Giuliani comments on Stormy payment raise legal questions
AP, Washington :
Rudy Giuliani’s revelation that President Donald Trump reimbursed his personal attorney for a $130,000 payment to a porn star to keep her quiet about an alleged affair is raising new legal questions, including whether the president and his campaign violated campaign finance laws.
The former New York City mayor insisted on Fox News Channel Wednesday night that the payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels was “going to turn out to be perfectly legal.”
“That money was not campaign money. Sorry, I’m giving you a fact now that you don’t know. It’s not campaign money, no campaign finance violation,” he said.
Some legal experts disagree. A look at some of the issues at play:
Giuliani’s insistence the money had nothing to do with the campaign is complicated by the fact that Daniels’ silence was secured just days before the 2016 presidential election, and as Trump was dealing with the fallout from the “Access Hollywood” tape in which he bragged about sexually assaulting women.
If the payment were wholly personal, said Richard L. Hasen, an expert in election law at the University of California, Irvine, there would be no campaign finance violations.
But Giuliani’s argument that the payment was unrelated to the campaign appears to be “pretty far-fetched” given the timing, said Andrew Herman, an attorney specializing in campaign finance law at Miller & Chevalier.
Rudy Giuliani’s revelation that President Donald Trump reimbursed his personal attorney for a $130,000 payment to a porn star to keep her quiet about an alleged affair is raising new legal questions, including whether the president and his campaign violated campaign finance laws.
The former New York City mayor insisted on Fox News Channel Wednesday night that the payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels was “going to turn out to be perfectly legal.”
“That money was not campaign money. Sorry, I’m giving you a fact now that you don’t know. It’s not campaign money, no campaign finance violation,” he said.
Some legal experts disagree. A look at some of the issues at play:
Giuliani’s insistence the money had nothing to do with the campaign is complicated by the fact that Daniels’ silence was secured just days before the 2016 presidential election, and as Trump was dealing with the fallout from the “Access Hollywood” tape in which he bragged about sexually assaulting women.
If the payment were wholly personal, said Richard L. Hasen, an expert in election law at the University of California, Irvine, there would be no campaign finance violations.
But Giuliani’s argument that the payment was unrelated to the campaign appears to be “pretty far-fetched” given the timing, said Andrew Herman, an attorney specializing in campaign finance law at Miller & Chevalier.
