Row 25066

Row ID: 25066 | Dataset Entry | Axioma AXP Content Repository

Content Data

This page contains data entry 25066 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

Full disclosure: I’m not a lawyer and I’m happy to be corrected if any of the following is wrong or misleading. I’m a layman who didn’t really understand what the crime even was until a few weeks ago. This is my understanding that I’ve come to:

They have him dead to rights on falsifying business records. He reported the reimbursement to cohen as “legal expenses” but has also publicly admitted to it being a reimbursement, and the testimony of various witnesses as well as common sense seems to corroborate that.

By itself, this would be a misdemeanor. Falsifying business records to conceal another crime makes it a felony. In essence it’s tantamount to money laundering then, but I don’t think it’s worded that way in the applicable NY laws. The crime being concealed relates to campaign finance.

Campaign finance laws are very broad and necessarily so if you agree with why they purportedly exist in the first place. Just like bribery is necessarily broad. There are a lot more ways to improperly get a politicians favor than handing them a bag of cash with a dollar sign on it. There are also a lot of ways to monetarily help a candidates campaign without handing them a bag of money with a dollar sign on it.

Let’s say you buy a bunch of billboards that say “yay candidate” as an individual, then that’s generally considered protected free speech. If you do it at the direction of or in coordination with a candidate then it falls under campaign finance regulations and is no longer considered simple free speech. If you payed someone off to not run a negative ad against a candidate, that basically falls under the same rules.

The prosecutions argument (as I understand it) was that Cohen paying off Daniels at the direction of trump was to help the campaign and is similar to paying someone to stop running a negative ad to put it in simple terms. The way that campaign finance is regulated, the amount that Cohen donated exceeded the limit of the type of donation this would be considered. It’s also illegal that he failed to disclose it as a donation.

Trump deliberately covering up the nature of this would then be covering up a crime. At the end of the day the crux of the trial comes down to intent. Was the purpose of the payment to influence the election or was it a private matter? Just like bribery might come down to whether that gift to your politician friend was just an honest gift to a friend or intended to curry political favor. Based on what I’ve read and heard I think the prosecution has done a good job of establishing that the intent was to influence the election.

FieldValue
text Full disclosure: I’m not a lawyer and I’m happy to be corrected if any of the following is wrong or misleading. I’m a layman who didn’t really understand what the crime even was until a few weeks ago. This is my understanding that I’ve come to: They have him dead to rights on falsifying business records. He reported the reimbursement to cohen as “legal expenses” but has also publicly admitted to it being a reimbursement, and the testimony of various witnesses as well as common sense seems to co…
label r/politics
dataType comment
communityName r/politics
datetime 2024-05-21
username_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1DQ0VocVo4cTNUZmQ4ek1YRzg3eGl1UVdtanpTbmt4Y2Z1ZGFwWHdvYm50UkRGa0xvcDdsQ3IweHdkQ08zbVY0MDdrazg3ZXlVaHpBRzFUNzZkalY0dHc9PQ==
url_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9SbU9UWTgwVVF6dUV0WEhjX2pvYXpPbFZlQXBPRUQzN2hUNXJwaEl4azFWOGJ0M2doU0ZiVzJGSkZ5QTdhT3VYSzNsTWJvdXFzZWZESk44RHc0UmtoYjNXNG91Ny0tLWJLTUNtWDlXZ241WVdoMW1JaDlQaXBUZXVHNmJoZzZWTVNPXzYyb3ZjelNXa1V5bjVPX24wd0w3UTFFODh2Q2RVbUdGM1NqSllwNlRUYWw5cV9uVW9Zd0JvendFOTNwTnZoWUpCd2tiN244SzFxVVFzYjNIR2Nudz09

Raw Record

{
  "text": "Full disclosure: I’m not a lawyer and I’m happy to be corrected if any of the following is wrong or misleading. I’m a layman who didn’t really understand what the crime even was until a few weeks ago. This is my understanding that I’ve come to:\n\nThey have him dead to rights on falsifying business records. He reported the reimbursement to cohen as “legal expenses” but has also publicly admitted to it being a reimbursement, and the testimony of various witnesses as well as common sense seems to corroborate that.\n\nBy itself, this would be a misdemeanor. Falsifying business records to conceal another crime makes it a felony. In essence it’s tantamount to money laundering then, but I don’t think it’s worded that way in the applicable NY laws. The crime being concealed relates to campaign finance.\n\nCampaign finance laws are very broad and necessarily so if you agree with why they purportedly exist in the first place. Just like bribery is necessarily broad. There are a lot more ways to improperly get a politicians favor than handing them a bag of cash with a dollar sign on it. There are also a lot of ways to monetarily help a candidates campaign without handing them a bag of money with a dollar sign on it. \n\nLet’s say you buy a bunch of billboards that say “yay candidate” as an individual, then that’s generally considered protected free speech. If you do it at the direction of or in coordination with a candidate then it falls under campaign finance regulations and is no longer considered simple free speech. If you payed someone off to not run a negative ad against a candidate, that basically falls under the same rules.\n\nThe prosecutions argument (as I understand it) was that Cohen paying off Daniels at the direction of trump was to help the campaign and is similar to paying someone to stop running a negative ad to put it in simple terms. The way that campaign finance is regulated, the amount that Cohen donated exceeded the limit of the type of donation this would be considered. It’s also illegal that he failed to disclose it as a donation.\n\nTrump deliberately covering up the nature of this would then be covering up a crime. At the end of the day the crux of the trial comes down to intent. Was the purpose of the payment to influence the election or was it a private matter? Just like bribery might come down to whether that gift to your politician friend was just an honest gift to a friend or intended to curry political favor. Based on what I’ve read and heard I think the prosecution has done a good job of establishing that the intent was to influence the election.",
  "label": "r/politics",
  "dataType": "comment",
  "communityName": "r/politics",
  "datetime": "2024-05-21",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1DQ0VocVo4cTNUZmQ4ek1YRzg3eGl1UVdtanpTbmt4Y2Z1ZGFwWHdvYm50UkRGa0xvcDdsQ3IweHdkQ08zbVY0MDdrazg3ZXlVaHpBRzFUNzZkalY0dHc9PQ==",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9SbU9UWTgwVVF6dUV0WEhjX2pvYXpPbFZlQXBPRUQzN2hUNXJwaEl4azFWOGJ0M2doU0ZiVzJGSkZ5QTdhT3VYSzNsTWJvdXFzZWZESk44RHc0UmtoYjNXNG91Ny0tLWJLTUNtWDlXZ241WVdoMW1JaDlQaXBUZXVHNmJoZzZWTVNPXzYyb3ZjelNXa1V5bjVPX24wd0w3UTFFODh2Q2RVbUdGM1NqSllwNlRUYWw5cV9uVW9Zd0JvendFOTNwTnZoWUpCd2tiN244SzFxVVFzYjNIR2Nudz09"
}
Explore Dataset Explore Row

Entry Information