[Puffer Fish]

Legal contradiction of accusing Trump of campaign payment fraud

It has recently been announced the former President Trump has been indicted (criminal charges) by New York.
One of the reasons they are going after Trump is that supposedly he diverted some of his campaign money to pay for Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about an affair she allegedly had with Trump, and that this supposedly constitutes "fraud". (That's what they are claiming)

For this to be fraud, it would have to be a misuse or inappropriate use of campaign money. In other words, the payment to keep the woman quiet about the scandal would have to seen as money being diverted to a personal cause that did not have to do with his political campaign.

Well, here's the thing with that. There is another story. The Federal Election Commision (FEC) fined the a publication company called the National Enquirer $187,500 because the company made a $150,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, as well as another former model Karen McDougal, to keep them quiet during the 2016 Presidential election. The FEC claims that this constituted an illegal campaign contribution, violating federal election campaign law.
But for this to be true, such a payment (to keep women quiet about a scandal) would have to be seen as a campaign contribution.
The FEC complaint stated that the payment was "for the purpose of influencing" the election.

Why is it that when the National Enquirer made a payment to Stormy Daniels, it was considered a campaign contribution, but when Trump (allegedly) diverted some of his campaign money to make a payment to Stormy Daniels, it was not considered a legitimate campaign expenditure?

There is a glaring logical inconsistency here.

If what the National Enquirer did was illegal, then what Trump did was not illegal.
Or if what Trump did was illegal, then what the National Enquirer did was not illegal, and they should not have been made to pay that fine.

There seems to be some hypocrisy and blatant double standards being applied here.

It's not consistent to say one of those situations is a campaign contribution and the other isn't.

But maybe they don't care, anything to go after Trump and Trump supporters. Even if the legal logic they use contradicts itself.

[pugsville]

Legal contradiction of accusing Trump of campaign payment fraud

It has recently been announced the former President Trump has been indicted (criminal charges) by New York.
One of the reasons they are going after Trump is that supposedly he diverted some of his campaign money to pay for Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about an affair she allegedly had with Trump, and that this supposedly constitutes "fraud". (That's what they are claiming)

For this to be fraud, it would have to be a misuse or inappropriate use of campaign money. In other words, the payment to keep the woman quiet about the scandal would have to seen as money being diverted to a personal cause that did not have to do with his political campaign.

Well, here's the thing with that. There is another story. The Federal Election Commision (FEC) fined the a publication company called the National Enquirer $187,500 because the company made a $150,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, as well as another former model Karen McDougal, to keep them quiet during the 2016 Presidential election. The FEC claims that this constituted an illegal campaign contribution, violating federal election campaign law.
But for this to be true, such a payment (to keep women quiet about a scandal) would have to be seen as a campaign contribution.
The FEC complaint stated that the payment was "for the purpose of influencing" the election.

Why is it that when the National Enquirer made a payment to Stormy Daniels, it was considered a campaign contribution, but when Trump (allegedly) diverted some of his campaign money to make a payment to Stormy Daniels, it was not considered a legitimate campaign expenditure?

There is a glaring logical inconsistency here.

If what the National Enquirer did was illegal, then what Trump did was not illegal.
Or if what Trump did was illegal, then what the National Enquirer did was not illegal, and they should not have been made to pay that fine.

There seems to be some hypocrisy and blatant double standards being applied here.

It's not consistent to say one of those situations is a campaign contribution and the other isn't.

But maybe they don't care, anything to go after Trump and Trump supporters. Even if the legal logic they use contradicts itself.

There is not. I;; give you a week to work out why.

[late]

For this to be fraud, it would have to be a misuse or inappropriate use of campaign money.

There are going to be dozens of charges, kiddo.

[ingliz]

@late

I don't know how sentencing works in the US.

but,

If Trump is found guilty on dozens of charges, could he serve the dozens of sentences imposed consecutively?

Given that the felony charge seems the hardest to prove and business fraud looks to be a slam dunk, could he end up doing 14 or 15 years for a string of related 1-year maximum misdemeanors?

[wat0n]

We haven't seen the charges yet, have we?

[ingliz]

We haven't seen the charges yet

Odds are it's a misuse of campaign funds (felony) and business fraud (misdemeanors), according to the MSM legal analysts.

[ThirdTerm]

but when Trump (allegedly) diverted some of his campaign money to make a payment to Stormy Daniels, it was not considered a legitimate campaign expenditure?

Trump did not divert his campaign funds to pay Stormy Daniels $130,000 through a company Cohen set up. Cohen was reimbursed by Trump, whose company logged the reimbursements as legal expenses. Cohen pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance law in connection with the payments as the payments amounted to unreported assistance to Trump’s campaign. Trump is accused of falsifying business records by logging Cohen’s reimbursement for the Daniels payment as legal fees, which is only a misdemeanor under New York law. New York’s statute of limitations for misdemeanors is two years.

[ingliz]

@ThirdTerm

Are you saying the prosecution has to prove there's been a violation of federal campaign finance law and if they cannot, the business frauds are timed out?

[late]

[usermention=41202]

@late[/usermention]

I don't know how sentencing works in the US.

but,

If Trump is found guilty on dozens of charges, could he serve the dozens of sentences imposed consecutively?

Given that the felony charge seems the hardest to prove and business fraud looks to be a slam dunk, could he end up doing 14 or 15 years for a string of related 1-year maximum misdemeanors?

It's often a judgement call, but there are also guidelines, and different jurisdictions can have their own way of handling it.

IOW, it's a mess, but not usually hard to deal with, unlike most of our messes.

They won't stack a dozen sentences, for one thing, he doesn't have that much time before he dies. If I was guessing, and this assumes he gets prison time in Georgie and the Feds, it would be consecutive. Even a few years means he won't be a threat to anyone. Putting him into jail until after the election would take him off the table. But how it actually plays out is anyone's guess.

We've never been here before, so you can expect more of the odd behavior from justice departments that we have been seeing. Cats on a hot tin roof, if you get my drift.

[Puffer Fish]

Trump did not divert his campaign funds to pay Stormy Daniels $130,000 through a company Cohen set up. Cohen was reimbursed by Trump, whose company logged the reimbursements as legal expenses. Cohen pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance law in connection with the payments as the payments amounted to unreported assistance to Trump’s campaign. Trump is accused of falsifying business records by logging Cohen’s reimbursement for the Daniels payment as legal fees, which is only a misdemeanor under New York law. New York’s statute of limitations for misdemeanors is two years.

You are totally correct. The situation is more complicated.

I made a long thread post about the Cohen case in the past, but this forum's search doesn't seem to work very well and so now I can't find it. I had wanted to link this thread to that other thread.

Part of the reason I didn't go into all the details is because then it would have made the issue too complicated, and then most of the people here would not want to take the effort to understand it all, so I had to vastly oversimplify the story, to focus on just one issue in it.

Trump is accused of falsifying business records by logging Cohen’s reimbursement for the Daniels payment as legal fees, which is only a misdemeanor under New York law. New York’s statute of limitations for misdemeanors is two years.

And the statute of limitations for that has already expired, but still the prosecutor managed to successfully obtain an indictment for this charge.
Says something about the prosecutor and the judge, doesn't it?


Anyway, hypothetical for the sake of argument, suppose the statute of limitations had not expired. Then they would just be getting Trump on a legal technicality. We also have to look at the intent and purpose of that law in the first place. It may have been technically against the state's law, but there was no real reason for it to be illegal, in this situation.

[Puffer Fish]

very long thread about the Cohen case now posted in another section of this forum:

"The problem with the case against Cohen" (April 1, 2023 posted in Law & Justice section)
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=183472

It's pretty long and complicated, longer than most of you are willing to read. For most of you your brains will probably just glaze over.

[Puffer Fish]

@ThirdTerm

Are you saying the prosecution has to prove there's been a violation of federal campaign finance law and if they cannot, the business frauds are timed out?

ThirdTerm was really referring to something else. Not federal campaign finance law, but in the state of New York a legal technicality regarding accounting.

[Potemkin]

very long thread about the Cohen case now posted in another section of this forum:

"The problem with the case against Cohen" (April 1, 2023 posted in Law & Justice section)
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=183472

It's pretty long and complicated, longer than most of you are willing to read. For most of you your brains will probably just glaze over.

[late]

very long thread about the Cohen case now posted in another section of this forum:

"The problem with the case against Cohen" (April 1, 2023 posted in Law & Justice section)
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=183472

It's pretty long and complicated, longer than most of you are willing to read. For most of you your brains will probably just glaze over.

You're supposed to post your sources... you know, law???

Anyway, as I already stated, there are dozens of charges. The figure I keep hearing on the news is 30, but take that with a grain of salt. The leaks are coming from the Trump crowd, and trustworthy they ain't.

Apparently I have to explain the obvious. Some of those charges will be linked. For example, the documents charge is a misdemeanor unless it can be shown to be part of a larger crime. Which also deals with your childish silliness that it's not relevant.

There's a lot more that could be said, but there really isn't a point before the charges are made. Even after that, there is a question as to which linkages stand up in court.

You're babbling.

[Puffer Fish]

Anyway, as I already stated, there are dozens of charges.

That doesn't mean anything. It's very normal for a prosecutor to charge a defendant under numerous criminal statutes, even when there was only one actual real crime (or alleged act that was a crime).
More criminal charges does not always mean the defendant is "more guilty". It's just a common legal tactic prosecutors use, especially when they really want to go after someone.

It can make it more difficult for a defendant to defend themselves when there are dozens of charges. Because then you have to argue against a large list of different things, and it can result in the jury and judge getting confused. If they forget or don't understand even one of your defense arguments, then you could lose.
The law can often be kind of complicated.

[late]

That doesn't mean anything.

No, you want it to be meaningless. OTOH, there is enough actual evidence to think there is plenty there. Let the trial play out, see what sticks.

[wat0n]

Trump did not divert his campaign funds to pay Stormy Daniels $130,000 through a company Cohen set up. Cohen was reimbursed by Trump, whose company logged the reimbursements as legal expenses. Cohen pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance law in connection with the payments as the payments amounted to unreported assistance to Trump’s campaign. Trump is accused of falsifying business records by logging Cohen’s reimbursement for the Daniels payment as legal fees, which is only a misdemeanor under New York law. New York’s statute of limitations for misdemeanors is two years.

Indeed, and it's being charged as a felony because he is alleged to have done so to cover up a crime.

Did Cohen violate NY law?