# Help Me Understand Recent Developments with President Trump. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 23, 2018, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094 "2018-08-23T04:23:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/21 "2018-08-23T14:53:26Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > I want to clearly understand where the crime is. It seems campaign finance rules are quite an obscure part of the law. Tell me where I am mistaken here. > > 1. It is not illegal to pay off women to keep a secret. Not even if you are running for office. Generally true but tread lightly because traps abound. > [@](#): > > 1. It is not illegal to pay off women with either personal funds nor with finance funds. But, if you used finance funds you would have to tell everyone, so that sort of defeats the purpose. I’m less certain that paying off women under these circumstances is a permitted campaign finance expenditure in any event. I understand that the general test for permitted campaign finance expenditures is the “irrespective test,” that is, whether the expense would exist irrespective of whether the person were a candidate for office. I would likely assert that Trump’s desire to keep his mistresses quiet would exist even if he weren’t a candidate since he is a married man with a wife to keep happy. I’d love to see a real analysis of that but I’m not prepared to do it. > [@](#): > > 1. The problem is that the President’s lawyer used his own money to pay off the women. This was done to aid in a campaign. This means it was a campaign contribution over the legal amount. This is a crime. Correct. Cohen was coordinating with the campaign when he made the payments, so it was a campaign contribution. I’m a little outside my area of expertise here, but the donation was also from a corporation, which isn’t allowed under the campaign finance laws. I understand that the campaign was also in violation because it didn’t report the contribution. As I understand it, corporations can’t make direct contributions, in cash or in kind, to campaigns under federal election laws. Corporations can make “independent expenditures” to further a candidate but they can’t coordinate with the campaign to decide how to make those expenditures. Thus, super PACs can raise and spend money to promote a candidate but they can’t work directly with the candidate or the campaign in their efforts. In this case, Cohen’s company (Essential Consultants) was coordinating directly with the campaign and doing so at the candidate’s behest, so it was in violation of the campaign finance laws prohibiting direct corporate contributions to a candidate. > [@](#): > > 1. The candidate asked the lawyer to do this. This is of course conspiracy. That’s my view. > [@](#): > > 1. The President repaid the lawyer. This does mean the contribution was not illegal. In fact, the repayment simply shows that there was a conspiracy. I believe even a loan under these circumstances would be illegal because: (1) it could be considered a donation, since it does not appear to be a fair market value loan (i.e., it didn’t charge a market rate of interest), (2) the loan, if it was real, should have been disclosed on campaign finance paperwork, and (3) it’s unclear whether this was really intended to be a loan from the get-go or whether that was a post-hoc rationalization for Trump later paying off Cohen. As I understand it, there is much more direct evidence of the conspiracy, namely that Cohen admitted he conspired with the candidate, and that his admissions are supported by documentary evidence of communications of coordination with the candidate and the campaign. > [@](#): > > 1. The New York Post (?) paying women to keep their stories out of the news would also be an in-kind contribution. It was not reported as such, so this is a crime. But there are Freedom of the Press issues that make it unlikely anything much will come of it. It might be illegal if the paper (1) bought and killed the story to advance the campaign, (2) they did so in coordination with the campaign, and (3) they knew their contribution was in excess of contribution limits. This gets worse for them if they also (4) conspired with the campaign to keep the in-kind contribution of the dead story undisclosed on campaign finance paperwork. If only (1) and (2) are proven, the general remedy is that the campaign must refund the excess contribution to the donor but the donor is not fined or otherwise punished. If (1), (2), and (3) are proven, the donor can be fined by the Federal Election Commission. If (4) is also proven, you could have a criminal conspiracy to violate federal election laws. My opinion is that freedom of the press issues are not meaningfully implicated here and the paper could be fined or criminally prosecuted if the requisite elements are shown. > [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > Let’s get back to #3. If Trump had paid off the women with his own funds before, during or after the campaign, would that be illegal? It would sort of be a contribution to himself. It would be illegal if his principal motivation in making the payment was to promote the campaign, rather than for a non-campaign purpose like protecting the harmony of his otherwise blissful marriage. So a payment after the election would not likely be an illegal contribution (unless we have other facts, like that he was actually paying off a debt he made to the women before the election for campaign-related reasons). If Trump had kept his big bazoo shut to his worthless lawyer and the public about his motives, this would be a hard case for prosecutors to prove. Prosecutors could have said that the timing of the payments implies intent to influence the election, but that wouldn’t be much for prosecutors to hang their hat on. Of course, Trump’s own words and Cohen’s statements make it clear that the payments were intended to influence the election so they are illegal campaign contributions. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/22 "2018-08-23T15:20:27Z")
Important to note: Generally the Justice Dept. will not bring charges against a sitting POTUS. They will refer their findings to some House committee, which will then be left with the option to impeach or not take action at all, if they don’t believe the evidence or the crimes or substantial enough to warrant impeachment proceedings. Given the current environment, I suspect the latter will likely occur, regardless of the evidence of any Trump illegal wrongdoing. This will then play out in the mid-term elections as to whether the voters agree with this action or not. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/23 "2018-08-23T15:58:07Z")
There’s a good article [in the Washington Post today](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/08/23/not-just-misleading-not-merely-false-lie/?utm_term=.1b9d72e3af6f&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1), about the timeline behind the hush-money payments, and the continually-evolving denials from Trump (and AMI, the publisher of the Enquirer) about them. It may be behind a paywall (I’m a subscriber), so here’s a broad summary: - Just before the election, the Wall Street Journal uncovered the McDougal story. AMI denied ever having killed a story that would have been damaging to Trump, and the Trump campaign denied any knowledge of it. - In early 2018, the Journal uncovered the Stormy Daniels payoff. Cohen and the White House avoided answering questions about the payoff, and denied that an affair ever happened. - Over the course of the spring, Cohen admitted having paid Daniels, but Trump spokesmen (and, eventually, Trump himself) denied that Trump was ever aware of the payment, nor that he reimbursed Cohen for it. - By May, Rudy Giuliani was admitting that Trump had paid Cohen back, but claimed that it wasn’t campaign money, and that Trump didn’t know specifically what the payments were for. Later, Giuliani admitted that Daniels had been paid off, but that it was to protect Trump’s family from publicity over the alleged affair, and was in no way connected to the campaign. - In July, Cohen released a recording of a conversation with Trump, made before the election, in which they were discussing the details of the payment to Daniels. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/24 "2018-08-23T17:25:57Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > Given that he waited until the [tail end of the campaign](https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17765348/michael-cohen-guilty-plea-stormy-daniels-hush-money) to pay them off for events a decade earlier… probably not? That coincides with them trying to take the story public. If, for whatever reason, they tried to take the story public earlier, do you not think he would have paid them off? I do. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/25 "2018-08-23T17:31:50Z")
As per [a CNBC link](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/23/national-enquirer-david-pecker-told-prosecutors-trump-knew-of-cohen-payments-report.html) that Jophiel shared in a thread over in Elections: AMI / Enquirer chairman (and longtime friend and supporter of Trump) David Pecker has been granted immunity by federal prosecutors in exchange for his testimony in the Cohen case. > [@](#): > > Details of the agreement were not immediately known. But the Journal reported earlier Thursday that American Media Inc. Chairman David Pecker had given prosecutors details about the president’s knowledge of payments Cohen made to women alleging affairs with Trump. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/26 "2018-08-23T18:25:24Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > That coincides with them trying to take the story public. If, for whatever reason, they tried to take the story public earlier, do you not think he would have paid them off? I do. The main thing that I think of is if Trump had any integrity, he would keep is dick in his pants and this wouldn’t be an issue. The fact is he had years to do an NDA with these women and he didn’t. I am still waiting for religious leaders to reaffirm Trumps Christianity even with all the hush payments to adult entertainers. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/27 "2018-08-23T19:33:37Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > 1. It is not illegal to pay off women to keep a secret. Not even if you are running for office. I’m going to address just this one with a theory of mine: Generally, this is probably true. However, the reason you’re paying them to keep quiet can make the payment, or even the offer of payment, illegal. The timing of the payments seem suspicious to me. I don’t think it was to keep them quiet for the campaign; Trump didn’t and doesn’t give a shit about that. “Oh no, people will know I had sex with hot women! Oh, lament and ill fortune!” No. It wasn’t about the campaign. I still believe that Donald and Melania were planning to get divorced after he lost the election. And, I believe the payments were to keep the two women from testifying during the divorce. There, evidence of adultery would almost certainly cost him dearly. So in that situation, paying them to keep quiet would be witness tampering: conferring a benefit upon an anticipated witness in a official proceeding to induce them to withhold testimony. And that would be a crime in itself. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/28 "2018-08-23T19:55:31Z")
> [@Ike\_Witt](#): > > The main thing that I think of is if Trump had any integrity, he would keep is dick in his pants and this wouldn’t be an issue. The fact is he had years to do an NDA with these women and he didn’t. > > I am still waiting for religious leaders to reaffirm Trumps Christianity even with all the hush payments to adult entertainers. **Moderator Note** This is a reminder that political and religious jabs are not permitted in General Questions. To all: **STICK STRICTLY TO THE LEGAL ISSUES IN THE OP. THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER THREADS WHERE YOU CAN DISCUSS YOUR OPINION OF TRUMP.** Thank you for your attention. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/29 "2018-08-23T20:03:20Z")
**MaxTorque** , your theory ignores the fact that Michael Cohen swore, in open court under penalty of perjury, that he coordinated with a candidate for federal office (i.e., Trump) to make the payments for the principal purpose of influencing a federal election. He reportedly spoke with Trump about his fears that revelation of his affairs would endanger his candidacy. There’s not a lot of ambiguity about the true motive here. > **[Michael Cohen Says He Arranged Payments to Women at Trump’s Direction...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyregion/michael-cohen-plea-deal-trump.html)** > > Mr. Cohen made the admission as he pleaded guilty to tax evasion, bank fraud and campaign finance violations in federal court in Manhattan. ---
**Author:** ![Misnomer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/misnomer/32/14897_2.png) [@Misnomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misnomer)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/30 "2018-08-23T20:15:20Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > I am going to have to stare at the typo in the title for weeks, aren’t I? [hijack] Speaking of typos, could you please fix the one in your signature? It’s “Shrine **rs** ” Hospitals for Children. 🙂 [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/31 "2018-08-23T21:40:59Z")
My apologies. I didn’t realize that this was in GQ. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2018, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/32 "2018-08-25T03:25:39Z")
> [@Misnomer](#): > > [hijack] Speaking of typos, could you please fix the one in your signature? It’s “Shrine **rs** ” Hospitals for Children. 🙂 [/hijack] I may be mistaken. On the other hand, I have always so called them. I may get around to it. ---
**Author:** ![Ispolkom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e47774/32.png) [@Ispolkom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ispolkom)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2018, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/33 "2018-08-25T03:34:19Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > I may be mistaken. On the other hand, I have always so called them. I may get around to it. If you want to actually help people (or fight ignorance), the accurate name for the Shriners Hospitals might help. > **[Shriners Children's | Specialized Pediatric Care](https://www.shrinerschildrens.org/en/)** > > Shriners Children’s offers care for a range of orthopedic issues, as well as care for burn injuries, craniofacial conditions, spine care and spinal cord injuries, colorectal and gastrointestinal care, and sports medicine. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2018, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/34 "2018-08-25T04:00:15Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > Given that he waited until the [tail end of the campaign](https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17765348/michael-cohen-guilty-plea-stormy-daniels-hush-money) to pay them off for events a decade earlier… probably not? This - the timing of it makes it clearly campaign related - even possibly the point of the women coming forward ‘at taht time’ makes it campaign related. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2018, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/35 "2018-08-25T14:45:08Z")
What if Trump made the payment for dual purposes: 1) he wanted to protect his personal reputation, both with the public and with his family, and equally 2) he did not want it to hurt his presidential campaign? Is that a campaign expenditure or a personal one? I’m having a hard time parsing this because anything that Trump the person does will influence the perception of Trump the candidate. I mean, if he showers in the morning it is both to improve his personal hygiene and to get more votes because he looks better. If he pays off women, it is also for both. ETA: So, if he told Cohen, “Let me grab a quick shower before we head out because I can’t have the voters seeing me this way” would that turn it into a campaign expenditure? ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2018, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/36 "2018-08-25T16:18:20Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > What if Trump made the payment for dual purposes: 1) he wanted to protect his personal reputation, both with the public and with his family, and equally 2) he did not want it to hurt his presidential campaign? IANAL, but I suspect that the fact that (1) was also in play doesn’t negate the fact that (2) was a factor, and (2) was apparently a violation of campaign finance laws. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2018, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/37 "2018-08-25T17:59:27Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > ETA: So, if he told Cohen, “Let me grab a quick shower before we head out because I can’t have the voters seeing me this way” would that turn it into a campaign expenditure? From my experience filing FEC Campaign Finance reports, the answer is YES. (Actually, an In-Kind contribution, since it was not a cash expenditure but the expense of using his shower, hot water, soap, etc.) But there reporting minimums, and the value of this would certainly be small enough that it would not have to be reported. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2018, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/38 "2018-08-25T18:03:12Z")
There also may be some tax problems with the way Cohen was repaid. According to this OP-ed Trump’s payment to Cohen made as a buisiness expense from the company and called it a retainer for Comey’s legal services so that Trump could write it off as a business expense. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2018, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/39 "2018-08-25T18:04:53Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > The point is it’s not illegal to pay someone hush money. It only becomes illegal when it’s part of a political campaign. Well, when the incident that you are trying to hush up was a crime (adultery and prostitution), then in most states the legality becomes questionable. Also, claiming he did it not for the campaign but to conceal it from his latest wife – isn’t there evidence that she already knew of it before the cover-up? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2018, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094/40 "2018-08-25T18:52:48Z")
> [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](#): > > From my experience filing FEC Campaign Finance reports, the answer is YES. > (Actually, an In-Kind contribution, since it was not a cash expenditure but the expense of using his shower, hot water, soap, etc.) > > But there reporting minimums, and the value of this would certainly be small enough that it would not have to be reported. I’m trying to find a hypo that works so as not to be de minimis. Let’s say that I am running for office and give a $10,000 donation to the Billy Graham organization (or whatever, it is clearly charitable). Is it different if a corporation that I have a controlling interest in gives it to the charity? I do that both because: 1) I like the organization and want to give them money, and 2) I hope that when people hear that I gave that money, they will think I am a wonderful guy and vote for me. I think when anyone gives, there is a sociological debate on whether they do that for good or so that they can feel good that people feel good about them. In any event, there is an unknowable personal component to the gift and an unknownable campaign component to the gift. When does it become a campaign expense that requires reporting and/or is a bar because it is a corporate contribution? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-recent-developments-with-president-trump/820094.md?page=3)