Ya DOJ NY prosecutors Tr felonies

[Sapidus]

“The filing by New York prosecutors does not explicitly name Trump, but rather refers to an "Individual-1" that it says Cohen "acted in coordination with and at the direction of" in steering payments to silence Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, the women claiming they had affairs with Trump before the 2016 election.

The document notes that Cohen worked for "Individual-1" as a personal attorney after the person "had become the President of the United States" and previously worked for the person when they "began an ultimately successful campaign for President of the United States."

"In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1," the document states.“



https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...en-filling-means-trump-committed-two-felonies

 

[GURPS]

A candidate is free to contribute to his or her own campaign. It also is not criminal for a candidate to pay hush money to women whose disclosures might endanger his campaign. So if candidate Trump paid hush money to his two accusers, there would be no violation of any campaign or other laws. To be sure, if he did so for the purpose of helping his campaign, as distinguished from helping his marriage, his campaign would have to disclose any such contribution, and failure to do so might be a violation of a campaign law, but the payments themselves would be entirely lawful.

If, on the other hand, Cohen made the payments by himself, without direction from the president, that would constitute an impermissible campaign contribution from a third party. But if Cohen was merely acting as a lawyer for Trump and advancing the payments, with an expectation of repayment, then it would be hard to find a campaign finance crime other than failure to report by the campaign.

Failure to report all campaign contributions is fairly common in political campaigns in the United States. Moreover, the offense is committed not by the candidate but, rather, by the campaign and is generally subject to a fine. Though it is wrong, it certainly is not the kind of high crime and misdemeanor that could serve as the basis for a constitutionally authorized impeachment and removal of a duly elected president.

Moreover, prosecutors should be reluctant to rely on the uncorroborated word of a defendant who pleaded guilty to lying and defrauding. Thomas Jefferson once observed that a criminal statute, to be fairly enforceable, must be so clear that it can be understood by the average person reading it while running. He did not mean while running for office. He meant that a criminal statute must not be subject to varying reasonable interpretations.

Anyone reading the collection of statutes and regulations that govern elections would immediately conclude, even while sitting, that they do not satisfy this Jeffersonian criteria. Reasonable people can disagree about whether these open ended laws apply to any of the acts and omissions that Cohen alleged against Trump. An overzealous prosecutor could, of course, stretch the words of the accordion like statute to target a political enemy, or read it more narrowly to favor a political friend. If the same morass of laws were being applied to a President Hillary Clinton, civil libertarians would be up in arms about their ambiguity.


https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/403072-did-president-trump-violate-campaign-finance-laws

 

[GURPS]

President Trump didn’t violate campaign-finance law


Did Trump Actually Violate Campaign Finance Laws?


Cohen, Trump, and Campaign Finance Violations