Back on April 9, 2024 David Corn put together a recap of the story behind the case against Trump for falsifying business records to cover up one of his several sex scandals just before the 2016 election. Here’s several excerpts.
Donald Trump’s porn-star-hush-money case has always been the poor cousin among the four criminal prosecutions targeting him. It involves alleged crimes committed before he was president, and it focuses on sleazy actions unrelated to affairs of state. The other indictments Trump faces are serious governmental matters: swiping top-secret documents and attempting to overturn an election so he could stay in power. This case is literally ripped from the tawdry tabloid world: a presidential candidate paying off an adult film star so she wouldn’t go public with her claim that they had an affair. Trying to silence a porn actor is not a crime in itself. The legal issue here is more mundane: falsifying business records to hide a possible violation of election law.
Yet the case—scheduled to go to trial this coming Monday—is historic and important. This is the first time a former president and current major presidential candidate will be in the dock for a criminal trial. And the alleged crime was an attempt to influence the 2016 election. Yes, you can call it election interference. Trump’s supposed goal—keeping voters from learning of his alleged extramarital tryst with Daniels—is a reminder of the tawdry swamp from which Trump emerged. That’s not a good look now when Trump’s campaign is striving to make inroads among suburban women voters.
emphasis added
I’ve emphasized part of the above excerpt to make the point that it’s not about the sex or the hush money — it’s that how the payments were made and recorded can be taken as a violation of election law.
This is the first time a former president is facing a criminal trial. Further, the events in question happened before the election so that there is no way to argue this should be covered by ‘presidential immunity’ no matter how far-fetched the claim.
A central question is not if that payment was made to seal her lips—we know Daniels got the money—but whether the way the payment was recorded within Trump’s business (as a legal expense) violated New York state law. To win the case, Bragg must prove that Trump's alleged falsifying of business records regarding the hush-money transfer was done in order to cover up fraud or another criminal act. That means the case hinges on the narrow issue of whether this payment to Daniels was made to influence the campaign and, thus, qualifies as a possible illegal campaign law violation.
Trump's attorneys contend the payment did not violate campaign finance laws, even though in 2018 Cohen pleaded guilty to breaking federal campaign law by buying Daniels' silence with these funds. And in the Cohen case, federal prosecutors identified Trump as a co-conspirator who directed the payment be made but identified this person only as “Individual-1.”
emphasis added
Corn is making some important distinctions here. It remains to be seen how the reporting on the trial will adequately focus on this core issue, and not all the foo-faraw that will ensue as the trial gets underway.
Speaking of which...
Note that Michael Cohen was already convicted of violating the law. A crime was committed and basic facts about it have been established — the case depends on connecting Trump to it as well. Corn also notes that although Cohen’s credibility as a witness is clouded by the fact that he lied a number of times about the facts of the payoff, he is not the only witness to the events behind the criminal charges.
Corn relates how the events leading to the payoff and coverup unfolded, and how it reached through Trump’s campaign. It’s revised and updated from an earlier version from March 2023.
If you like the work Corn has done here, you can support it by becoming a paid subscriber to Our Land.
...This coming Wednesday at 8:00 p.m. ET, premium subscribers of Our Land will once again gather via the miracle of Zoom to chat, vent, and solve the world’s problems. These BYOB sessions have been great fun. But here’s the catch: They are only open to premium subscribers—those Our Landers who toss us a few dollars a month, which allows us to keep on the lights and produce this newsletter for one and all. Premium supporters also receive the full version of the newsletter with extra content that includes Dumbass Comment of the Week, the Mailbag, medium-deep dives into assorted cultural matters (films, books, TV shows, music and more), and the widely acclaimed MoxieCam™. As I’ve pestered you before, we sure could use more folks to sign up for the full shebang. Even if you don’t want to read all that additional content, this is how you can help this enterprise stay afloat.
I have to admit I find “Dumbass Comment of the Week” is particularly relevant to the times in which we live. The Zoom sessions are also fascinating; how many journalists interact live with their readers?