FEC: Trump-Stormy case ‘not a campaign finance violation’
FEC: Trump-Stormy case ‘not a campaign finance violation’
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-stormy-case-not-a-campaign-finance-violation
A key member of the Federal Election Commission today rejected the Manhattan district attorney’s indictment of former President Donald Trump as a violation of federal election laws.
...
First, (Trainor) said, Cohen took the blame in his plea deal. “At the end of the day, there's the person who committed the crime, and there's the person who is behind bars because of it,” Trainor said of Cohen.
Second, the paperwork violation in question came well after Trump’s 2016 election, so it couldn’t have been done to help his election.
Third, it is not obvious that the reason for the payment and the reimbursement to Cohen was to influence the election, thus failing the “objective standard” of law. “It has to be something that anybody on the street can look at and say the only reason you did that was to influence the campaign,” said Trainor. “There's a lot of reasons that he could have done it that aren't related to him being a candidate for president, and so therefore, it wouldn't have met the standard as campaign expenditure under federal law,” he added.
FEC: Trump-Stormy case ‘not a campaign finance violation’
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-stormy-case-not-a-campaign-finance-violation
A key member of the Federal Election Commission today rejected the Manhattan district attorney’s indictment of former President Donald Trump as a violation of federal election laws.
...
First, (Trainor) said, Cohen took the blame in his plea deal. “At the end of the day, there's the person who committed the crime, and there's the person who is behind bars because of it,” Trainor said of Cohen.
Second, the paperwork violation in question came well after Trump’s 2016 election, so it couldn’t have been done to help his election.
Third, it is not obvious that the reason for the payment and the reimbursement to Cohen was to influence the election, thus failing the “objective standard” of law. “It has to be something that anybody on the street can look at and say the only reason you did that was to influence the campaign,” said Trainor. “There's a lot of reasons that he could have done it that aren't related to him being a candidate for president, and so therefore, it wouldn't have met the standard as campaign expenditure under federal law,” he added.
