Andrew McCarthy from outside the court: Jury could be confused about 'campaign expenditures'

It seems to me that this phrase “would not have been paid, but for the campaign“ from the prosecution is confusing in a pernicious way. It’s really more of a legal concept than a factual one. That is, categorically, NDA are not campaign expenditures because they are obligations created independent of the campaign. In other words, Stormy could’ve pressured Trump to pay up in contexts having nothing to do with the campaign; but what the jury is being told is that “but for the campaign” is more of a fact question than a legal question. That is, if Trump or Michael Cohen would not have paid stormy if it weren’t for the campaign, then it becomes a campaign expenditure. In reality, the campaign may have been Trump‘s motivation for paying up, but technically that doesn’t make the NDA a campaign expenditure. And as a matter of law, if an NDA is not technically a campaign expenditure, then it shouldn’t matter what his motive was.

No comments:

Powered by Blogger.