The case literally has zero to do with an affair. The alleged affair could be a complete fabrication. The point of the case is that Trump directed his lawyer to use money for XYZ. Trump then put that money down on the ledger as ABC. That he claimed it was ABC and not XYZ is the entire point of the case.
The WHY he decided to commit fraud is a nice detail but literally has zero bearing on if Trump actually did the whole I said the money was for ABC but it was really for XYZ.
I thought that they are pursuing him for election law violations and if they prove that he made the payment to help his campaign then the other charges of falsifying business records carry more weight since it was done to cover up a crime.
You’re both right. The reason the ABC/XYZ thing matters, and is tied to the presidency, is because the money came from campaign contributions and the ABC/XYZ are things you’re allowed to spend campaign funds on and things you aren’t.
I thought the argument was that it was for the campaign, because it was meant to help his chances of getting elected, but wasn’t reported as a campaign expense, which is a campaign violation.
If he had just said the reimbursement was a campaign expense, which probably would have been counter productive to his desire to cover it up, he would not be in hot water now.
The WHY he decided to commit fraud is a nice detail but literally has zero bearing on if Trump actually did the whole I said the money was for ABC but it was really for XYZ.
Actually this isn’t true, the why is very central to the case. The prosecution’s argument is that the “why” is that it would’ve been damaging to his campaign. That is what links it to the campaign finance law, and what makes it a felony offense. This is an element that they will need to prove in court.
The falsifying business records piece is pretty much a slam dunk.
They have motive to suppress the story, true or not. So whether the affair actually happened is of little consequence when it comes to proving motive or intent.
I agree with you. I think the media is handling it all wrong, it is a business fraud case, not a “hush-momey” case. However, I can see the prosocutions strategy. Hurt his ego, and he will react poorly in the eyes of the court and jury, let him purger himself, give him enough rope and he might just hang himself (in a legal sense).
The case literally has zero to do with an affair. The alleged affair could be a complete fabrication. The point of the case is that Trump directed his lawyer to use money for XYZ. Trump then put that money down on the ledger as ABC. That he claimed it was ABC and not XYZ is the entire point of the case.
The WHY he decided to commit fraud is a nice detail but literally has zero bearing on if Trump actually did the whole I said the money was for ABC but it was really for XYZ.
I thought that they are pursuing him for election law violations and if they prove that he made the payment to help his campaign then the other charges of falsifying business records carry more weight since it was done to cover up a crime.
You’re both right. The reason the ABC/XYZ thing matters, and is tied to the presidency, is because the money came from campaign contributions and the ABC/XYZ are things you’re allowed to spend campaign funds on and things you aren’t.
I thought the argument was that it was for the campaign, because it was meant to help his chances of getting elected, but wasn’t reported as a campaign expense, which is a campaign violation.
If he had just said the reimbursement was a campaign expense, which probably would have been counter productive to his desire to cover it up, he would not be in hot water now.
Actually this isn’t true, the why is very central to the case. The prosecution’s argument is that the “why” is that it would’ve been damaging to his campaign. That is what links it to the campaign finance law, and what makes it a felony offense. This is an element that they will need to prove in court.
The falsifying business records piece is pretty much a slam dunk.
I would think it has relevance to establish intent to commit fraud. I’m not a lawyer so no idea if motive matters for this sort of crime.
They have motive to suppress the story, true or not. So whether the affair actually happened is of little consequence when it comes to proving motive or intent.
I agree with you. I think the media is handling it all wrong, it is a business fraud case, not a “hush-momey” case. However, I can see the prosocutions strategy. Hurt his ego, and he will react poorly in the eyes of the court and jury, let him purger himself, give him enough rope and he might just hang himself (in a legal sense).
“hush-momey”
Im leaving the typo, its funnier.
deleted by creator