“Trump lawyer’s payment to porn star draws comparisons to John Edwards case”


The key legal question is whether the $130,000 was intended to advance Trump’s chances in the election. If it was, it should not have been routed through a corporation and might amount to an illegally large campaign contribution. If Trump paid the money in connection with his campaign, it should have been reported on his campaign finance reports.

“I do think this is moving closer and closer to the territory where Edwards was subject to criminal prosecution,” said Hampton Dellinger, a former North Carolina deputy attorney general who closely followed the case against the former Democratic presidential hopeful….

The payment would only need to have been included in campaign finance reports if it was related to Trump’s candidacy, not if it was for personal reasons.

“I think the timing of this payment in relation to the campaign and some of the other statements that were supposedly made by Cohen make it a somewhat stronger case that this was not personal, but was campaign related,” said University of California law professor Rick Hasen. “It’s by no means a sure thing.”


Comments are closed.