Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
A question for lawyers or others with more legal expertise than me.
The Trump hush money trial seems to hinge on Trump’s “intent” when he made the payment to Daniels. Was he merely trying to prevent embarrassment generally, or was he trying to help his campaign by keeping it quiet, in which case it was an unreported campaign contribution in excess of federal limits?
Has the question of intent ever been used in this way before? Obviously intent is often important in legal cases, and should be. It can mean the difference between a murder conviction or an acquittal in the case of a hunting accident, for example.
But this seems different. Clearly, Trump intended to pay Daniels to keep her quiet. So there’s no issue of fact. Normally, it would seem that’s where the factual issue of intent would end. But somehow here it doesn’t. In this case, it goes further into Trump’s subjective intent or state of mind when he made the payment, in terms of what he wanted ultimately to accomplish by it.
Imagine a case where a candidate had a second home on which he couldn’t afford the mortgage payments. He was upside down on the mortgage and so decided to stop making payments. His campaign advisor urges him to bring the mortgage current, at least until the election is over, because it would look bad if there was a foreclosure. And let’s say you could prove all this by emails and testimony. You could prove that the candidate’s intent in starting the mortgage payments again was only to help his campaign. Would that make it a campaign contribution, based only on his subjective state of mind? Of course not, because the payment is a mortgage payment. Subjective state of mind is irrelevant.
If you’re not convinced, look at the flip side: would it be legal to use campaign funds to make such a mortgage payment if the intent was only to help your campaign? Of course not, for the same reason: it’s a mortgage payment, not a campaign contribution. Subjective intent is irrelevant. Even if there was a mind reading machine which could divine the candidate’s subjective intent, it wouldn’t matter.
Similarly, would it have been legal for Trump to use campaign funds to pay Daniels? Of course it wouldn't be a defense to say, “But if she blabbed it would hurt my campaign! So it was a campaign expense!” Because objectively, it’s not a campaign expense, regardless of what may or may not have been going on in Trump’s mind.
For the first time ever, a former president is being criminally prosecuted. And in this prosecution, it appears that a novel legal theory of subjective intent is being used. A theory in which the crime lies not in a combination of intent and action, but in intent alone. This is not the way intent is supposed to be used in the law. I bet this is the only time in American history it’s ever been used like this. Prove me wrong.
Discussion (277)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I should have mentioned, something like this theory was used unsuccessfully against John Edwards, although the facts were different.
John Eastman was just disbarred for using a novel legal theory.
The merits of this case are garbage. THis is all political.
Banana Republic stuff.
But, Hey I am neither a lawyer, nor a professional journalist.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Election expenditures happen by the millions each election cycle. Normally, if something is ambiguous or dual-purpose between campaign and personal the Election Commission will leave it up to the candidate to decide. That is, there is no problem unless the candidate clearly broke the law.
Yes, Bragg is interpreting the federal law incorrectly to get Trump.
STAFF • CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The problem is not that Trump paid her to keep quiet. They’re going after him because he had Michael Cohen set up a shell company, Essential Consultants LLC in Delaware to do it. And then the non-disclosure agreement was made between "Peggy Peterson" and "David Dennison."
Cohen then seeks reimbursement from the Trump Organization and the money is labled as “legal fees” on the books. Now, businesses can deduct legal expenses, but individuals usually cannot. Part of Bragg’s argument is that Trump laundered the money through Cohen and his shell company and claimed the deductions for the Trump Organization on the NY State corporate tax. He probably would have been free and clear if he had paid her out of campaign funds.
Lots of lawyers say this is all bogus, that Bragg has twisted thing to make a misdemeanor a felony.
Even people who don't like Trump.
I don't think this is Trump's fault, which you seem to be implying.
You're seeing five of 277 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.