Explained | The indictment against Donald Trump 

The Donald trump indictment case. Why the former President is facing arrest and criminal charges in the hush-money case and whether he can prosecuted for violating campaign finance laws

The story so far: Breaking with historical precedent, a New York grand jury has indicted former U.S. President Donald Trump on charges relating to the case of hush-money paid to porn actress Stormy Daniels in 2016, prior to Mr. Trump entering the Oval Office. The formal indictment is still under seal, creating ambiguity around the specific charges and the extent of evidence against Mr. Trump. However, media reports and comments by Mr. Trump’s attorney suggest that he will be in the dock for passing off the $1,30,000 payment to Ms. Daniels as a business expense, potentially in violation of campaign finance laws.

In 2006, Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, is said to have had a consensual sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, who was married to his wife Melania at the time. In 2011, when Mr. Trump was said to be considering the idea of running for president, Ms. Daniels apparently tried to go public with the story of Mr. Trump’s extramarital affair with her. However, that story got suppressed after Mr. Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue. When he actually ran for office in 2016, Ms. Daniels again attempted to approach the media with her story. This time Mr. Cohen reportedly worked out a deal, whereby he paid Ms. Daniels $1,30,000 for her silence and was subsequently reimbursed $4,20,000 in what was written into the books as “legal expenses”.

Later, in his congressional testimony, Mr. Cohen, who admitted a guilty plea in August 2018 for violating federal campaign finance laws said, “Mr. Trump directed me to use my own personal funds from a home equity line of credit to avoid any money being traced back to him that could negatively impact his campaign. I did that.” Also involved in reimbursing funds to Mr. Cohen from the Trump Organization was its Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, who is presently in prison for tax fraud. In this backdrop, the hush-money case would essentially seek to directly link Mr. Trump with the false bookkeeping entries, and then charge him with falsification of records.

However, under New York state law this would only be a misdemeanour, not a felony, which implies a far lighter sentence for the accused if convicted.

In order to prosecute Mr. Trump for a felony, Manhattan District Attorney (DA) Alvin Bragg would have to not only prove that Mr. Trump was culpable for falsified bookkeeping but also show that the business records in question were falsified to cover up an entirely different — and serious — crime. Reports suggest that the crime that will be examined for this charge will be the violation of campaign finance laws, even if there is still a sense of doubt that pervades whether Mr. Trump could be found guilty of this.

In the wake of Mr. Cohen’s claim that he had paid Ms. Daniels at Mr. Trump’s request, investigators did look into the question of whether Mr. Trump would be criminally liable under federal campaign finance laws. These regulations require that monies received as campaign donations be disclosed transparently and be subject to predefined legal limits. A federal investigation into this matter was closed in 2019, and this suggests that the evidence required to successfully prosecute Mr. Trump in this case might not have been forthcoming at the time.

Assuming that the Justice Department would take its cues from the Democrat-controlled White House and Senate, and if the latter are keen to attack Mr. Trump politically before he stands for election again in 2024, it is not the hush-money case that appears to be the obvious line of enquiry to pursue in this regard. Far more serious issues exist, which cast doubt upon whether the 45th president behaved in a legal manner or acted within the framework of the U.S. constitution. This includes Mr. Trump’s role in inciting the January 6, 2021 insurrection, the financial dealings of the Trump Organization and Mr. Trump’s act of withholding classified information after demitting office. The problem is that investigations conducted into these potential violations do not appear to have found a smoking gun or evidence that would be compelling enough for an indictment and a successful prosecution of Mr. Trump.