Anaya Nolan
The Stormy Daniels scandal involves a $130,000 payment made by President Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, to Daniels, who claims to have had an affair with Trump. The payment was made in exchange for Daniels' silence about the alleged affair. The payment may have constituted an illegal campaign contribution and violated federal campaign finance laws. The scandal also raises questions about whether the payment was made using campaign funds and whether it was properly disclosed.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Amount of payment | $130,000 |
| Who the payment was made to | Stormy Daniels |
| Who the payment was made by | Michael Cohen |
| Who the payment was reimbursed by | Donald Trump |
| Whether the payment was a campaign contribution | Unclear |
Explore related products
![By Daniel V. Davidson - Business Law: Principles and Cases in the Legal Environment [With Loislaw Access] (Har/Psc)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41xhb89BgGL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
Whether the payment was an illegal campaign contribution
The Stormy Daniels payment might have broken the law in two ways. Firstly, the $130,000 pre-election payment for Daniels's silence about an alleged affair with Donald Trump could have constituted an illegal campaign contribution by President Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen. Secondly, the payment may have broken the law because it was not duly disclosed as a campaign contribution. Cohen initially said he paid the money out of his own pocket, not as a campaign contribution, and that neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign reimbursed him. However, Trump later admitted that Cohen represented him in "the Stormy Daniels deal".
Trump's financial disclosure report, filed in 2017, revealed that he "fully reimbursed Mr Cohen" for the payment, prompting the acting director of the Office of Government Ethics to write that "the payment made by Mr Cohen is required to be reported as a liability". In other words, Trump was $130,000 in debt to Cohen before the reimbursement. This contradicts Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani's argument that the money owed to Cohen was not a debt but an expense.
Snowden's Exposé: Is US Above the Law?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Whether the payment violated federal campaign finance laws
The Stormy Daniels payment might have broken federal campaign finance laws. Daniels, a porn star, was paid $130,000 before the election to keep quiet about an alleged affair with then-president Donald Trump. This payment was made by Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, and could be seen as an illegal campaign contribution.
Trump initially denied knowing about the payment, but later admitted that Cohen had represented him in "the Stormy Daniels deal". Cohen also claimed that he paid the money out of his own pocket, not as a campaign contribution, and that he was not reimbursed by the Trump Organization or the Trump campaign. However, Trump's financial disclosure report revealed that he reimbursed Cohen in 2017, prompting questions about whether the payment was a liability that should have been reported.
Trump's attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani, argued that the money owed to Cohen was not a loan but an expense, like paying a doctor. However, this argument has been criticised, and the payment has raised legal and ethical questions. The acting director of the Office of Government Ethics, David J. Apol, wrote a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein stating that the payment "is required to be reported as a liability".
Alabama Work Breaks: Understanding Your Employee Rights
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Whether the payment was a liability
The Stormy Daniels payment saga centres on the possibility that a $130,000 pre-election payment for Daniels's silence about an alleged affair with Donald Trump constituted an illegal campaign contribution by President Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen.
The payment may have broken the law in two ways. Firstly, it was not disclosed as a campaign contribution, and secondly, campaign funds may have been used towards the payment. Cohen initially said he paid the money out of his own pocket, and that neither The Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign reimbursed him. However, Trump later admitted that Cohen represented him in "the Stormy Daniels deal".
The acting director of the Office of Government Ethics, David J. Apol, wrote in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein that “the payment made by Mr. Cohen is required to be reported as a liability”. In other words, Trump was $130,000 in debt to Cohen before the reimbursement.
Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani argued that the money owed to Cohen was not a debt or a liability, but an expense. However, this argument has been criticised.
Corporate Law-Breaking: Consequences and Implications
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Whether the payment was an outstanding legal bill
It is unclear whether the payment was an outstanding legal bill. The payment was made by Michael Cohen, President Trump's personal attorney, to Stormy Daniels, a porn star who claims to have had an affair with Trump. Cohen initially stated that he paid the money out of his own pocket, not as a campaign contribution, and that neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign reimbursed him. However, Trump later reported that he "fully reimbursed Mr Cohen in 2017", and the payment was listed as a liability on a financial disclosure form. Trump's attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani, has argued that the money owed to Cohen was not a loan or a debt, but rather an expense, like paying a doctor.
Zeke's Legal Woes: What Law Did He Break?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Whether Stormy Daniels violated her NDA
It is unclear whether Stormy Daniels violated her NDA with Donald Trump. The $130,000 payment made to Daniels by Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair, may have constituted an illegal campaign contribution. This is because the payment was not disclosed as a campaign contribution and because campaign funds may have been used to make the payment.
Trump's financial disclosure report, filed in 2017, revealed that he "fully reimbursed Mr Cohen" for the payment, which prompted the acting director of the Office of Government Ethics, David J. Apol, to write to the Deputy Attorney General, Rod J. Rosenstein, stating that "the payment made by Mr Cohen is required to be reported as a liability". This suggests that Trump was $130,000 in debt to Cohen before the reimbursement, which could be seen as evidence of guilt. However, Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani argued that the money owed to Cohen was not a debt but an expense, like paying a doctor.
Despite the potential legal implications, some have argued that the focus should be on the timing of the alleged threat and when Stormy Daniels signed the non-disclosure agreement. Top California family law attorney Peter M. Walzer has stated that he doesn't think it's critical that Trump didn't sign the agreement, as "she accepted the money. There's a doctrine called estoppel. If you take the money, the deal is a deal”.
Robinhood's Legal Woes: Breaking the Law?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Stormy Daniels signed a non-disclosure agreement with Trump, but the deal was not signed by him. However, a top divorce attorney has said that this is not critical, as she accepted the money.
The $130,000 pre-election payment for Daniels's silence about an alleged affair with Trump may have constituted an illegal campaign contribution by President Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen.
Trump's latest financial disclosure revealed that he "fully reimbursed Mr Cohen in 2017". This prompted the acting director of the Office of Government Ethics to write that "the payment made by Mr Cohen is required to be reported as a liability".
Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani argued that the money Trump owed Cohen was not a loan, but an expense, like paying a doctor.
