expenses. The ad hominem attacks on the prosecutor also seem... desperate and distasteful. Trump has enough money to afford a good legal defense team -- why should the country be in the business of deciding who is too big to prosecute? And I've read it.
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        > why should the country be in the business of deciding who is too big to prosecute? They are in this business because they have put themselves there - "3 felonies a day" should have told you about how that happened. Now that they are there, they have to avoid even creating the appearance that they are misusing the power in circumstances like this, where they are trying to prosecute political opponents. This is how civil wars start. > The ad hominem attacks on the prosecutor also seem... desperate and distasteful. Alvin Bragg campaigned on the fact that he was going to get Trump. It is a pertinent fact that the prosecutor going after Trump is literally trying to fulfill a campaign promise that he made publicly. If that isn't evidence that he was politically motivated, I don't know what is.
        ethbr0 4y ago
        Civil wars start because an absence of the rule of law. I.e. politicians being able to avoid charges simply by virtual of their office. And why does it matter if the prosecutor has a political ax to grind with Trump? The distastefulness of the ad hominem attacks is the seeming thought process behind them: {prosecutor is political} == {no crimes he charges can be true} Do crimes cease being crimes unless the prosecutor is inhumanly unbiased? That's what a robust defense team is for.
        pclmulqdq 4y ago
treis 4y ago
Corporations can not directly give money to candidates which includes sending money to a 3rd party at the direction of the candidate. It's a much more serious violation that simply a failure to report. Usually reporting violations are dealt with civilly, though I couldn't confirm that there are no criminal penalties with a brief google search.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  The Economist article someone mirrored farther down has the clearest trace of the payments I can find: https://archive.is/0rJIh https://archive.is/0rJIh Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels. The Trump organization reimbursed Michael Cohen. The candidate Trump never declared the payment on his campaigning behalf. Do you have any links on the specific laws that preclude candidate-directed corporate payments? Haven't seen specific laws in the reporting thus far, although I expect when the charges come out it'll be all over.
rhino369 4y ago
>Ironically, if he'd just paid it directly from campaign funds and given it an obfuscated name ("PR Services"), he'd be in much less legal trouble now. No, he would have probably instead be indicted for using campaign funds to pay a mistress under the theory that such a payment is not a valid campaign expense. The rules are so unclear that you could prosecute him either way.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  That would be a misdemeanor, not a felony.

by ethbr0 4y ago

pclmulqdq 4y ago

Those sound like very tenuous grounds. Most peoples' lawyers bill them for ancillary expenses, from printing/copying to first-class flights and other purchases in the line of work. It's not inconceivable that hush money would be in that category. Anything on a legal bill tends to go on most peoples' books as a "legal expense." In New York, there's no requirement to give clients itemized legal bills, although the client can request them. High-end lawyers tend to avoid itemizing their bills unless you ask (implying some sort of fee dispute). At the same time, is this really the kind of thing you want a prosecutor to go after a former president and likely future presidential candidate from the opposing party for?

ethbr0 4y ago
Why would you have a lawyer pay hush money? The concealment of the payment (having Cohen pay from his company, then reimbursing him as part of a larger payment) is the crime, not the payment. And yes, I think all politicians should be gone after for breaking any campaign-finance-related law. The legal ways to use money have so many loopholes (wink-nudge a PAC to pay off Stormy Daniels) that we shouldn't compromise an inch on what few restrictions we do have on the books. This is a campaign finance violation. If we're not going to hold politicians beholden to those laws, then where is the line?
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Lawyers often pay ancillary expenses for their jobs (including hush money), and bill their clients afterwards. In my own life, my lawyer pays my fees to the PTAB and then puts them on my monthly bill. That goes in my accounting books as "patent-related legal expenses," and this is fine according to my accountant - it's a bill from a lawyer, so it's a legal expense. I don't even know how much the PTAB bills me - the line on my itemized bills is a lump sum that includes administrative work in that line item (and as I understand it, the administrative work is actually quite expensive for a patent). I think classifying this as "breaking any campaign-finance-related law" is a little bit of a strawman based on the fact pattern. It's one thing to go after someone for giving/accepting donations that are clearly illegal, but it's another thing to go after them for classifying hush money paid through a lawyer as a "legal expense" rather than a "PR expense." However, if New York were serious about justice, they would have had a clearly-politically-motivated prosecutor assign a special counsel to look for malfeasance here instead of running the prosecution himself. Also, you should read the book "3 felonies a day," and it will give you more context on how much gray area there actually is in most crimes. The thesis of the book is that there is enough of a gray area that the average American commits 3 felonies a day.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    This isn't an accounting crime. He's entitled to account for it in a variety of legal ways. It's a campaign finance disclosure crime. Either he properly classified and disclosed a campaign related expense, or he didn't. The difference with your example is that you presumably aren't running for office, and hence aren't required to formally disclose campaign expenses. The ad hominem attacks on the prosecutor also seem... desperate and distasteful. Trump has enough money to afford a good legal defense team -- why should the country be in the business of deciding who is too big to prosecute? And I've read it.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      > why should the country be in the business of deciding who is too big to prosecute? They are in this business because they have put themselves there - "3 felonies a day" should have told you about how that happened. Now that they are there, they have to avoid even creating the appearance that they are misusing the power in circumstances like this, where they are trying to prosecute political opponents. This is how civil wars start. > The ad hominem attacks on the prosecutor also seem... desperate and distasteful. Alvin Bragg campaigned on the fact that he was going to get Trump. It is a pertinent fact that the prosecutor going after Trump is literally trying to fulfill a campaign promise that he made publicly. If that isn't evidence that he was politically motivated, I don't know what is.
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        Civil wars start because an absence of the rule of law. I.e. politicians being able to avoid charges simply by virtual of their office. And why does it matter if the prosecutor has a political ax to grind with Trump? The distastefulness of the ad hominem attacks is the seeming thought process behind them: {prosecutor is political} == {no crimes he charges can be true} Do crimes cease being crimes unless the prosecutor is inhumanly unbiased? That's what a robust defense team is for.
        pclmulqdq 4y ago

treis 4y ago

Corporations can not directly give money to candidates which includes sending money to a 3rd party at the direction of the candidate. It's a much more serious violation that simply a failure to report. Usually reporting violations are dealt with civilly, though I couldn't confirm that there are no criminal penalties with a brief google search.

ethbr0 4y ago
The Economist article someone mirrored farther down has the clearest trace of the payments I can find: https://archive.is/0rJIh https://archive.is/0rJIh Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels. The Trump organization reimbursed Michael Cohen. The candidate Trump never declared the payment on his campaigning behalf. Do you have any links on the specific laws that preclude candidate-directed corporate payments? Haven't seen specific laws in the reporting thus far, although I expect when the charges come out it'll be all over.

rhino369 4y ago

>Ironically, if he'd just paid it directly from campaign funds and given it an obfuscated name ("PR Services"), he'd be in much less legal trouble now. No, he would have probably instead be indicted for using campaign funds to pay a mistress under the theory that such a payment is not a valid campaign expense. The rules are so unclear that you could prosecute him either way.

ethbr0 4y ago
That would be a misdemeanor, not a felony.