Moreover, the payments should have been reported as a campaign expenses, but they were not because doing so would have defeated their purpose. So the payments were fraudulently misrepresented to be lawyer fees, and when it was discovered, Trump lied about the scheme.
> the payments should have been reported as a campaign expenses
You have it exactly backward. The law is clear that "campaign expenses" cannot have any personal component. That makes sense, because the focus of the law is to prevent candidates from calling things "campaign expenses" that are actually for personal benefit. John Edwards was prosecuted for using campaign funds to keep his mistress silent because hiding an affair has a personal component in addition to a political component.
If Trump had been charged with a campaign-finance violation, his straightforward defense under well-established precedent would be that paying off Stormy Daniels had a personal component (avoiding personal embarrassment and his wife finding out), in addition to whatever effect it had on the campaign. The prosecution would have been required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump's marriage was so dysfunctional that the only reason he would have paid off Stormy Daniels was the election.
That's why prosecutors didn't charge him with a campaign finance violation.
Whatever you're trying to say here is lost in the weeds.
You also can't have your personal lawyer take out a loan and spend it on expenses for your campaign and not report that as a campaign expense.
If you're running for public office, you can't commit fraud to hide things from the electorate because you don't want them to find out. That can't be allowed in free and fair elections. If you get elected doing that, people have every reason to question your legitimacy. If you get caught and lie about it, expect people not to trust you. If you get charged with a crime related to that conduct, don't be surprised when a jury finds you guilty, because it's shady af. This is all very straightforward stuff.
> Whatever you're trying to say here is lost in the weeds.
No, I’m talking about the law. You’re wrong about what you think campaign finance law says.
> You also can't have your personal lawyer take out a loan and spend it on expenses for your campaign and not report that as a campaign expense.
The law is the exact opposite. You cannot call something a “campaign expense” if it is an expense you would incur “irrespective of the campaign.” (That’s the magic phrase in FEC regulations.) If you pay off your mistress and call it a campaign expense, you’ll be prosecuted for campaign finance violations, because the prosecutor would say that you could have non-campaign reasons to do that. John Edwards was prosecuted for doing exactly that.
The New York federal prosecutor (SDNY) investigated the exact theory you are talking about: charging Trump with a campaign finance violation. They didn’t bring the case because all Trump would have to do is prove that he would have paid off Stormy Daniels “irrespective of the campaign.”
And? Like I said you’re lost in the weeds. I think you’re focused too much on being coy, rather than what I’m saying.
> The law is the exact opposite.
As far as I know if you spend money on a campaign you have to report it. If you get someone to spend money for you, you have to report it.
Seems like what you're trying to say is he didn't have to report it because arguably it had a personal component. Okay but that apparently wasn't the case; after the trial it is clear the payments were mostly for the campaign and not to save his relationship or himself of personal embarrassment. If you're trying to say "well he wasn't charged that way so it can't be election fraud" then again, I think you're missing my point.
Either way, I'm left at trying to guess your point because you haven't been clear in making it.
> They didn’t bring the case because
And?? Leaving aside you don’t know why any prosecutor didn’t bring a case, what are you implying? Make your point instead of dancing around it for 2 days.
Whether a prosecutor thinks they can prove that at trial is a different matter. That he was charged under a different law doesn’t make the underlying conduct okay from an elections perspective whether or not some federal prosecutor decided to charge that.
Either way what he did was he committed fraud and lied about it as POTUS, committing some of those crimes in the Oval Office, all to increase the chances of being elected. That is not okay. That makes one arguably (and definitely in my mind) illegitimate as a public servant. Apparently it’s also a felony.
If you think that conduct is okay because of whatever technicalities you can come up with, you’re missing my entire point.
How could it be about "campaign funds" when the charge was about the Trump organization's business records? What you're describing is a straightforward campaign finance violation, which he could have been charged with if it were true.
