Where does planning a crime become a crime, generally speaking?

[Libertarian01]

Are you talking about the real lawyers or the street corner lawyers who will post "IANAL" then offer their opinion?

No offense was meant if it was taken as such. I just didn't think that law school would dedicate classes to campaign finance law. I know it isn't difficult to read, my intent was for a practicing lawyer to know it off the top of their head, so to speak. If it is taught as a standard class or brought up in trade publications then I am in error and apologize.

Regards,

Doug

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, it isn't a "normal" kinda legal thing to know. There are people who make a TON of money doing the compliance stuff.

That's a double-edged sword, though. The professionals who would be working on a presidential campaign need to keep their reputation more than they need to keep any one client. Even Trump. He either didn't run it by those professionals, or he did and ignored their advice. Yeah, the third option is that someone told him it would be ok to do what it appears that he did. Trump is more likely to stay faithful to a wife than a professional would be to give advice like that, though.

Sure, it could happen, but I'm not going to bet on it.

ETA:
I've had small roles on some political campaigns. The legal stuff really isn't that hard to figure out and stay "in-bounds" overall. There are technical violations at the federal level, every cycle, that result in trivial fines.

What Trump appears to have done is really not a technical violation.

 

[Hawkeye]

What Trump appears to have done is really not a technical violation.

Ok. Are you saying in appears to be more serious than a “technical violation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[T.Lex]

Ok. Are you saying in appears to be more serious than a “technical violation?

Yes. As more information has come out about this, my opinion has evolved. This is the kind of thing that justifies the byzantine FEC rules on this stuff.

At first, I figured that the payment(s) may have been made more to just cover up the habitual cheating with the habitual response: mo'money. I think some of my early comments in the Stormy Daniels thread reflect that. A timing coincidence rather than something intended to protect the campaign. Let's face it, I don't think any of the electorate seriously expected Trump to be a paragon of marital fidelity, so even if an affair came out, I don't think it would've changed the election.

But, as soon as someone involved in the transaction says some variation of, "And we don't want something like this getting into the news during the campaign...." then it becomes an FEC issue. Especially if the candidate himself says it.

When it comes to technical violations, those are things that every POTUS campaign goes through (at least as far as I remember as I sit here). Especially when you have thousands of individual donations to sort through and catalog within a certain amount of time. And, if the reporting isn't exactly right - someone gave $500, but was only recorded for a $50 donation - then an amended report is filed later, but by then it is too late... then there's an FEC technical violation and nominal penalty.

All those MAGA events, where take donations? All those have to be properly recorded and reported. If the MSM was trying to nail Trump on something like that, I'd likely defend him. That IS the kind of thing that others have been dinged for, but only dinged - not pilloried.

Obama's technical violations included:
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784

The major sticking point for the FEC appeared to be a series of missing 48-hour notices for nearly 1,300 contributions totaling more than $1.8 million — an issue that lawyers familiar with the commission’s work say the FEC takes seriously. The notices must be filed on contributions of $1,000 or more that are received within the 20-day window of Election Day.
More than half of those contributions were transferred from the Obama Victory Fund,a joint committee between the campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
...
The document outlined other violations, such as erroneous contribution dates on some campaign reports. The Obama campaign was also late returning some contributions that exceeded the legal limit.

To me, those are technical violations.

Paying off someone to bury a story that could harm the campaign, without reporting it, is not a technical violation. It goes to the heart of why people thought all these campaign finance laws were necessary in the first place.

 

[Hohn]

The further down your list, the stronger the state case.

The controlling language you are seeking is "overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."

In your fact pattern, #2 will do.

That's the phrase I was looking for, I knew it even thought IANAL. COnspiracy requires more than simply wanting to do something. There's must be evidence of that thinking and evidence that you were heading that direction, even if you didn't get very far.

right?

 

[Fargo]

That's the phrase I was looking for, I knew it even thought IANAL. COnspiracy requires more than simply wanting to do something. There's must be evidence of that thinking and evidence that you were heading that direction, even if you didn't get very far.

right?

There has to be more than talk, you have to “do” something in furtherance of committing the crime. Indiana calls it an overt act, many other jurisdictions refer to it as a substantial step.

Common examples are buying/acquiring things to commit the crime with, paying someone to do something, casing, hacking etc.

 

[MarkC]

The further down your list, the stronger the state case.

The controlling language you are seeking is "overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."

In your fact pattern, #2 will do.

There has to be more than talk, you have to “do” something in furtherance of committing the crime. Indiana calls it an overt act, many other jurisdictions refer to it as a substantial step.

Common examples are buying/acquiring things to commit the crime with, paying someone to do something, casing, hacking etc.

Although I don't practice that kind of law, I believe that they have committed the overt act at #2. Under Indiana law, of course.

 

[Fargo]

Although I don't practice that kind of law, I believe that they have committed the overt act at #2. Under Indiana law, of course.

Yeah, I would agree (as long as it can be proven of course). IME conspiracy is very seldom a charge at the state level, the Feds use it a ton because of the nature of their investigations (lots of undercover with specific targets) and the nature of many federal crimes (financial/drug distribution/terrorism).

 

[Libertarian01]

Yes. As more information has come out about this, my opinion has evolved. This is the kind of thing that justifies the byzantine FEC rules on this stuff.

At first, I figured that the payment(s) may have been made more to just cover up the habitual cheating with the habitual response: mo'money. I think some of my early comments in the Stormy Daniels thread reflect that. A timing coincidence rather than something intended to protect the campaign. Let's face it, I don't think any of the electorate seriously expected Trump to be a paragon of marital fidelity, so even if an affair came out, I don't think it would've changed the election.

But, as soon as someone involved in the transaction says some variation of, "And we don't want something like this getting into the news during the campaign...." then it becomes an FEC issue. Especially if the candidate himself says it.

When it comes to technical violations, those are things that every POTUS campaign goes through (at least as far as I remember as I sit here). Especially when you have thousands of individual donations to sort through and catalog within a certain amount of time. And, if the reporting isn't exactly right - someone gave $500, but was only recorded for a $50 donation - then an amended report is filed later, but by then it is too late... then there's an FEC technical violation and nominal penalty.

All those MAGA events, where take donations? All those have to be properly recorded and reported. If the MSM was trying to nail Trump on something like that, I'd likely defend him. That IS the kind of thing that others have been dinged for, but only dinged - not pilloried.

Obama's technical violations included:
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784


To me, those are technical violations.

Paying off someone to bury a story that could harm the campaign, without reporting it, is not a technical violation. It goes to the heart of why people thought all these campaign finance laws were necessary in the first place.

This ^^^ is what most folks don't understand, and the media isn't helping by constantly failing to clarify!

Trump could pay Stormy Daniels $$$ for sex, not a FEC issue. (Probably a state issue, but not FEC.)

Trump could pay Stormy Daniels $$$ for not going to Melania, not an FEC issue.

Trump could pay Stormy Daniels $$$ for keeping her mouth shut so he could avoid bad press during the election, NOT AN FEC ISSUE!

Trump failing to report the $$$ to Stormy Daniels for keeping her mouth shut so he could avoid bad press during the election, this IS the FEC issue!

The payment to her was fine, as I understand it. It was the failure to report it properly that is the crime. The media almost never goes into it that deep. They grab the low hanging fruit that will mention money with a porn star and leave it go. The public then is left ignorant of what the actual crime was.

Of course, had he followed the law and reported it this would have drawn attention which would have defeated the purpose of the payment.

Naturally, this has nothing whatsoever to do with Russia!

Regards,

Doug

 

[HoughMade]

I find discussions of intent that amount to: "if I say I really didn't intend to do it, then there's nothing they can do about it" pretty amusing.

 

[Libertarian01]

I find discussions of intent that amount to: "if I say I really didn't intend to do it, then there's nothing they can do about it" pretty amusing.

I suppose the next thing your going to say is the defense of, "But I didn't mean to your Honor" doesn't hold up?

 

[HoughMade]

I suppose the next thing your going to say is the defense of, "But I didn't mean to your Honor" doesn't hold up?

It might....if you decide to testify, which exposes you to cross examination about everything that makes it look like you meant to....and the judge or jury buys it.

The first case I tried was a juvenile delinquency adjudication for "Receiving stolen property." I was an intern at the prosecutor's office. The defense was: "I didn't know it was stolen." Based on what I see upthread, there are some who think that "I didn't know it was stolen" should carry the day. It didn't. There was all kinds of evidence that the "I didn't know" claim was not credible.

It's the same thing for: "I didn't intend..."

For further reading about this fun case:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break-room/418315-grand-theft-bunny.html#post6646651

 

[MarkC]

It might....if you decide to testify, which exposes you to cross examination about everything that makes it look like you meant to....and the judge or jury buys it.

The first case I tried was a juvenile delinquency adjudication for "Receiving stolen property." I was an intern at the prosecutor's office. The defense was: "I didn't know it was stolen." Based on what I see upthread, there are some who think that "I didn't know it was stolen" should carry the day. It didn't. There was all kinds of evidence that the "I didn't know" claim was not credible.

It's the same thing for: "I didn't intend..."

For further reading about this fun case:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break-room/418315-grand-theft-bunny.html#post6646651

I'm not really that good with numbers, but I've been led to believe that a full half of the population is dumber than average!

 

[HoughMade]

I'm not really that good with numbers, but I've been led to believe that a full half of the population is dumber than average!

I've gotta believe it's way more than half.

 

[MarkC]

I've gotta believe it's way more than half.

Sure seems that way, doesn't it?

Keeps us in a job, I guess.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I've gotta believe it's way more than half.

Intelligence isn't normally distributed?

A Weibull perhaps?

 

[2A_Tom]

If I am reading this correctly for there to be any crime there must be, in legal parlance, mens rea, correct?

But what if I don't know it is a crime? Say I'm Donald Trump, and the little strumpet I spent a night with could hurt my campaign if she goes blabbing. So, like many times before, I call my fixer Cohen to pay her off and make her shut up and go away. This has been done by MANY wealthy people MANY times before without any laws being violated.

What if Cohen simply says, "OK boss. You got it" and he goes and pays Stormy Daniels some money. Trump knows real estate. He doesn't know federal election rules. (Most lawyers don't know election laws if they don't work with it all the time.) He doesn't do his own paperwork. Would it be an easy defense for him to claim, "Hey! Nobody told me I had to report this. This is why I hire professionals who know this stuff. Don't blame me, I would have had it reported if someone said I had to."

Is this then an easy defense for Trump?

Thanks,

Doug

99.9999999% of the time paying blackmail/hush money is not a crime/prosecuted. Tell that to Denny Hastert. Don't get me wrong, he is a dirty, filthy, rotten, disgusting pervert that should have been strung up over his crimes against boys under his supervision.

But, being convicted for lying to a federal agent, because hes aid that he was withdrawing his own money for personal use, when he was actually using it to pay a blackmailer.

There is a law I would like to see repealed. LEO can lie to you with impunity, But if you say an untruth on a totally unrelated issue they can send you to prison.

 

[Denny347]

99.9999999% of the time paying blackmail/hush money is not a crime/prosecuted. Tell that to Denny Hastert. Don't get me wrong, he is a dirty, filthy, rotten, disgusting pervert that should have been strung up over his crimes against boys under his supervision.

But, being convicted for lying to a federal agent, because hes aid that he was withdrawing his own money for personal use, when he was actually using it to pay a blackmailer.

There is a law I would like to see repealed. LEO can lie to you with impunity, But if you say an untruth on a totally unrelated issue they can send you to prison.

Which law?

 

[2A_Tom]

Any lie to a federal Leo is prosecutable even if it had nothing to do with the crime being investigated.

ETA: Oh, if you thought I meant that LEO's couldn't lie to a suspect, I'm certain that that would never be abused.

 

[Denny347]

Any lie to a federal Leo is prosecutable even if it had nothing to do with the crime being investigated.

ETA: Oh, if you thought I meant that LEO's couldn't lie to a suspect, I'm certain that that would never be abused.

It's perfectly legal for suspects to lie to me so I have no issue lying to them, if needed. Now, I am typically brutally honest with my suspects but there is a time and place and I like leaving my options open.