While I think there’s a good chance of that, the defense can blow it by pushing too hard against the charges to a New York jury. They aren’t going to accept the idea that Trump didn’t have a relationship with either of the two women that testified that he had, if they insist he wasn’t involved in the ‘catch and kill’ scheme,= then the jury might disregard his entire defense. If his lawyers stick to the lack of corroboration from anyone but Cohen and reasonable doubt overall then he could get more than one juror who won’t vote guilty.
And even then, he’d want whatever method of payment were used to be unable to be ever traced later as “this came from Donald Trump”. Because of course IT DID NOT HAPPEN!!! So unless he handed over a carry-on full of unmarked bills (which she’d surely refuse having at least moderate street smarts) he’d still be looking for a patsy and a cover story.
Would it? Can candidates fund their election from their own money without having to report it as election expenses?
In that respect, Trump definitely has a jury of his peers.
The can fund their own election as much as they wish, no limits. But the must be reported. So, it would have been perfectly legal for Trump to pay Daniels to keep quiet, as long as he reported it (or it wasn’t done to assist the campaign, I guess).
When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns. Candidate contributions to their own campaigns are not subject to any limits. They must, however, be reported.
FEC | Candidate | Using personal funds of the candidate
The largest, and most fundamental difference is who is trying Trump and why.
In this case, it’s the State of New York, for violating laws that have been on the books well before Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016. This is about the law- maybe the choice by the DA or NY AG to pursue the charges may have been politically motivated, but the trial itself isn’t. It’s wholly about determining if he broke the law, and if so, how he should be punished.
In Clinton’s case, it was the House of Representatives voting to impeach Clinton. Because it’s an impeachment trial in the House, it’s inherently political, and not about law. And that wasn’t about him getting a BJ from Monica Lewinsky, as much as it was abusing that power differential and then (or so the Republicans said) lying about it under oath. Which is still a question of character, and why it was an impeachment trial, not a legal one. Had it been a grown woman who didn’t work for him, I suspect there wouldn’t have been any follow-up whatsoever.
Is it a major crime? Well, it’s a felony, not a misdemeanor, so that’s something. But it’s the lowest sort of felony in NY. It’s kind of in the middle as crimes go- not something like capital murder, but nor is it a jaywalking ticket either.
Thanks. It’s that last line that is the question point, I would say.
Hmm… some sort of two tiered justice system. I feel like someone involved is pretty strongly opposed to this idea.
Seriously though, he definitely, 100%, falsified business records. Trump’s own lawyers haven’t really tried to dispute this. He should be found guilty of that crime. Whether or not he did that in furtherance of another crime is the weaker part of the prosecution’s case. They could somehow fail to prove that aspect. Even then though, he still committed a crime and should be found guilty of doing so.
I mean that’s true but pretty much anything is small potatoes compared to conspiring to overturn an election and become dictator, or a stealing hundreds of the most secret documents the country has and showing them round to all comers.
Just because he’s done other really really bad stuff doesn’t have any bearing on this case. It’s still a serious crime: falsifying business records as part of a conspiracy to influence an election. It is entirely proper, and successful prosecution makes America a less corrupt place.
Maybe somebody can fact check this. I think the charge is only for the commission of that crime in furtherance of another crime. The jury doesn’t have the option of finding him only guilty of a falsification of business records misdemeanor .
But of he did not do so in furtherance of another crime, then the actions would only rate as misdemeanors, and the statute of limitations has long run out. So he could only be charged with the offense involving furtherance.
I think I would also have to agree with the OP. I admit that I want to see Trump go down under any circumstances, so if this does him in or even just inconveniences him, I’m happy. But objectively I think that this is small potatoes, being more of a technical issue rather than a clear disregard for the rule of law in and of itself. Its only as part of the general lawlessness the Trump represents that makes me want him to do down for it.
If in an alternate universe there was an election between say, Biden and Romney, and it was Biden who had been tried for hushing up an affair in this way, I would probably still vote for him.
He really really would not have done that. Because he would have realized that doing so was a crime, and unlike Trump he was not a habitual criminal who thought he could get away with anything because he’s rich and he can get away with anything.
Absolutely 100% wrong. If Clinton had been caught doing this it would have been “Watergate 2”, and there is zero chance he would have survived his term in power, he’d have been forced to resign almost immediately.
These kind of statements are seriously downplaying how effed up Trump is and how far the institution of the presidency has fallen because of him. Any one of the the incidental little things he does and are forgotten next news cycle, would be instantly fatal to the career of any prior presidential candidate.
Again this is downplaying how big a deal this would be and how much Trump has raised the bar for presidential malfeasance.
Whether you would still vote for him or not, this would have 100% definitely ended the presidential career of any previous candidate. Remember there was a sizeable section of America (not just the GOP block) who thought lying about the Lewinsky affair was serious enough that Clinton should have resigned over it.
This thing is only “small potatoes” compared to the other more heinous stuff Trump has done. For anyone else in presidential history it would be an off the charts scandal, completely overshadowing anything else they did.
Probably True.
-Buck (boiled frog) Godot
Whatever happens, guilty or no, Trump isn’t going to do time for this – 80 year old first-time offenders don’t go to jail for something like this (according to a pretty liberal lawyer friend of mine).
I mean, he’s not really a first-time offender in a lot of ways, but this would be his first guilty verdict.
Well, I think Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was basically an explicit recognition that corporate and large donor ‘dark money’ is in play and the government can’t (or at least won’t) do anything about it.
Clinton’s indiscretions were salacious (and in the case of several accusers, potentially sexual harassment and assault) but it really should have been his selling of the Lincoln Bedroom and associated unreported contacts with foreign agents seeking political influence at the presidential level that should have been the real scandal. Thank goodness his successor was completely scandal free and brought no controversies to the Oval Office whatsoever.
As for Trump, this trial is as much an insinuation of poor character as it is of committing an actual crime. Unfortunately, his ‘poor character’ and ability to get away with bad behavior is exactly why many of his fans adore him, so this trial is unlikely to change their opinions or votes.
Stranger
This sidetrack has come up a few times. Let’s move it to it’s own thread:
The problem with the Capone analogy is that was a failure of the Chicago/Illinois judicial system. Capone was presumed to have ordered lots of violent crimes including killings. But the local/state authorities couldn’t or wouldn’t make a case against him. Instead, rather than convicting him for violent crimes, the federal government convicted him for a non-violent crime. So he wasn’t guilty of all the horrible things he’d allegedly done, but for not paying taxes.
And the comment “but you know deserves it” is antithetical to a modern judicial system. The reason I’m pointing that out is that I agree with the subject of the OP. Trump apparently cheated on his wife with a porn star and paid her money later to keep quiet. Those allegations are salacious, but not illegal. The payment was made via a lawyer. That’s also not illegal. The two legal jeopardies Trump faces are if allegedly paying to keep the porn star quiet was a campaign expense, and if that payment done via a lawyer should not have been recorded as a legal expense. It definitely seems like Trump isn’t being prosecuted for those two small bad infractions, but because that’s what his prosecutors can find him guilty of. And considering a large percentage of US voters want to have him as the next president, it’s not surprising they think the trial isn’t meant solely to convict him of the actual crimes but to stop or harm his presidential campaign.
What Clinton did was not illegal (except lying under oath but that was not what prompted the case).
What Trump is accused of is actually illegal and I am hard pressed to see how that is worse than lying under oath.
Remember, the investigation into Clinton had zero to do with having sex. The special counsel just dug and dug and dug for dirt, found something salacious that had literally zero to do with why he was investigating and then got the guy for lying about it (shocker).