MAGAts don't understand...or don't WANT to understand...the illegalities of the Stormy Daniels case.

[Miles Archer]

Trump tried to conceal the payment to Daniels.

A conviction would be likely to hinge on prosecutors’ proving that Trump reimbursed Cohen and falsified business records when he did so, possibly to hide an election law violation.

There's nothing "partisan" about it. Trump has been running the Roy Cohn playbook, and stooges like Kevin McCarthy and Elise Stefanik have been all too eager to back him up.

IF BRAGG IS ABLE TO PRESENT AN AIRTIGHT CASE, Trump IS a CRIMINAL.

No ambiguity.

And no, I don't like him. I also didn't like Charles Manson or Timothy McVeigh. My like or dislike for them was 100% irrelevant when it came to their guilt, just as it will be if Bragg is able to bring in a guilty verdict against Trump.

[brooklynite]

1. "Possibly to hide an election law violation"

Not relevant to the case. The potential election law violation is a Federal matter, The Manhattan DA had no ability to link to it.

[dpibel]

3. NYT writers disagree

I certainly don't know NY law. But I'm not entirely convinced you do, either.

Here's one source that seems to think you're mistaken.

In New York, falsifying business records can amount to a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. To elevate the crime to a felony charge, Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.

In this case, that second crime could be a violation of New York state election law. While hush money is not inherently illegal, the prosecutors could argue that the $130,000 payout effectively became an improper donation to Trump’s campaign, under the theory that it benefited his candidacy because it silenced Daniels.

[brooklynite]

4. "New York state election law"

Trump's Presidential campaign (particularly with respect to campaign finance) was governed by FEDERAL election law.

[dpibel]

5. Gosh. That silly NYT.

The writers of both the article the OP linked to and the article I cited seem still to find you in error. Both of them erroneously (according to you) say that there's an election law charge at issue.

As far as I know, this potential indictment is of Donald Trump. Not of Trump's Presidential campaign.

Are you claiming that the Trump campaign cut the checks to Cohen? That would be news to me.

So I'm not sure why you find the law applicable to the campaign to be dispositive.

But I bet you can clear it right up for me.

[onenote]

6. Maybe this will help clear it up for you:

From Ruth Marcus' Washington Post column discussing the hurdles Bragg faces in bringing a felony charge against Trump:

Mark Pomerantz, a veteran of the Southern District who went to work investigating Trump for former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., walked through the complexities in his book, released last month, about the Trump probe. “Charges arising under federal law have to be brought by federal prosecutors,” he wrote. “Local prosecutors like the Manhattan district attorney can prosecute only violations of state or local laws.”

The problems are manifold. New York state law makes it a crime to falsify business records — for example, listing hush money payments as a retainer — but that is only a misdemeanor. It could rise to the level of a felony charge if prosecutors could show that Trump ordered falsification of records to conceal another crime. But would “another crime” need to be a federal offense, or would a state offense be sufficient?

Again, Pomerantz: “Cohen (with the agreement of Trump and others at the Trump Organization) had used phony documents and invoices to commit and conceal a federal election law violation, but there appeared to be no comparable state crime in play. So, to charge Trump with something other than a misdemeanor, [the district attorney] would have to argue that the intent to commit or conceal a federal crime had converted the falsification of the records into a felony.”
Pomerantz gave that strategy long odds. If Bragg’s office chose to proceed, he wrote, “there was a big risk that felony charges would be dismissed before a jury could even consider them.”

The New York Times suggested that the payments might have constituted a violation of state, not just federal, election law, but it’s not at all clear just what that state election violation might entail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/13/trump-stormy-daniels-new-york-indictment-possible/

[dpibel]

8. Thanks. Less than pat answer.

Even this source leaves open the possibility that there's a state law violation.

I just find it odd for someone to state as a matter of indisputable fact something that appears for all the world to be at least a bit up in the air.

[czarjak]

2. They believe their admiration out weighs our disdain.

[lastlib]

7. It's not that they don't understand.....

It's that they don't care. They don't like it because it might interfere with their power-lust.