The story so far: Breaking with historical precedent, a New York grand jury has indicted former U.S. President Donald Trump on charges relating to the case of hush-money paid to porn actress Stormy Daniels in 2016, prior to Mr. Trump entering the Oval Office. The formal indictment is still under seal, creating ambiguity around the specific charges and the extent of the evidence against Mr. Trump. However, media reports and comments by Mr. Trump’s attorney suggest that he will be in the dock for passing off the $1,30,000 payment to Ms. Daniels as a business expense, potentially in violation of campaign finance laws.
Also Read | The Hindu editorial: Debatable indictment: On the Donald Trump case
What is the hush-money case?
In 2006, Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, is said to have had a consensual sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, who was married to his wife Melania at the time. In 2011, when Mr. Trump was said to be considering the idea of running for president, Ms. Daniels apparently tried to go public with the story of Mr. Trump’s extramarital affair with her. However, that story got suppressed after Mr. Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue. When he actually ran for office in 2016, Ms. Daniels again attempted to approach the media with her story. This time Mr. Cohen reportedly worked out a deal, whereby he paid Ms. Daniels $1,30,000 for her silence and was subsequently reimbursed $4,20,000 in what was written into the books as “legal expenses”.
Later, in his congressional testimony, Mr. Cohen, who admitted a guilty plea in August 2018 for violating federal campaign finance laws said, “Mr. Trump directed me to use my own personal funds from a home equity line of credit to avoid any money being traced back to him that could negatively impact his campaign. I did that.” Also involved in reimbursing funds to Mr. Cohen from the Trump Organization was its Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, who is presently in prison for tax fraud. In this backdrop, the hush-money case would essentially seek to directly link Mr. Trump with the false bookkeeping entries, and then charge him with the falsification of records.
However, under New York state law this would only be a misdemeanour, not a felony, which implies a far lighter sentence for the accused if convicted.
How strong is the case?
In order to prosecute Mr. Trump for a felony, Manhattan District Attorney (DA) Alvin Bragg would have to not only prove that Mr. Trump was culpable for falsified bookkeeping but also show that the business records in question were falsified to cover up an entirely different — and serious — crime. Reports suggest that the crime that will be examined for this charge will be the violation of campaign finance laws, even if there is still a sense of doubt that pervades whether Mr. Trump could be found guilty of this.
In the wake of Mr. Cohen’s claim that he had paid Ms. Daniels at Mr. Trump’s request, investigators did look into the question of whether Mr. Trump would be criminally liable under federal campaign finance laws. These regulations require that monies received as campaign donations be disclosed transparently and be subject to predefined legal limits. A federal investigation into this matter was closed in 2019, and this suggests that the evidence required to successfully prosecute Mr. Trump, in this case, might not have been forthcoming at the time.
What are the other options that prosecutors could follow?
Assuming that the Justice Department would take its cues from the Democrat-controlled White House and Senate, and if the latter are keen to attack Mr. Trump politically before he stands for election again in 2024, it is not the hush-money case that appears to be the obvious line of enquiry to pursue in this regard. Far more serious issues exist, which cast doubt upon whether the 45th president behaved in a legal manner or acted within the framework of the U.S. constitution. This includes Mr. Trump’s role in inciting the January 6, 2021 insurrection, the financial dealings of the Trump Organization and Mr. Trump’s act of withholding classified information after demitting office. The problem is that investigations conducted into these potential violations do not appear to have found a smoking gun or evidence that would be compelling enough for an indictment and a successful prosecution of Mr. Trump.
Meanwhile, unsurprisingly, Mr. Trump has sought to capitalise politically on what he has described as “political persecution” and a “witch hunt” by Democrats. In truth, the case has significant potential to be politically polarising and is viewed by many Americans as a partisan exercise of power. Unless Democrats find compelling evidence in the more serious allegations against Mr. Trump, they may pay a heavy price at next year’s elections if they persist with ambiguities of the hush-money indictment.
- A grand jury in New York indicted former President Donald Trump for charges related to hush money paid to Stormy Daniels in 2016, prior to his presidency.
- The payments were made to silence her affair with Mr. Trump in 2006. Michael Cohen, Trump’s attorney, threatened to sue Daniels in 2011 to keep her story silent. Mr. Cohen later paid Ms. Daniels $130,000 for her silence, which was reimbursed as “legal expenses”.
- Mr. Cohen admitted Trump directed him to use personal funds to avoid negatively impacting his campaign.
COMMents
SHARE