Trump-Stormy Daniels settlement at heart of potential NY DA indictment didn't violate

[ExpressLane]

Trump-Stormy Daniels settlement at heart of potential NY DA indictment didn't violate campaign law: FEC expert

Prosecutors in the Manhattan district attorney's office won't have much of a legal leg to stand on if they indict former President Donald Trump on violating campaign finance law, according to a legal expert and former member of the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

"If the state charges are based on a supposed violation of federal campaign finance law, then the Manhattan DA is way off base," Hans von SpakovskyManhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office will reportedly meet with law enforcement officials to discuss logistics for some time next week regarding a potential indictment, which stems from a years-long investigation into Trump's alleged hush money scandal involving porn star Stormy Daniels.

In the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump's then-lawyer Michael Cohen sent $130,000 to Daniels to prevent her from disclosing her alleged 2006 affair with Trump, who has denied the affair. Trump subsequently reimbursed Cohen.

It's been widely speculated that Trump could be charged with overseeing the false recording of the reimbursements in his company's internal records as "legal expenses."

Prosecutors are also expected to charge Trump with violating campaign finance laws by arranging the payments to buy Daniels' silence weeks before the 2016 election. However, experts have questioned the legal reasoning behind such a charge.

"A settlement payment of a nuisance claim is not a federal campaign expense," said von Spakovsky, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. "The state DA has no authority to prosecute a federal campaign finance violation in any event."

Such cases, he argues, are within the province of the FEC, where he served as a commissioner, or the U.S. Justice Department, explaining that both agencies have known about the facts for years but have chosen not to prosecute Trump.

"So, the federal agencies with jurisdiction did not consider it a violation," said von Spakovsky, who's been following this case for years.

In 2018, von Spakovsky wrote that the payment to Daniels seemed to be a "nuisance settlement," which celebrities often make, especially when faced with the threat of a false or salacious claim.

"Critics of the president claim this not only was a campaign expense that should have been reported but a potentially illegal loan by Cohen. But the settlement was ultimately paid out of Trump's personal funds and had nothing to do with the campaign since their alleged one-night stand occurred 10 years before the campaign," wrote von Spakovsky. "No reasonable member of a jury would consider this to be a campaign-related expense that needed to be reported, or to which any other campaign finance rules in the Federal Election Campaign Act apply."....


"The alleged one-night stand between Daniels and Trump is far more of a stretch," wrote von Spakovsky. "Daniels had no connection to the presidential campaign of any kind and the encounter — if it occurred — didn't happen during the campaign itself. In any event, even if the Daniels payment were to be considered a campaign-related expense, unlike Edwards, the nominal $130,000 payment wasn't made by Trump campaign donors but by Trump's personal attorney (not the campaign's attorney) with whom he has a long-standing business relationship. . . . Even if one might be able to reasonably construe the payment to Daniels as somehow related to the presidential campaign, there still would be no violation since candidates are allowed to spend as much of their own money as they want on their own campaigns."


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...law-fec-expert

================================


If this pending arrest is hinged around this hush money payment to Stormy Daniels the case is doomed to failure. A Presidential candidate can do what they want with their own money. This case will not see Trump behind bars or saddled with a felony conviction if it hinges on this payment.

[Doc Dutch]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...law-fec-expert

================================

If this pending arrest is hinged around this hush money payment to Stormy Daniels the case is doomed to failure. A Presidential candidate can do what they want with their own money. This case will not see Trump behind bars or saddled with a felony conviction if it hinges on this payment.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Considering JPP's finest Keyboard Kommandos have started so many threads on this subject indicates they are worried it has teeth.

There are more active threads claiming Trump's innocence and why NY is wrong than on Hunter Biden.

[ExpressLane]

If this indictment is focused around the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels it is doomed to failure. This is a political stunt to get the morons in the Democrat party excited.

[Cypress]

It's remarkable that a sleazebag who paid hush money to a porn star is the most popular and beloved Republican politician of the 21st century.

[BidenPresident]

It's remarkable that a sleazebag who paid hush money to a porn star is the most popular and beloved Republican politician of the 21st century.

They love him because he is a criminal.

[Nordberg]

Trump-Stormy Daniels settlement at heart of potential NY DA indictment didn't violate campaign law: FEC expert

Prosecutors in the Manhattan district attorney's office won't have much of a legal leg to stand on if they indict former President Donald Trump on violating campaign finance law, according to a legal expert and former member of the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

"If the state charges are based on a supposed violation of federal campaign finance law, then the Manhattan DA is way off base," Hans von SpakovskyManhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office will reportedly meet with law enforcement officials to discuss logistics for some time next week regarding a potential indictment, which stems from a years-long investigation into Trump's alleged hush money scandal involving porn star Stormy Daniels.

In the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump's then-lawyer Michael Cohen sent $130,000 to Daniels to prevent her from disclosing her alleged 2006 affair with Trump, who has denied the affair. Trump subsequently reimbursed Cohen.

It's been widely speculated that Trump could be charged with overseeing the false recording of the reimbursements in his company's internal records as "legal expenses."

Prosecutors are also expected to charge Trump with violating campaign finance laws by arranging the payments to buy Daniels' silence weeks before the 2016 election. However, experts have questioned the legal reasoning behind such a charge.

"A settlement payment of a nuisance claim is not a federal campaign expense," said von Spakovsky, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. "The state DA has no authority to prosecute a federal campaign finance violation in any event."

Such cases, he argues, are within the province of the FEC, where he served as a commissioner, or the U.S. Justice Department, explaining that both agencies have known about the facts for years but have chosen not to prosecute Trump.

"So, the federal agencies with jurisdiction did not consider it a violation," said von Spakovsky, who's been following this case for years.

In 2018, von Spakovsky wrote that the payment to Daniels seemed to be a "nuisance settlement," which celebrities often make, especially when faced with the threat of a false or salacious claim.

"Critics of the president claim this not only was a campaign expense that should have been reported but a potentially illegal loan by Cohen. But the settlement was ultimately paid out of Trump's personal funds and had nothing to do with the campaign since their alleged one-night stand occurred 10 years before the campaign," wrote von Spakovsky. "No reasonable member of a jury would consider this to be a campaign-related expense that needed to be reported, or to which any other campaign finance rules in the Federal Election Campaign Act apply."....


"The alleged one-night stand between Daniels and Trump is far more of a stretch," wrote von Spakovsky. "Daniels had no connection to the presidential campaign of any kind and the encounter — if it occurred — didn't happen during the campaign itself. In any event, even if the Daniels payment were to be considered a campaign-related expense, unlike Edwards, the nominal $130,000 payment wasn't made by Trump campaign donors but by Trump's personal attorney (not the campaign's attorney) with whom he has a long-standing business relationship. . . . Even if one might be able to reasonably construe the payment to Daniels as somehow related to the presidential campaign, there still would be no violation since candidates are allowed to spend as much of their own money as they want on their own campaigns."


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...law-fec-expert

================================


If this pending arrest is hinged around this hush money payment to Stormy Daniels the case is doomed to failure. A Presidential candidate can do what they want with their own money. This case will not see Trump behind bars or saddled with a felony conviction if it hinges on this payment.

When the guy who was charged with paying the women off got 3 years for the act, the one who is in charge has more guilt. The payoff and coverup was a crime. They misrepresented it as a campaign expense.

[ExpressLane]

It's remarkable that a sleazebag who paid hush money to a porn star is the most popular and beloved Republican politician of the 21st century.

The Democrats loved JFK that had the morals of a horny dog. I voted for Trump's policies not for his personal morals. I think Trump's morals are between him and his wife.

[ExpressLane]

When the guy who was charged with paying the women off got 3 years for the act, the one who is in charge has more guilt. The payoff and coverup was a crime. They misrepresented it as a campaign expense.

What crime? It isn't illegal for a candidate to spend his own money how he pleases. So tell what law was broken. State the law.

Even if one might be able to reasonably construe the payment to Daniels as somehow related to the presidential campaign, there still would be no violation since candidates are allowed to spend as much of their own money as they want on their own campaigns."

Hans von Spakovsky Former member of the FEC

[Cypress]

The Democrats loved JFK that had the morals of a horny dog. I voted for Trump's policies not for his personal morals. I think Trump's morals are between him and his wife.

I was less than one year old when Kennedy was president.

Plenty of other Republicans with the same policies and better morals ran against Trump for the 2016 GOP nomination, but Republican voters overwhelmingly decided they preferred sleaze and craven immorality.

[Nordberg]

The Democrats loved JFK that had the morals of a horny dog. I voted for Trump's policies not for his personal morals. I think Trump's morals are between him and his wife.

That was a different time. His affairs were not published in papers or on TV. The press did not exploit candidates' personal lives. Every president had affairs, except Nixon. None was public knowledge. Tricky Dicky was president and could not get laid.
Your connection is a fail.

[ExpressLane]

I was less than one year old when Kennedy was president.

Plenty of other Republicans with the same policies and better morals ran against Trump for the 2016 GOP nomination, but Republican voters overwhelmingly decided they preferred sleaze and craven immorality.

You loved the guy that was getting blow jobs from a White House aide that was over 20 years younger than him and that he supervised. Trump's indiscretion was YEARS before he was in the White House.

[ExpressLane]

That was a different time. His affairs were not published in papers or on TV. The press did not exploit candidates' personal lives. Every president had affairs, except Nixon. None was public knowledge. Tricky Dicky was president and could not get laid.
Your connection is a fail.

You loved Clinton who head banged a very young WH aide. What Trump did was years before he ran for President.

[Doc Dutch]

It's remarkable that a sleazebag who paid hush money to a porn star is the most popular and beloved Republican politician of the 21st century.

Not so remarkable given how far the Republican has fallen since Newt, another adulterous liar.

Not that the Democrats are much better:

The Democrats loved JFK that had the morals of a horny dog. I voted for Trump's policies not for his personal morals. I think Trump's morals are between him and his wife.

That's the same excuse the Democrats used for Slick Willie's adulterous behavior.

IMO, an immoral man makes an immoral President. In Slick Willie's case, because of his adulterous immorality, he was too busy attacking women for their accusations to deal with al-Qaeda. Sending a few cruise missiles to Afghanistan did not stop 9/11.

Same for Trump; his immorality taints his leadership.

[ExpressLane]

I was less than one year old when Kennedy was president.

Plenty of other Republicans with the same policies and better morals ran against Trump for the 2016 GOP nomination, but Republican voters overwhelmingly decided they preferred sleaze and craven immorality.

Yep I voted for one in the Primary and he lost. In the General elections I liked Trump's ethics better than Hillary's. Remember that Hillary who had tried to destroy women that horny dog Bill sexually abused. And Hillary was at the bottom of the Russia Dossier hoax.

[christiefan915]

You loved the guy that was getting blow jobs from a White House aide that was over 20 years younger than him and that he supervised. Trump's indiscretion was YEARS before he was in the White House.

So now it's not about what happened but when and where it happened.