I thought that they are pursuing him for election law violations and if they prove that he made the payment to help his campaign then the other charges of falsifying business records carry more weight since it was done to cover up a crime.
You’re both right. The reason the ABC/XYZ thing matters, and is tied to the presidency, is because the money came from campaign contributions and the ABC/XYZ are things you’re allowed to spend campaign funds on and things you aren’t.
I thought the argument was that it was for the campaign, because it was meant to help his chances of getting elected, but wasn't reported as a campaign expense, which is a campaign violation.
If he had just said the reimbursement was a campaign expense, which probably would have been counter productive to his desire to cover it up, he would not be in hot water now.
I thought that they are pursuing him for election law violations and if they prove that he made the payment to help his campaign then the other charges of falsifying business records carry more weight since it was done to cover up a crime.
You’re both right. The reason the ABC/XYZ thing matters, and is tied to the presidency, is because the money came from campaign contributions and the ABC/XYZ are things you’re allowed to spend campaign funds on and things you aren’t.
I thought the argument was that it was for the campaign, because it was meant to help his chances of getting elected, but wasn't reported as a campaign expense, which is a campaign violation.
If he had just said the reimbursement was a campaign expense, which probably would have been counter productive to his desire to cover it up, he would not be in hot water now.