Former President Donald Trump has been in legal trouble for years, and now, he faces yet another indictment over hush-money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal during his 2016 presidential campaign. Legal experts are closely examining the case against Trump and comparing it to the case against former Senator John Edwards, who was indicted in 2011 for six felony charges related to campaign finance law violations.
The Edwards Case
John Edwards was charged with campaign finance violations in 2011 for funneling donations to his mistress. He faced up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines. Edwards was accused of accepting more than $900,000 to conceal his affair with his mistress that resulted in a child while his wife battled breast cancer. He was charged with conspiracy to violate federal campaign finance laws, accepting and receiving illegal campaign contributions, and concealing illegal donations from the FEC.
The charges against Edwards were not based on a specific federal statute but on an advisory FEC opinion that argued gifts made to political candidates should be considered campaign contributions. After nine days of deliberations, a jury acquitted Edwards of one charge of accepting an illegal donation, but was deadlocked on the other five counts, resulting in a mistrial. Legal experts regarded Edwards’ case as shaky.
Comparison between the Cases
The legal case against Trump is expected to involve hush-money payments to cover up an affair during his first presidential campaign while the case against Edwards involved directing hush money to cover up an affair during his 2008 presidential campaign. Trump likely faces at least one felony charge related to hush-money payments paid to women during his 2016 campaign to silence claims of an extramarital affair.
Unlike Edwards, who ultimately admitted to the affair, Trump denies any sexual encounter and any wrongdoing. However, legal experts see similarities in both cases that could benefit Trump. The federal district court judge in Edwards’ case let the case go to trial on a theory similar to Bragg’s regarding Trump’s case. The jury found in favor of Edwards on one count and deadlocked on the others, which the Justice Department declined to pursue again.
Intent Plays an Essential Role
Legal experts also agree that hush-money payments are lawful. Intent plays a significant role in determining whether the payments were made for a personal purpose or campaign fraud. Even if the prosecution can prove that Trump was directly involved in the payments, they still have intent problems to face.
The FEC established the ‘irrespective test,’ which determines whether an expense is a campaign-related expense or not. The Edwards case was stronger than the Trump case from a criminal prosecutorial perspective. Prosecutors banked on testimony from a former top aide with significant credibility issues, similar to the role played by former Trump attorney and fixer Michael Cohen.
The cases will be in different venues and involve different crimes, even as hush money is at the center of both. In Trump’s case, the prosecutor has to prove that he committed a New York crime and that he would have brought this federal crime and won on that if he were the U.S. attorney.
Potential Outcome
Legal experts are debating the potential outcome for Trump’s indictment by looking at the precedent set by Edwards’ case. The Edwards case ended with a jury acquitting Edwards of one count and couldn’t reach a verdict on five others. Federal prosecutors punted on bringing charges against Trump in this case.
Trump is expected to use Edwards’ defense that his payments were to protect his family. However, given previous cases and opinions, Trump may face substantial legal hurdles. As always, it will be up to a jury or judges in these high-profile cases to decide.
Image Source: Wikimedia Commons
