The Legal Issues Raised by the Stormy Daniels Payment, Explained

One question surrounding Michael D. Cohen’s payment to a porn actress is whether it was intended to influence the election by suppressing a claim that could have hurt Donald J. Trump’s chances.

WASHINGTON — The disclosure by Rudolph W. Giuliani that President Trump repaid his longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, for the $130,000 hush-money payment made to a pornographic actress shortly before the 2016 election has put new scrutiny on the legal issues raised by the unusual transaction.

Mr. Trump has never reported this expenditure, loan or repayment — either in campaign filings with the Federal Election Commission or on his financial disclosure form with the government ethics office. But it remains murky what exactly Mr. Trump knew, and when he learned it.

A threshold question is whether the payment to the actress, Stephanie Clifford, who goes by the stage name Stormy Daniels, was intended to influence the election by suppressing a claim that could hurt Mr. Trump’s chances. If so, the transaction was most likely covered by federal campaign finance laws.

Those laws barred candidates’ supporters from making donations — including in-kind donations — worth more than $2,700 to presidential campaigns during the 2016 general election. And while those laws allow candidates to spend an unlimited amount of their own money to help their campaigns, they require the candidates to disclose such self-funding, both as donations to their campaigns and as expenditures. But if the motive for the payment was unrelated to the election, then it was not covered by those laws.

Recent history suggests that it can be tricky to prove that the motive behind such a payment was political rather than personal. In 2012, the Justice Department prosecuted John Edwards, the former Democratic senator from North Carolina, over payments from wealthy donors that were used to hide his pregnant mistress while he ran for president. Mr. Edwards’s lawyers argued that he was instead trying to hide the affair from his wife.

In the end, a jury acquitted Mr. Edwards of one charge while deadlocking on the other five, and prosecutors opted not to seek a new trial. Richard L. Hasen, a professor of law at the University of California, Irvine, said that after the Edwards mistrial, federal prosecutors will be reluctant to go forward with similar cases unless they have “documentary proof, a smoking gun, that a payment was in fact election-related.”

In an interview on Thursday on the Fox News program “Fox & Friends,” Mr. Giuliani insisted that the payment was not a campaign contribution. He said Mr. Cohen was trying to help Mr. Trump’s family “to save their marriage — not their marriage so much as their reputation.” But then, muddying that message, Mr. Giuliani said, “Imagine if that came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton.” Separately, in an interview with The New York Times, Mr. Giuliani acknowledged that “it could overlap as a campaign problem,” but reiterated that Mr. Trump was not thinking of the payment as a campaign expense.

It could work in Mr. Trump’s favor that he and his lawyers had a long history of using legal avenues to try to fight off damaging claims. That history could form the basis of an argument that Mr. Cohen’s payment to Ms. Clifford — and Mr. Trump’s reimbursement of it — would have happened whether or not he was running for president.

“If this was a first-time candidate without a public reputation, then it would be harder to argue that it wasn’t an expenditure to influence an election,” said Charles Spies, a Republican election lawyer who worked in support of one of Mr. Trump’s rivals, the former Florida governor Jeb Bush, in the 2016 Republican primary. “But Donald Trump has a long record of aggressively defending his reputation from attacks.”

That track record could prove less compelling if the authorities obtain evidence that Mr. Cohen privately discussed the payment in the context of Mr. Trump’s campaign. Last month, federal law enforcement officials in New York raided Mr. Cohen’s office and hotel room, carting away numerous documents and electronic devices that are now the subject of a fight over attorney-client privilege. One of the things they are apparently investigating is the payment to Ms. Clifford.

Not if the loan was intended to influence the election. Campaigns routinely take out large loans from banks when they’re running short of cash ahead of elections. But federal election laws require that those loans come from banks as routine business transactions. Personal loans count as contributions that are still legally capped at the individual contribution limit — even if they are later repaid in full, according to the Federal Election Commission website.

If the payment were to be deemed campaign-related, the Trump campaign should have disclosed it in its periodic filings with the F.E.C., as soon as Mr. Trump or his campaign learned that Mr. Cohen had made it. If Mr. Trump or his campaign only discovered the payment after the fact, they should have amended their previous filings to reflect the expenditure, and any reimbursements to Mr. Cohen. The Wall Street Journal first reported the $130,000 payment to Ms. Clifford in January, and Mr. Trump has not moved to amend his disclosures.

In an interview with The Times, Mr. Giuliani was vague about key questions concerning what Mr. Trump knew and when he knew it, saying that Mr. Trump “did know that there was a form of reimbursements” to Mr. Cohen over the course of 2017, but maintaining that the president did not know what it was for specifically. Mr. Giuliani also said that some executives at the Trump Organization “knew about the fact that Cohen believes money was owed to him — I don’t know when that came up.”

Yes. As a government employee, Mr. Trump is also required to report any liabilities in excess of $10,000 on a financial disclosure form filed with the Office of Government Ethics. His 2017 form — which he signed in June, certifying it was “true, complete and correct” — does not list any outstanding loan from Mr. Cohen, campaign-related or otherwise. When he spoke with The Times on Thursday, Mr. Giuliani did not answer why the money was not listed on the president’s financial disclosure form.

When campaign finance violations are punished, they typically result in fines by the Federal Election Commission that are pegged to the size of the unlawful contribution or expenditure. The Justice Department can also prosecute willful violations of election laws, or willful false statements on the federal personal financial disclosure forms, which are felonies and can result in up to five years in prison.

There is little chance that the department would file charges against Mr. Trump, regardless of what the evidence shows, because its Office of Legal Counsel has opined that the Constitution makes sitting presidents immune from prosecution.

But Mr. Cohen, after the raid last month, is under intense legal pressure.

In Other News

fake money

Keywords clouds text link

 máy sấy   thịt bò mỹ  thành lập doanh nghiệp
Visunhomegương trang trí  nội thất  cửa kính cường lực   lắp camera Song Phát thiết kế nhà 

Our PBN System:  thiết kế nhà xưởng thiết kế nội thất thiết kế nhà tem chống giả ban nhạ  ốp lưngGiường ngủ triệu gia  Ku bet ku casino buy fake money máy sấy buồn sấy lạnh

mặt nạ  mặt nạ ngủ  Mặt nạ môi mặt nạ bùn mặt nạ kem mặt nạ bột mặt nạ tẩy tế bào chết  mặt nạ đất sét mặt nạ giấy mặt nạ dưỡng mặt nạ đắp mặt  mặt nạ trị mụn
mặt nạ tế bào gốc mặt nạ trị nám tem chống giả  công ty tổ chức sự kiện tổ chức sự kiện
Ku bet ku casino
Sâm tươi hàn quốc trần thạch cao trần thạch cao đẹp

suất ăn công nghiệpcung cấp suất ăn công nghiệp

© 2020 US News. All Rights Reserved.