Is it illegal for Donald Trump to lie on his Financial Disclosures? It is a very simple question, prompted by an assertion from a debate where one has claimed that he has lied on his financial disclosures, and that he is legally able to do this because: It is not illegal to lie on financial disclosures, because they are not official documents. The reason I specified this to Donald Trump is that I am unsure whether his position as a presidential candidate or CEO of a multi-national business changes the legality.
Page 1 of OGE form 278e says WARNINGS Knowing and willful falsification of information, or failure to file or report information required to be reported by section 102 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended (the Act), may subject you to a civil monetary penalty and to disciplinary action by your employing agency or other appropriate authority under section 104 of the Act. Knowing and willful falsification of information required to be filed by section 102 of the Act may also subject you to criminal prosecution. The Office of Government Ethics says that you need to fill out the form if you are running for President. Authority to require this form comes from 5 CFR 2634.201(c). The consequences are spelled out in 5 CFR 2634.701. So, that one is an official form and there are consequences. Others might not be.
Under U.S. law, this is only actionable is you make this statement knowing that it would not "support the continued creation of X" and that instead, you had already completely abandoned that product and you were, for example, planning to change lines of work and become a lumberjack instead. Even in that case, common law fraud is hard to show, because you would need to show how that statement which related to how the profits will be used, rather than what you are actually receiving, could cause you damages in that narrow transaction. But, many states have deceptive trade practices acts that protect consumers by allowing the attorney general, local prosecutor, or a private individual or class of plaintiffs to sue if representations such as these are made when they are known to be false. Typically, these lawsuits provide for minimum statutory damages, attorneys' fees award, and when cases are brought by a public official, injunctive relief (ordering the advertising with that pitch to cease) are authorized. For example, saying this when it is false would be actionable in California and Colorado. A fairly common fact pattern is that someone will sell stuff at an above market price saying that "profits will help me pay for my cancer treatments" when in fact the person doesn't have cancer. This could even constitute criminal wire and mail fraud, for example. Sometimes, competitors can also sue you under the Lanham Act (which primarily governs federal trademarks), for false advertising about something that could unfairly undermine their sales if what you are saying isn't true and is causing their sales to drop. On the other hand, if you sincerely believe that what you are saying is true when you say it, and your belief is not so unreasonable that no reasonable person could believe that under the circumstances, then what you are saying is legal. Usually this is true, and if it is, ultimately, you will be fine. Although nothing can prevent you from being sued on a non-meritorious basis. In between are cases where this is true (you will be supported, but perhaps only get 5% of the profits while the rest are garnished for a lawsuit), but your statements were still misleading at the time you made them and you knew it. Those cases get resolved on a case by case basis. Outside U.S. law, your mileage may vary. Legal regulation of commercial speech varies significantly from one country to another. These statements might not be O.K. for example in a Communist regime on the Chinese or Korean model.
Well, as always, the answer is &quot;it depends&quot;. It isn't illegal per se. If both parties agree, it's good business. You get paid for the work of compiling the report. For example, let's say you leave and are no longer working for them, and they call you and say &quot;hey, you know those security vulnerabilities you were talking about last year? Yeah, the boss finally decided to give it priority, but it seems we kept no notes in that meeting. Could you compile a report for us? I know you no longer work here, but we would pay you a little more than the normal contractor rate if you are interested&quot;. That's perfectly fine. Now, not disclosing them when you found them could be seen as a breach of contract, which implicitely includes the duty of loyalty. Keeping it a secret to cash in on later is certainly sleazy. The compiled report might, depending on state laws, your specific contract, and who can pay the better lawyer, end up as their's. You can only compile that report because you worked there and you got knowledge of those vulnerabilites only as a part of your job. And finally, even if you did compile a report and it is waterproof and it is yours exclusively, it very much depends on the &quot;else&quot;. What if they just say &quot;no thanks&quot;? Selling that report to someone else is illegal. So you have exactly one legal buyer and that buyer knows it. Does not sound like a great bargaining position. If you approach them, it takes a lot of skill and maybe a bit of legal training to make sure it does come across as an offer of &quot;good business&quot;. I think it would be easy to be misinterpreted as either blackmail or selling them knowledge they legally probably already own. So unless you are certain you can fit into that &quot;good business&quot; model of selling your work compiling a report, instead of selling the knowledge of their secrets, it might be safer to not do that. If they approach you, it should not be a problem, but if you approach them, it will be a mess, no matter how well you mean it.
Here is one of the three Trump appearance bonds. As you can see, it is a personal recognizance bond, and not a dollar amount bond. He promises to appear, as required, and there is no money involved. There is a direct indication that he was not required to &quot;post bail&quot;, which is a stronger statement that &quot;no indication that he was&quot;.
You're misreading the law. You need to keep reading the section you referenced (emphasis added): The disclosure...shall be made in writing and delivered through the consumer’s account with the business, if the consumer maintains an account with the business, or by mail or electronically at the consumer’s option if the consumer does not maintain an account with the business Thus, the option to have the disclosure sent by mail only applies to consumers who do not have an account with the business. Since presumably a large number of sites only maintain personal information for users with accounts, such sites need not provide a mail option. Further, it doesn't say there needs to be a button: you just need the ability to say you'd like it mailed to you in the request somehow, and then they need to comply when you do.
No But they aren’t suing over defamation against Trump; the are suing over (alleged) defamation of the campaign: the Campaign "assessed the potential risks and benefits of again seeking Russia's help in 2020 and has decided to leave that option on the table."
Saying "they didn't have an affair", in isolation, would not be defamation. But we have to look at the context. Daniels had previously stated publicly that they did have an affair. So when Cohen said that it wasn't true, he was (claims Daniels) effectively calling her a liar. Calling someone a liar is potentially defamatory. You can read Daniels's complaint here. See paragraph 67: Both on its face, and because of the facts and circumstances known to persons who read or heard the statement, it was reasonably understood Mr. Cohen meant to convey that Ms. Clifford is a liar, someone who should not be trusted, and that her claims about her relationship with Mr. Trump is 'something [that] isn't true.' Mr. Cohen's statement exposed Mr. [sic] Clifford to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and shame, and discouraged others from associating or dealing with her. As to whether calling someone a liar is defamatory, there's a long article on the subject here. There are at least some cases where courts have held that it is. Gutterman, Roy S. "Liar! Liar? The Defamatory Impact of 'Liar' in the Modern World." Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 27 (2) 253-286, 2017.
It is legal for you to publicly distribute your medical records, and it is legal for you to publicly distribute your bills. Defamation would be a concern only if you make a false statement that does harm to someone. A medical bill is a statement made by someone else (in both senses of &quot;statement&quot;).