Trump banged Stormy Daniels.
In 2016, Trump paid SD $130k to not speak about the affair.
Trump paid $130k to his attorney, Michael Cohen, who in turn gave the money to SD.
The transaction was recorded in the books as “legal expenses”.
The Manhattan DA‘s case is based on New York penal law 175.05. That is a statute makes it a crime to enter a false entry in the business records of an enterprise…a 2nd degree misdemeanor.
It basically means do not keep false books. This HAS A 2YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
DA cannot charge Trump with this, as the incident occured in 2016.
Ah, but, as I understand it, NY has a law (the "tolling" of statues of limitations) which delays the expiration date if the offender moves out of state, and resumes, starting the clock where it left off when he or she comes back. Trump left for Florida a few years back, so the statute of limitations has not expired, and that is why the DA took up the case.
So, there is New York penal law 175.10…….a felony….if the intent to defraud by the false entry was in the commission of a crime.
The DA is trying to say it is a campaign finance law violation to pay hush money to someone.
As I understand the law as a layperson, hush money not illegal, per se, UNLESS, the act can be tied to a crime, such as 'fraud'. Given that if the affair had been public knowledge during the campaign, it could have conceivably affected the outcome of the election, thus depriving the electorate of the information they would need to make an informed decision when casting their ballots, and that hush money now becomes an act of
Fraud against the United States (or state regarding state laws). Now the federal statute of limitations has expired, but the state statute hasn't, so it depends on what the state law is on this point.
Mueller already looked at this and decided it was NOT.
The Mueller Report made no determination on the issue of criminality regarding any act committed by the President, but not because there was, or wasn't crime, but because it was the OLC policy not to indict a sitting US President, and so such a determination regarding the president was not within the scope of the Special Counsel's assignment.
See above.