2 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2018
    1. Mr. Trump intervened directly to suppress stories about his alleged sexual encounters with women

      The evidence of Trump’s involvement in the payments is legally significant, as it backs up Cohen’s claim that Trump directed payments that were found to have been in violation of federal law. The most damning evidence of all, however, isn’t just regarding Trump’s involvement in the payments, but the details of discussions of a cover-up.

      ...

      This is problematic for Trump, as campaign finance violations, such as illegal corporate contributions or donations that exceed the maximum allowable amount, require willful violation of federal law. Trump’s denials and discussion of how to keep his name out of it would help support allegations that he knew the payments were illegal.

      Source: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/what-the-bombshell-report-on-stormy-daniels-karen-mcdougal-payoffs-means-for-trump-legally/

  2. Jul 2015
    1. The measure would require outside groups that spend at least $2,000 on political ads to disclose their donors and would urge Congress to support, and the Arkansas Legislature to ratify, a constitutional amendment declaring that Congress and the states have the power to limit spending on elections and to distinguish between people and corporations in setting those limits.

      YES, THIS! If the Supreme Court won't let this happen on the national/federal level, try to do it at the state level!