[ad_1]
Donald Trump, the man who had boasted on national television in 2015 of his outstanding knowledge of campaign donations, said, "I know more contributions than anyone else," now has a any new defense against his alleged federal election-related crimes: He suddenly claims to know nothing about how campaign donations work. The problem with this defense, however, is what is called "Google," which details Trump's long research history, which has even been fined for violating campaign laws.
We heard this new defense on Thursday in response to long-time lawyer Michael Cohen, who told prosecutors that he had ordered him to violate federal campaign laws. Trump said via Twitter: "I've never asked Michael Cohen to break the law. He was a lawyer and he is supposed to know the law. This is what is called "attorney's advice" (it's like the end of an episode of Law & Order when the two suspects claim that the law is "lawful"). another is the real ringmaster.)
This may surprise some, but "council advice" is a legal defense that people have used effectively to protect themselves from criminal liability, although a long fight. But if Trump were to have a chance with this defense in a courtroom, he must demonstrate that in good faith he relied on the advice of his lawyer and had no idea that the conduct could have been criminal.
In reality, Trump can not claim in good faith that he was indifferent to the rigors of campaign finance laws as he had been the subject of a 2011 personal investigation to 2013 for possible violations of the election campaign by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). In 2000, Trump had paid a record fine for violating the lobbying laws in New York for failing to report that he was the person who secretly funded a campaign. These experiences would clearly indicate to Trump that any effort to undermine campaign transparency is not only a mistake, but may also result in civil or criminal penalties.
Let's start in 2011, when Trump "tested the waters" to eventually apply for the 2012 GOP nomination as president. [PDF attached marked as 2011 FEC investigation] Cohen, Michael Cohen was then executive vice president of the Trump organization and Trump's special adviser when he co-created a website, 'Should Trump Run.com', which 'had originally been used to question readers measure their support for Trump as a presidential candidate. In March 2011, Cohen even flew into Iowa to meet with GOP officials and the media about a possible race for the Trump presidency. After Cohen's visit to Iowa, Trump publicly boasted: "My representative was inundated with supporters when he went to Iowa."
These actions gave rise to a complaint filed in 2011 with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by an individual against the Trump organization, but also against Trump and Cohen individually for alleged violations of federal campaign laws election, including for accepting "excessive or ineligible contributions" from his company, the Trump Organization, in connection with the campaign website and Cohen's trip
This triggered a formal investigation by the FEC that resulted in to a 20-page survey memo, which revealed that there was a "reason to believe that Donald J. Trump had violated 11 CFR § 100.72. (a) "(make and accept disbursements with unacceptable funds) and that the organization Cohen and Trump had also violated federal election laws.
Howev However, on September 18, 2013, the FEC issued an 11-page decision in favor of Trump, mainly for technical reasons, claiming that, since Trump had never declared an official candidate, the FEC rules did not apply. [PDF TRUMP FEC ruling attached] It is interesting to note that Don McGahn was one of two FEC commissioners who ruled in favor of Trump at the time. Until recently he was his White House counsel.
Prior to this, the New York State Lobbying Commission had opened an investigation into Trump in 2000. This time, Trump undertook to torpedo the efforts of Native Americans to open casinos in the state. New York, which, in his opinion, would harm his casino business in Atlantic City, New Jersey. To carry out this project, Trump appealed to his long-time friend, Roger Stone (yes, Roger Stone), who created a front company called "New York Institute for Law and Society". Then Trump secretly financed this screen company. with $ 150,000 to run ads that not only opposed the casinos, but also used Trump's trademark claiming that Native Americans would literally bring drugs and crime (sounds familiar to you ?!). An advertisement funded by Trump featured a photo of cocaine lines and drug needles and denounced the alleged abuse of the tribe seeking to build the casino, with the following text: "Are these new neighbors what we want?"
The New York Lobbying The Commission's investigation included a statement from Stone who had sworn that everything he had done with this campaign had been approved by Trump. For example, a copy of the ad reproaching Native Americans for importing drug traffickers into New York reads: "Roger, do it – Donald." Stone also testified that the "only reason" for which the Institute existed was to: hide Trump's involvement in the public
The Board found that Trump and Stone had not disclosed to the Board from state lobbying that Trump had secretly funded advertisements in the newspapers. The commission could have recommended Trump to criminal prosecution. However, Trump, along with Stone, agreed to pay an unprecedented fine, assessed by the $ 250,000 commission, without admitting the existence of wrongdoing. Once the agreement was reached, Trump told the press, "It's settled. We are happy that everything has worked well.
Hmmm, a screen society and funds secretly channeled into the money so that the public does not have a complete picture of what Trump is preparing for a campaign sounds familiar to you? This is obviously the same tactic that Trump used to pay Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, where he used two different screen companies created by Cohen to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to these women to keep them silent before the # 39; election of 2016.
the laws and laws of the FEC have the same political purpose, namely to ensure transparency, so that the public can have all relevant facts regarding the finances of a campaign for a candidate or for a problem. Thus, any argument by Trump that, in good faith, he did not know that attempting to conceal payments made as part of his campaign was an error is simply not enviable, at least not for those who have the less common sense.
Source link
