Trumped Up?

Are hush money payments to mistresses campaign expenses?

By and

With possible Trump indictments looming, Sarah and David meet face to face to discuss. Will the Manhattan D.A. set a precedent on prosecuting a former president based on a shaky theory of law?

  • From New York to Georgia, the indictments are coming..(?)
  • We need a better political class in the country
  • The Bob McDonnell Option
  • The Rule of “Bad Guy Goes to Jail”
  • WTF Rand Paul (and House Republicans)
  • Also: Sarah’s news

Show Notes:

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By and
Comments (99)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Smcutter

    My proposal is that hush money payments should be explicitly allowed as campaign expenses that can be paid with campaign funds, as long as they are correctly declared as such. That way, it would be really easy to get a conviction for paying undisclosed hush money, and it would make hush money payments completely absurd because they would have to be disclosed.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      Love this idea. I’m all for it.

      Collapse
  2. Mjfswim+Jg

    @sarah and @david: sorry for the newbie question. I know I can hear the podcast in my browser, but I'd like to get it along with all the others I get on iHeart (such as The Remnant). I tried to find your podcast on iHeart (where I get the Remnant), but it doesn't seem to know about it. I looked for "Advisory Opinions," as well as your names...no luck, sadly. What am I doing wrong? Or are you not on iHeart's platform? Thanks much!

    Collapse
  3. Mrjsfisher

    Has anyone besides Donald Trump Suggested that NY is investigating the stormy daniels hush money payoff? As opposed to any of the myriad other financial crimes trump may have committed while still in NY?

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    BWG

    Very good discussion, thanks. Let’s hope Bragg does the right thing and declines to indict.
    Totally different topic. I’d be very interested in hearing your opinions, and perhaps those of a tax attorney, regarding the WA state Supreme Court’s ruling that a tax on capital gains is an excise tax, not an income tax.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Patterico

    Also, so much is made over DoJ not prosecuting Trump over this without mentioning that 1) they were not allowed to prosecute him while president under DoJ policy, and 2) even though it resulted in a guilty plea that everyone discounts, DoJ *actually did. choose to bring a charge* against Michael Cohen for exactly the same behavior.

    So all the talk about how “they didn’t even bring an indictment!!!!1!” ignores that they *did* consider this to be a campaign finance crime and the Trump DoJ (believed that they) *could not* prosecute Trump for it. Yes, the Biden DOJ did not make it one of their first acts to bring that indictment against Trump, but they did consider it to be a campaign finance crime.

    One nuance left undiscussed unless I missed it: does the crime Trump is accused of covering up have to be his own crime? Could it be Cohen’s? I’d be curious as to the answer to that.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Patterico

      Because if the crime could be Cohen's (and I see no textual reason it could not be) we could dispense with all the concerns over how they are elevating the falsification of business records to a felony based on a charge DOJ never brought. They did bring the charge against Cohen. They got a conviction against Cohen, which you can minimize if you like, but it's a conviction. So now, if Trump falsified business records to cover up Cohen's crime, what's the problem? Where are all the chopped down laws that could have prevented the Devil turning on us?

      Collapse
      1. Ken Motamed

        Did Trump know that Cohen had committed a crime?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Patterico

          That's an issue. There are plenty of issues with the prosecution.

          But I am convinced upon reviewing the statute that the argument that "the feds declined to prosecute the conduct that elevates the statute to a felony" is just wrong, because they did prosecute (and convict) Cohen. I wrote it up on my Substack but I will not spam the link here.

          Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Patterico

    As between the points of view that this is 1) a totally made-up charge that should leave us all shaking with rage and losing sleep or 2) a stretch of a case where the facts are stronger than the Edwards case but there may be some insurmountable legal hurdles, I am distinctly more in agreement with the latter view. Save the Man for All Seasons analogies for where they apply.

    If I were to shake with rage, lose sleep, or cite A Man for All Seasons, it would be over the House trying to insert itself into an ongoing criminal case — something that seems to get a lot less passion from the host. Consider me in sync with the Special Guest.

    Collapse
  7. Peterchbrown

    Sarah, Love the pod. I listen to every cast. Not being a lawyer I have learned a lot from you and David. This may be a little too old to discuss, but for an interesting tangent would you please consider reviewing this case? Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith. If you have already discussed it, please let me know what episode.

    Many thanks for all your hard work.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Wrob77

    The case out of New York does seem particularly weak.

    Georgia is more of a slam dunk.

    Congratulations Sarah!

    Collapse
  9. Alec.Ward.95

    Totally with Sarah on Trump/Bragg/Roper/Moore. But I wish she'd have applied the same rule of law logic to the "'bad man stay in jail' doctrine" discussed a few weeks back. Appellate courts engage in obvious, undisguised stretching, ignoring, and distorting of the law to avoid conferring windfall benefits to heinous criminals all the time. Is it any less an affront to rule of law principles just because it happens after the fact?

    Collapse
    1. KCGuy

      Came here precisely to see if anyone had posted this - thanks!

      Collapse
  10. Delap15

    So of all the investigations Trump is facing, the first one and loudest also happens to be the weakest. While I agree on all counts with the concerns Sarah and David raise, what if that is the point? Who escalated the NY case and declared an arrest was imminent? Trump. Who stands to benefit from the uproar around the relatively weak case? Trump. I’ll gladly accept that Bragg is overstepping and actually planning to indict Trump imminently, but could it also be possible that Trump decided to escalate this particular case to rile up his base and do exactly what David is suggesting (ie, tainting the other investigations as just part of a broader “witch hunt”), while no indictment or charges were actually imminent? Again, it’s not too hard to believe Bragg would see political benefit in a weak prosecution of these payments to “get Trump”, but I don’t see anyone questioning if this isn’t a fabricated crisis to benefit Trump solely, and everyone is allowing him to frame it as such.

    Collapse
Load More