Thread by @CommishSmith

In another thread, , I explain why payments to Stormy Daniels were not a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). In this thread, I'll explain why no FECA reporting obligations were violated, and why the prosecution's theory makes no sense. /1

https://x.com/CommishSmith/status/1796795736438272303

M. Cohen testified that Trump wanted to keep Daniels allegations under wraps until after the election. Prosecutors claim they therefore illegally did not report the campaign expenditure, and by doing so intended to, and did, have "the purpose of influencing an election." /2

Presidential campaigns file monthly reports with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). These are filed on the 20th of each month, and cover expenditures and contributions for the prior month. So in 2016, the Sep. report was filed 9/20, and covered expenditures made in August. /3

The Oct. report was filed 10/20, reporting expenditures made in September. But after the October monthly report, the schedule changes. 12 days before the election, campaigns file a Pre-Election Report, covering expenditures up to 20 days before the election. /4

In 2016, the Pre-election Report was filed on October 27, covering expenditures made only through Oct. 19. The payment to Daniels was made on Oct. 27. So the payment would not have been reported on the Pre-election report. /5

The next report is the Post-Election Report. This covers expenditures made from 20 days before the election until 20 days after the election, and is filed 10 days after that. So this was the 1st report that would have included any expenditure to Cohen for paying Daniels. /6

In 2016, the Post-Election Report was required to be filed on December 8, one month after the election. So the prosecution's theory, that Trump wanted to hide the expenditure until after the election, makes no sense at all. /7

Even if we assume, incorrectly, that it was a campaign expenditure, it wouldn't have been reported until 30 days after the election. But again, none of this got to the jury, either through testimony or the judge's instructions. /8

Merchan was rather obviously biased here, but I'll give him the benefit of a doubt and say he was just thoroughly ignorant of campaign finance law, and had no interest in boning up on it to properly instruct the jury. /9

There was no illegal contribution or expenditure made, and no failure to report an expenditure. And even if we assume otherwise, the prosecution's theory made no sense, suggesting no criminal intent. /10

I'm not a criminal law guy. But I do know campaign finance law. The failure to properly instruct the jury on the law would seem to be reversible error. /11 End