Trump’s Hush Money Payments Protected by Supreme Court Precedent

Trump’s Hush Money Payments Protected by Supreme Court Precedent: The liberal media, led by the New York Times, has been perpetuating a false narrative

that Donald Trump’s payment of hush money during his 2016 presidential campaign was illegal.

However, Trump has a First Amendment right to spend his own money, as well as money from

the Trump Organization, to further his electoral ambitions. This right was upheld in the

Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo, which allowed wealthy individuals like Trump to

spend unlimited amounts of their own money on election campaigns.

The accounting entries for the hush money payments, labeled as “legal expenses,” simply reflect

Trump’s belief that the allegations against him were untrue and that he was protecting his family

and campaign. Any inaccuracies in these entries are at most misdemeanor offenses. The NY State

District Attorney’s prosecution does not accuse Trump of embezzlement or fraud, and he should appeal any verdict against him to the U.S. Supreme Court, asserting his First Amendment rights and asking for Buckley v. Valeo to be overturned.

Trump’s Hush Money Payments Protected by Supreme Court Precedent: the expert agreement

Legal experts agree that Buckley v. Valeo was flawed from the start, and with the recent

appointments to the Supreme Court, it’s time to declare it “dead on arrival.” Trump has

done nothing remotely illegal, and his hush money payments were a legitimate exercise

of his First Amendment rights. By asserting these rights at every level of the New York State

court system, Trump can easily win this farcical criminal case against him. The only limitation on spending money is that it cannot be used to bribe election officials or engage in other illegal conduct, which Trump has not done.