NY: Trump on Trial!

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Do they have any precedent in which this sort of unrelated payment from a candidate's personal account was held was held to constitute a reportable contribution to their campaign?

Yes, all of the associated caselaw, per the D.A.'s opposition to Trump's motion-to-dismiss:

As set out in the Statement of the Case above, the grand jury evidence showed that, shortly after announcing his candidacy for President, defendant conspired with others - including Cohen and Pecker - to promote his election through a series of transactions that involved purchasing damaging information about defendant in order to suppress publication of that information. As relevant to this case, those transactions violated federal election laws because the payoffs to both McDougal and Daniels violated FECA's restrictions on corporate and individual contributions. Contrary to defendant's conclusory assertion in a footnote that this conduct did not violate FECA (DB: 15 n.5), both a federal court and the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") have examined these facts and found actual violations of FECA. Cohen pleaded guilty to FECA violations in connection with both the McDougal and Daniels payoffs and served time in prison. Tr. 937-938 (Cohen); see Judgment of Conviction, United States v. Cohen, No. 18-cr-602 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2018) (PX-34). And the FEC - which has exclusive civil enforcement authority for FECA violations, see 52 U.S.C. § 30107(e) - found that AMI and Pecker knowingly and willfully violated FECA by making a prohibited corporate in-kind contribution when they purchased McDougal's story to help defendant's presidential campaign. Tr. 1089-1090 (Pecker); see Factual & Legal Analysis 2, 10-16, In re 1360 Media, LLC f/k/a American Media, Inc., & David J. Pecker, Federal Election Comm'n Matter Under Review 7324, 7332, & 7366 (Apr. 13, 2021) ("In re 4360 Media") (PX-35). The FEC's enforcement authority is civil, not criminal. See 52 U.S.C. § 30107(a)(6), (e). But a person who "knowingly and willfully" violates FECA's contribution limits is subject to criminal prosecution, 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(1)(A); and the FEC found reason to believe that both AMl and Pecker knowingly and willfully violated that statute. See Factual & Legal Analysis 2, 10-16, In re A360 Media (PX-35). The FEC's finding thus establishes that the facts cleared the threshold for FECA criminal culpability by AMI and Pecker.

The motion-to-dismiss' "conclusory assertion in a footnote that this conduct did not violate FECA" is the extent of Trump argument's on this point so far before trial/raising on appeal:

Even if the Court concludes that federal crimes can serve as object offenses under § 175.10, the evidence does not establish that the payments violated FECA. Under FECA, the third-party payments were not "contributions" or "expenditures" associated with President Trump's campaign because they were not made for the purpose of influencing an election and would have been made irrespective of the candidacy. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 80 (1976); Orloski v. FEC, 795 F.2d 156, 162-63 (D.C. Cir. 1986); 11 C.F.R § 113.1(g)(6). President Trump reserves the right to make these arguments, if necessary, at trial and in connection with any challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and fairness of future proceedings.

Will the prosecution be calling expert witnesses to testify as to the applicability of the FECA to this situation?

They presumably will, as this expert testimony probably proves critical to being able to sustain conviction on appeal, & Trump is:

The People's motion is granted to the extent that [Trump expert Bradley] Smith may not testify as a lay (fact) witness; offer opinion testimony regarding the interpretation and application of federal campaign finance laws and how they relate to the facts in the instant matter, nor may Smith testify or offer an opinion as to whether the alleged conduct tn this case does or does not constitute a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA"). However, Smith will be permitted to testify generally as to the following: general background as to what the Federal Campaign Commission ("FEC") is, background as to who makes up the FEC, what the FEC's function is, what laws, if any, the FEC is responsible for enforcing, and general definitions and terms that relate directly to this case, such as, for example, "campaign contribution".

The Court will monitor this testimony closely to ensure full compliance. Any deviation from this ruling could result in sanctions up to and including the striking of the expert's entire testimony.

This is informative and helpful, thanks!
I'll be eager to read the testimony on these points and certainly hope my initial impressions are wrong!

[emailking]

Not looking good for T unless those notes somehow aren't as promised.

[brucejoel99]

Not looking good for T unless those notes somehow aren't as promised.

Maybe it's not too late for Judge Kacsmaryk to issue a nationwide injunction against... *checks notes* ... Weisselberg's handwritten calculations on how to ensure Cohen could covertly get his $130K back by hiding it on top of his annual $60K bonus & then paying off the large tax bill that he'd subsequently get hit with after registering $420K total as "income". (!!!)

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

You all missed the most important part of today's testimony.

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1782878474086109219

"your honor, he is not cringe and has rizz"

[brucejoel99]

You all missed the most important part of today's testimony.

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1782878474086109219

"your honor, he is not cringe and has rizz"

https://twitter.com/tylermcbrien/status/1782801023985164379

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/frankrunyeon/status/1783223696586428483