Two Tier System of The Law: Why Clinton Got Fined and Trump didn't and Why Trump Got Charged and Hillary Didn't
Trump did the right thing. It was a legal expense, not a campaign expense. The FEC said there was no case. It was an NDA, that is a LEGAL agreement (Non Disclosure Agreement). If NDA were illegal half of Congress would be locked up.
However,Hillary Clinton and the DNC got fined by the FEC because they paid for that FAKE Steel Dossier and listed it as LEGAL EXPENSE. NOPE ,it was 'OPPOSITION RESEARCH. However, she didn't face a FELONY.
If Trump had listed those payments as CAMPAIGN expenses he would have been in REAL Trouble. The FEC didn't fine him. The former Manhattan DA even left it alone.
If this makes it to SCOTUS it should be tossed.
#Clinton #Trump #AlvinBragg #Election
OPINION
The assertion of a two-tier legal system in the cases involving Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton hinges on several legal and procedural distinctions. Here's a structured analysis:
1. Trump’s NDA Payments: Legal vs. Campaign Expenses
- Context: Payments to Stormy Daniels via Michael Cohen were structured as a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).
- FEC Action: The Federal Election Commission (FEC) declined to pursue charges, partly due to internal deadlock and insufficient evidence to prove the payments were primarily campaign-related. NDAs are generally legal, but if intended to influence an election, they could qualify as campaign expenses.
- State Prosecution: The Manhattan District Attorney charged Trump under New York state law for falsifying business records (a misdemeanor), elevated to a felony by alleging the falsification concealed a federal campaign finance violation. This does not require a federal conviction, only intent to commit or conceal another crime.
- Key Distinction: State prosecutors argue the payments were election-related, not personal, making them unreported campaign expenses. The FEC’s inaction does not preclude state charges, as jurisdictions and standards differ.
2. Clinton/DNC and the Steele Dossier
- Context: The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton’s campaign funded the Steele Dossier, labeling it as “legal services” in filings.
- FEC Action: The FEC imposed a civil fine ($113,000) for misreporting payments as legal expenses instead of opposition research. This was a non-criminal violation, resolved administratively.
- No Criminal Charges: The Department of Justice (DOJ) did not pursue criminal charges, likely due to lack of evidence of willful intent to violate campaign finance laws, a higher bar than civil violations.
3. Legal Differences and Perceived Double Standards
- Jurisdiction:
- Trump’s case involves state criminal law (New York), while Clinton’s involved federal civil law (FEC). These are separate legal realms with different burdens of proof.
- The FEC handles civil campaign finance violations, whereas state prosecutors can pursue criminal charges under state statutes.
- Intent and Evidence:
- Prosecutors in Trump’s case alleged intent to defraud (e.g., disguising a campaign expense as a legal payment).
- In Clinton’s case, the FEC found no evidence of deliberate concealment beyond mislabeling, which warranted a civil penalty but not criminal prosecution.
- Prosecutorial Discretion:
- The Manhattan DA’s decision to pursue charges reflects local priorities, while the DOJ under Trump’s administration declined to prosecute Clinton in 2016–2017.
4. SCOTUS Considerations
- Potential Issues: If Trump’s case reaches the Supreme Court, justices might scrutinize:
- The novel use of state law to address federal campaign finance allegations.
- Whether falsifying business records to conceal a federal crime (even if unprosecuted) is a valid basis for a state felony.
- Federalism concerns (state vs. federal authority over election-related conduct).
- Precedent: SCOTUS has historically deferred to state prosecutions unless they conflict with federal law or constitutional rights. The outcome would depend on the specific legal arguments presented.
Conclusion
The perceived “two-tier system” arises from differing legal frameworks, jurisdictional boundaries, and prosecutorial decisions—not necessarily partisan bias. Trump’s case involves state criminal charges for alleged concealment of a federal violation, while Clinton’s involved federal civil penalties. Whether this constitutes unfair treatment is debatable, but the distinctions are legally substantive. The ultimate resolution, particularly at SCOTUS, will hinge on interpretations of state law’s interaction with federal election rules.
#Clinton #Trump #Justice #Election