He didn’t keep a secret, he bought one…with money that should have been reported as a campaign expense.
But that is false accounting. And I agree with the false accounting charges.
I don’t see it as election interference.
I think the reasoning is that dark (unreported) money can interfere with the outcome of an election.
You may not, but the law says that it is.
If you pay for something and you receive something of value that gives you an advantage in an election, then you have received a like-kind campaign contribution. If you don’t report it as a campaign contribution, then that’s a crime. And in this instance, it boosts the crime to a felony violation.
I agree with this. As I’ve posted before, there is a federal election expenditure web site where voters should have been able to, before the November 2016 election, see the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels.
After reading the opening arguments, I think the outcome is likely to depend on how the judge explains the law to the jury. Were the judge to say that the jury can only consider New York State law, and, so, federal election law violations should be put aside, Trump will have a better chance of acquittal. However, the judge will probably say that a conspiracy to break federal law, by falsifying New York business records, makes the falsification a felony. If so, it is, based on what I know today, hard to see how Trump prevails at trial. I do not have an opinion on how appeals may go.
As for the election laws that require listing campaign expenditures, I strongly support them. What if Biden were to pay off the New York Times to keep hostile op-eds off their editorial page this year? That’s legal, but, as a Times subscriber, I need to know about it before voting. I even think this is more important than protecting state secrets.
That’s legal?
If there’s a law against it, please link to it, and, depending on the fine print, I may change my mind.
Until then, I think it is legal if Biden does it openly.
Of course, there is no chance Biden would actually attempt it, and The New York Times would not accept the bribe.
It’s not just that it must be done openly; it must be properly reported as a campaign contribution, and would be subject to all the laws governing contributions, which I believe would restrict it to a max of $3,300. This is a contribution directly to the campaign, not a PAC.
ETA: wait, you’re saying Biden pays for it. Ignore this, not pertinent. Now I’m curious too.
Trump didn’t buy silence.
Other people bought silence, for the benefit of Donald’s election campaign.
We can monetize the value of this purchase - literally $130,000 for Stormy Daniels, $30,000 for the doorman, and $150,000 for Karen McDougal.
Now, if you want to give something of value to a campaign, you as an individual are currently limited to $3,300 (which is an increase from the $2,500 limit it was at in the 2016 election)
As far as the statue that @CoolHandCox has asked about.
Try 52 USC 30116, which is where that campaign contribution limit is derived. (It started at $2,000, but is readjusted for inflation - unlike minimum wage - and is therefore increased periodically)
So the payoffs by Donald’s friends were unlawful campaign contributions. Full stop. These payoffs were a crime.
(If they were done for the benefit of the campaign. Thus, the DA is making that a key component of their presentations. These payoffs, by people trying to get donald elected, were done in violation of federal election law. And if donald knowingly received these benefits, he directly violated 18 usc 30116(f)).
Then, donald j. trump committed a New York State law, by disguising the repayment of these illegal campaign contributions as payments to a lawyer for legal services.
And because he “cooked the books” to hide a federal campaign finance violation, he committed a felony.
(ETA: as for whether a candidate could just openly buy the cooperation of a newspaper? I’d say the answer lies in the law I cited. There are limits on expenditures, and coordination between candidates and third parties, I believe, but I haven’t looked closely)
If the payment was made by the candidate, there is no limit. However, if the money actually came from Michael Cohen, yes, the limit applies to his campaign contribution. And the reported campaign contributions do not specify that the contribution can only be used for one purpose.
I suppose whatever of this is important will be correctly explained by Judge Merchan in charging the jury.
I would agree with this statement, but if he doesn’t report it, then I would question the legality of his action. If nothing else, for failure to report the expenditure. But that’s pure speculation on my part.
Oddly Florida has gone on a Rampage of arresting "felon voters’ even those who can legally vote.
But of course they will let trump vote.
Although Cohen fronted the money, he was eventually paid back. The nature of his reimbursement was a pretense of paying legal fees. Since Trump cooked the books to do this he was AIUi in violation of NY law.
Did Trump pay Pecker back for paying off McDougal? (Yeah, I know, I need to read the rest of the transcript.) From the part of the transcript quoted above, it appears the McDougal and Sajudin were paid by AMI. This would I think make tthe payoffs illegal campaign contributions.
Don’t skip ahead of the class!
“But — and this is important — he’s not just our former president. He’s not just Donald Trump that you’ve seen on TV and read about and seen photos of,” Blanche said. “He’s also a man. He’s a husband. He’s a father. And he’s a person, just like you and just like me.”
He’s just an average shmoe. Puts his pants on one leg at a time, and has his golden toilet polished every other day, same as you.
The logic here is absolutely fascinating. The presumption is that if you’re a convicted felon, you cannot be entrusted to cast a vote. You can, however, be entrusted to be the President of the United States.
My understanding for why a convicted felon can still be elected is that it prevents people from using the criminal justice/judicial system to prevent people from being elected.
So I can’t pay the local sheriff/DA/judge to find my political opponent guilty of a BS felony to take them out of the election. I assume there’s also a separation of powers thing in there since it makes sure the judicial branch can’t effectively disqualify a candidate.
The presumption in that case was that the sober, level headed electors chosen for such a vital task would ensure it was never remotely possible.
Edge case (presumed edge cases, anyway) analysis trip us all up from time to time. That’s one of the reasons why they attempted (again somewhat poorly) to give us an escape hatch with an Amendment process.
Former federal prosecutor, Glenn Kershner, said something interesting in his podcast yesterday. He said Judge Merchan’s decision concerning the criminal contempt hearing held yesterday could potentially be a bigger deal than simply being fined a few thousand dollars. Reason being, Trump is on pretrial release for three other cases in: DC, Florida, and Georgia. All of them have entered orders with some variant on the condition that Trump is charged with not committing any local, state, or federal crimes during his pre-trial release or the court(s) can order him into confinement pending his trial date(s).
Committing criminal contempt is a violation of Trump’s terms of release. Were it anyone else they would almost certainly be confined for the violation. I would surprised, however, to see anything come of it for Trump as court orders are merely suggestions in his case.
Mirriam-Webster defines it as: “a jury whose members are from the same community as the person on trial”