NY: Trump on Trial!

[emailking]

Wall Street Journal article on the legal interpretation of the campaign finance law:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-indictment-is-a-perversion-of-campaign-finance-law-alvin-bragg-hush-money-business-records-daniels-bdb5942c

Cliffs:

1). Manhattan DA thinks the $130k was done to prevent bad press to Trump, so the payments were made "for the purpose of influencing" an election. Hence, they think it's a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act

2). The truth is that the campaign-finance laws have an objective standard. Obligations can't be considered campaign expenditures if the payments would have been made irrespective of the campaign. The obligation must have been created by the campaign

3). That means expenses for campaign staff, rallies, polling, and political ads are campaign expenditures. Those expenses were created by the campaign; you wouldn't pay for those things outside of an election.

4). But if you pay for a $4k suit right before a debate because you want to look good on TV. You technically bought that suit to influence an election, but that $4k is not considered campaign expenditure because you would have bought clothes irrespective of an election.

5). Trump is a married man, a public figure, and business owner. He would have, reasonably, wanted to prevent the bad press regardless of the election. Thus, he would have reasonably made the payment irrespective of the election

She'd asked for money before and he didn't pay her though.

[Donerail]

One flaw in the irrespective defense, is that the hush money was paid coincident with the election, while risk of the exposure into the public square of the alleged Trump tryst had been pending for years. If Trump paid the hush money to protect his marriage or reputation irrespective of the campaign, why did he wait to pay it until it was campaign season? An answer will need to be provided that seems creditable to explain away the long hiatus. The irrespective issue is not a silver bullet defense ala John Edwards' love child hush money payment.

Did the WSJ address the above issue?

The best defense is the statute of limitations. The tolling of it while Trump was out of state given that his whereabouts was known at all times, I just don't think will fly, particularly on equitable grounds. Bragg is going to be very embarrassed if he gets blown out on the SOL issue, and an appellate court might take that up prior to trial, since it moots the whole case right out of the box.

But doesn’t Bragg in turn have the counter argument about the judicial systems views about charging a president with a crime meant he had to wait until Trump left?

That's not enough — Trump left office in January 2021 and it is now April 2023. There's a two-year statute of limitation on the misdo counts (not getting into the felony charges, which have their own issues), so you have to argue both that the statute of limitations was tolled while he was President, even though he was a New York resident, and that it is still tolled now because he is residing out of state.

There is some (bizarre) New York precedent suggesting you count up the individual days in which a defendant is present in the state, but I just don't think that context (suspect was on the lam after bombing a car dealership) is analogous to this situation.

[Donerail]

She'd asked for money before and he didn't pay her though.

Irrelevant. Even if he paid her during the campaign,, the expenditure  wasn’t created by the campaign; and he still had reason to pay her outside of the election 

If I buy a nice $4k suit right before the debates, it’s not considered a campaign expenditure (and I can’t use campaign donor funds to buy the suit) because the need to buy clothes wasn’t created by the campaign. Even if I bought the $4k suit right before the debates and my intent in buying the $4k suit was to influence the election  by looking good on TV  for voters —- it’s not a campaign finance violation because the need to buy clothes wasn’t created by the campaign: I would have had reason to buy the suit outside of the election

In contrast, paying for campaign staff, TV ads, rallies etc. are expenditures created by a campaign, and I have no reason to pay for those things outside of an election. I have to use campaign funds to pay for those things, which must be reported to the FEC (do you understand the difference now between campaign expenditures and personal expenditures?)

If you purchase a nice suit, it's not a campaign expenditure. If you purchased a suit with your campaign slogan on it, that would be a campaign expenditure. Do you understand the difference?

The argument here is that the expenditure was created by the campaign — it would not exist but for the campaign. Trump had the same wife, same business interests, and same public persona all the other times she asked for money and was rebuffed. The sole thing that changed in this instance is that he was a candidate for President, giving him the reason for making the payments.

It's not a slam dunk, but neither is it the obvious case you're making it out to be — the timing is different from the Edwards case, making the causation much cleaner. Still think this all gets thrown out on the statute of limitations issue, but should it get to the merits, there's a colorable argument.

[Donerail]

If you purchase a nice suit, it's not a campaign expenditure. If you purchased a suit with your campaign slogan on it, that would be a campaign expenditure. Do you understand the difference?

The argument here is that the expenditure was created by the campaign — it would not exist but for the campaign. Trump had the same wife, same business interests, and same public persona all the other times she asked for money and was rebuffed. The sole thing that changed in this instance is that he was a candidate for President, giving him the reason for making the payments.

It's not a slam dunk, but neither is it the obvious case you're making it out to be — the timing is different from the Edwards case, making the causation much cleaner. Still think this all gets thrown out on the statute of limitations issue, but should it get to the merits, there's a colorable argument.

The expenditure wasn’t created by the campaign. It’s an objective standard, not subjective .

Even you admit that she had asked him for money before the campaign. Why did she ask for money before the campaign? Because he had reason to pay her outside of the campaign.

Evidently he did not!

Even if he didn’t pay her until the campaign because he subjectively felt he didn’t need to, he still had objective reasons to pay her before the campaign (eg to save his marriage, protect his business, avoid bad publicity)

And those reasons were objectively not sufficient to compel him to actually make the payment before the campaign. You seem to be under the impression that any candidate who can find the thinnest possible pretext can cite that as a reason for why their campaign-related expenditure is actually a personal expense (or vice-versa). That is not how the law works.

Just like if I buy a nice suit right before the debates. It’s not a campaign finance violation because I have a need to buy clothes outside of my campaign. . I certainly had the same need for buying clothes  before the debates, and I could’ve bought the suit before the debates: the only thing that changed is that I would be appearing on TV in front of voters, which giving me the reason for buying the $4k suit. But it’s still not a campaign finance violation because I had reason to buy clothes irrespective of a campaign

Repeating the same analogy will not convince people to take you any more seriously.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump still has Federal Felony charges in J6 and DOCUGATE, and the difference between Biden Docugate and Trump is we know Hunter didn't pay his taxes just like Trump, Biden himself has paid all his taxes, it's a new Eday now RS never had a chance at 303 anyway they lost that ALREADY, but we can win wave insurance seats now 230DH and 53/47 S, I am anxious for Sen populist Kunce and Boswell net 2 seats and Emerson has Biden tied pre indictment in FL

[emailking]

Irrelevant. Even if he paid her during the campaign,, the expenditure  wasn’t created by the campaign; and he still had reason to pay her outside of the election  

If I buy a nice $4k suit right before the debates, it’s not considered a campaign expenditure (and I can’t use campaign donor funds to buy the suit) because the need to buy clothes wasn’t created by the campaign. Even if I bought the $4k suit right before the debates and my intent in buying the $4k suit was to influence the election  by looking good on TV  for voters —- it’s not a campaign finance violation because the need to buy clothes wasn’t created by the campaign: I would have had reason to buy the suit outside of the election

In contrast, paying for campaign staff, TV ads, rallies etc. are expenditures created by a campaign, and I have no reason to pay for those things outside of an election. I have to use campaign funds to pay for those things, which must be reported to the FEC (do you understand the difference now between campaign expenditures and personal expenditures?)


Let me ask you : is it a campaign finance violation if I buy a $4k suit right before a debate because I wanted to influence the election by looking Ric Flair-stylish on TV (WHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!) ?

I don't think it's irrelevant. The fact that he turned her down before, but did not turn her down 2 weeks before the election shows that it was an expense that was intended to influence the campaign and that it would not have been made "but for" the campaign, which is the legal standard here. I don't care about the suit analogy.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I have a landslide map but it's not gonna take much, not a double digits but 52/46 landslide to net 1 S seat and 15 House seats we win MO and FL and lose WV or just net MO with WVA that's a 4/6 PVI win for Biden 80/75 M voted or 65/60M

We are advantage now even in the S where pre indictments were could lost it all

[emailking]

The legal standard is not whether the expense was meant to influence the campaign. The legal standard is whether the expense was created by the campaign and would have been objectively paid irrespective of the campaign. You might want a different standard (eg - “I don’t care about the suit analogy”), but what you want isn’t a consideration

The legal standard is would the payment have been made but for the campaign. To me it is clear it would not have been. That it was intended to influence the campaign is part of why I conclude that. The other part of why I conclude that is he turned he down before.

[Joe Republic]

https://twitter.com/RobertCooper58/status/1641936637973217285?s=20

[ꙮ]

Redban has 20 posts in this thread since yesterday morning. Nearly a whole page of him coping and seething. Just priceless.

[emailking]

The legal standard is not whether the expense was meant to influence the campaign. The legal standard is whether the expense was created by the campaign and would have been objectively paid irrespective of the campaign. You might want a different standard (eg - “I don’t care about the suit analogy”), but what you want isn’t a consideration

The legal standard is would the payment have been made but for the campaign. To me it is clear it would not have been. That it was intended to influence the campaign is part of why I conclude that. The other part of why I conclude that is he turned he down before.

So if the $130k payment is, as you claim, a campaign finance contribution, then would Trump have been within his rights to use campaign donor funds to issue the payment (as opposed to his personal funds)? That means money that was given to him by his supporters and fundraisers - do you think Trump could have legally used that money to pay the $130k?

I'm not sure the payment is legal at all without reporting it somewhere, even if there was no campaign. For example, you can't give somebody more than $16,000 in a year as a gift without reporting it to the IRS. There could been multiple laws he's violated here. So not an expert on this, but no I don't think he could have paid it out of campaign donor funds and done no reporting on the payment.

[Crumpets]

Redban has 20 posts in this thread since yesterday morning. Nearly a whole page of him coping and seething. Just priceless.

At least he's a blue av (and not even a centrist one) giving his thoughts and making some predictions in a thread about negative developments for Team Trump. That's more than can be said about... a lot of Atlas.

[Pericles]

Being charged in multiple jurisdictions is bad for the defendant, actually.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/03/30/donald-trump-indictment-r-kelly-michael-avenatti-00088097

[ProudModerate2]

Redban has 20 posts in this thread since yesterday morning. Nearly a whole page of him coping and seething. Just priceless.

At least he's a blue av (and not even a centrist one) giving his thoughts and making some predictions in a thread about negative developments for Team Trump. That's more than can be said about... a lot of Atlas.

This is true.
We should give him some credit (I suppose).

[emailking]

Is it your argument that he could have used campaign donor money to pay the $130k settlement as long as he reported the payment?

I don't know. He wouldn't be facing a charge for falsifying business records elevated to a felony because it was meant to hide a campaign contribution though (if that's what he's charged with).

[South Dakota Democrat]

This is hilarious to watch BG keep going 😂 🍿

I want some of whatever he's smoking.

[Torie]

One flaw in the irrespective defense, is that the hush money was paid coincident with the election, while risk of the exposure into the public square of the alleged Trump tryst had been pending for years. If Trump paid the hush money to protect his marriage or reputation irrespective of the campaign, why did he wait to pay it until it was campaign season? An answer will need to be provided that seems creditable to explain away the long hiatus. The irrespective issue is not a silver bullet defense ala John Edwards' love child hush money payment.

Did the WSJ address the above issue?

Go back to the analogy in the WSJ article. Say I pay $4k for a nice suit right before the debates because I want to look good for voters  By your argument, you think it would be a campaign expenditure because “why’d you wait until right before the debates to buy that nice $4k suit brah??? You could have bought that nice suit years ago. An answer will need to be provided that seems creditable to explain away the timing of buying it right before debates. “ But campaign finance laws are objective. The expense has to have been created by the campaign itself, like the need to pay for campaign staff. Candidates have always been responsible for buying their own clothes; they cannot use campaign funds

The article also mentions that, by the DA’s alleged thinking, the payment was a campaign expense, so Trump supposedly violated by using his personal money and not reporting the payment as campaign expense. So by the DA’s thinking, Trump should have used campaign funds to pay the $130k … do you seriously think candidates should use campaign funds to pay settlement / hush money, and do you seriously think the FEC has that intent in their statute?

No, the DA does not expect Trump to use campaign funds rather than his own funds for the hush money. he just thinks that in either event it should have been reported as a campaign expenditure. I stand by what I said as to the irrespective defense being problematical pending Trump having an adequate explanation.

[Torie]

One flaw in the irrespective defense, is that the hush money was paid coincident with the election, while risk of the exposure into the public square of the alleged Trump tryst had been pending for years. If Trump paid the hush money to protect his marriage or reputation irrespective of the campaign, why did he wait to pay it until it was campaign season? An answer will need to be provided that seems creditable to explain away the long hiatus. The irrespective issue is not a silver bullet defense ala John Edwards' love child hush money payment.

Did the WSJ address the above issue?

The best defense is the statute of limitations. The tolling of it while Trump was out of state given that his whereabouts was known at all times, I just don't think will fly, particularly on equitable grounds. Bragg is going to be very embarrassed if he gets blown out on the SOL issue, and an appellate court might take that up prior to trial, since it moots the whole case right out of the box.

But doesn’t Bragg in turn have the counter argument about the judicial systems views about charging a president with a crime meant he had to wait until Trump left?

It that tolls the statute, OK, but I doubt that it does.

The premise seems false as well.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-u-s-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3

[Torie]

One flaw in the irrespective defense, is that the hush money was paid coincident with the election, while risk of the exposure into the public square of the alleged Trump tryst had been pending for years. If Trump paid the hush money to protect his marriage or reputation irrespective of the campaign, why did he wait to pay it until it was campaign season? An answer will need to be provided that seems creditable to explain away the long hiatus. The irrespective issue is not a silver bullet defense ala John Edwards' love child hush money payment.

Did the WSJ address the above issue?

Go back to the analogy in the WSJ article. Say I pay $4k for a nice suit right before the debates because I want to look good for voters  By your argument, you think it would be a campaign expenditure because “why’d you wait until right before the debates to buy that nice $4k suit brah??? You could have bought that nice suit years ago. An answer will need to be provided that seems creditable to explain away the timing of buying it right before debates. “ But campaign finance laws are objective. The expense has to have been created by the campaign itself, like the need to pay for campaign staff. Candidates have always been responsible for buying their own clothes; they cannot use campaign funds

The article also mentions that, by the DA’s alleged thinking, the payment was a campaign expense, so Trump supposedly violated by using his personal money and not reporting the payment as campaign expense. So by the DA’s thinking, Trump should have used campaign funds to pay the $130k … do you seriously think candidates should use campaign funds to pay settlement / hush money, and do you seriously think the FEC has that intent in their statute?

No, the DA does not expect Trump to use campaign funds rather than his own funds for the hush money. he just thinks that in either event it should have been reported as a campaign expenditure. I stand by what I said as to the irrespective defense being problematical pending Trump having an adequate explanation.

Bolded are contradictory. It’s either a campaign expense or a personal expense. Pick one or the other, not both

If it should have been reported as a campaign expense, then your argument is that Trump (or any candidate) can legally pay hush money with campaign donations

If it cannot be paid with campaign donations, then it’s not a campaign expense; it falls under personal use

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/

If a candidate cuts checks to help his campaign, and for no other primary reason, it is a campaign expense. KISS.

This will all be sorted out soon, unless the running on the SOL moots the case first. Be patient.

[Torie]

The legal standard is not whether the expense was meant to influence the campaign. The legal standard is whether the expense was created by the campaign and would have been objectively paid irrespective of the campaign. You might want a different standard (eg - “I don’t care about the suit analogy”), but what you want isn’t a consideration

The legal standard is would the payment have been made but for the campaign. To me it is clear it would not have been. That it was intended to influence the campaign is part of why I conclude that. The other part of why I conclude that is he turned he down before.

So if the $130k payment is, as you claim, a campaign finance contribution, then would Trump have been within his rights to use campaign donor funds to issue the payment (as opposed to his personal funds)? That means money that was given to him by his supporters and fundraisers - do you think Trump could have legally used that money to pay the $130k?

I'm not sure the payment is legal at all without reporting it somewhere, even if there was no campaign. For example, you can't give somebody more than $16,000 in a year as a gift without reporting it to the IRS. There could been multiple laws he's violated here. So not an expert on this, but no I don't think he could have paid it out of campaign donor funds and done no reporting on the payment.

I think the fine for not issuing a 1099 to Stormy Daniels is $50.00. If people went to jail for not issuing 1099's, the government would probably get another trillion bucks in revenue from bringing the underground economy above ground. Independent contractors are tax cheat city.

[Torie]

The conversation is now going around in circles. I am not going to repeat what I typed above, with which you did not engage (I am sure you disagree on that), so we are done.

The idea here is not to persuade people, an utterly futile endeavor in general, but to provide information and arguments that other Forumites may not have been exposed to.

If you had been exposed to this already, then my value to you is the null set. I get it.

[pantsaregood]

In this topic: no one denying Trump's guilt.

I guess "law and order" only applies to the undesirables.

[BG-NY]

In this topic: no one denying Trump's guilt.

I guess "law and order" only applies to the undesirables.

I don’t really get this, “law and order” is really part of the pre-GOP brand. The lower taxes, more police, otherwise liberal areas have trended D.

[Meclazine for Israel]

According to Australian media, Trump has worn the same clothes for the last 16 days.

He never gives up a minute when fighting for the people.

[West_Midlander]

Witch hunt