I credit Alvin Bragg to not bring charges he can’t absolutely prove in this unique circumstance.
People kept saying Bragg’s indictment was “thin,” but that view simply demonstrated a lack of understanding into what is required – and not required – under New York law with respect to what must be stated in an indictment. Bragg’s statement of facts was complete and illuminating. Personally, I’m comfortable he’ll win his case.
IMHO, the punishment may not be what we would hope for, but this case will be a smear on the windshield when compared to what’s coming. And almost beside the point by the time this case gets to sentencing.
No, I don’t think that’s correct, and that’s why the connection to an underlying election expense is what people are questioning about the New York charge.
He paid Stormy to keep silent out of Trump Org funds, during the election campaign, and the argument is that he did so to keep her from coming forward during the election campaign. It therefore was an undeclared election expense, contrary to federal law, and covered up as if it were legal services provided by Cohen to Trump Org. That’s where the falsified business records charge under NY state law comes in.
If he had declared it as a campaign expense, then he wouldn’t be in trouble, legally. There’s apparently no limit on what an individual candidate can donate to his own campaign, out of his own pocket. But declaring it as a campaign expense would cause the issue to come out, which is exactly what he didn’t want to happen.
It’s a bit convoluted, and is why there’s some doubt about the charges.
Some folks thought that, before 2016. Now, though, any benefit we get from him comes at the cost of having had him as President for four years.
And I think that Trump should be prosecuted for all of his crimes, including the petty little ones, because that’s what law and order calls for. Precisely what order those prosecutions come in is irrelevant: Each should be brought when the case is ready. And most of them should have been ready years ago, but we can’t change the past.
And this is why he may have the “Melania defence” - that the motive behind the payout to Stormy didn’t have anything to do with the political campaign, but was done so Melania wouldn’t find out.
If he can raise a reasonable doubt about his motives for the payment, and make it purely about his marital relationship, then the underlying federal (and state) election offences disappear. At most the NY state offence then become a misdemeanour, since it still wasn’t a payment to Cohen for legal services. That’s a false business record, but without the underlying campaign offence, not a felony.
(All of which is to be taken with a big grain of salt, since IANAUSL, and I’m just relying on the news reports.)
Yes, but he wanted to appear as pure as the virgin snow in his discussions with Melania. He couldn’t bear to have his good name tarnished, even by a total false accusation. < snerk >
Except Michael Cohen will testify – and I believe there is documentary evidence, as well – that Trump directed Cohen to delay the payment to Daniels for as long as possible, because “after the election, it won’t matter.” This substantially undercuts Trump’s “Melania” defense. Trump indicated he hoped to get out of paying Daniels this way.
I know everyone is saying that the case rests on the payments to Cohen being election related - keep in mind that much of what is in the public consciousness regarding the case comes from Team Trump, but after reading the documents I’m not sure if that’s the way they will prosecute the case.
I would not be surprised if Trump’s after the fact efforts to obstruct the investigation into these payments is what they use to justify the felony enhancement, the Statement of Facts gives a lot of ink to these efforts, so they must be relevant.
This is such a good point. As a not-a-lawyer myself, here’s now I’ve explained this to other people:
Alvin Bragg: "These 34 charges would be misdemeanors, but for the fact that they were committed with the intent to commit additional crimes. Under New York Law, it’s not required that I prove the underlying crimes were actually committed. Nor is it relevant whether those crimes were felonies, misdemeanors, state, local and/or federal. Further, it doesn’t matter if the crimes Trump intended to commit are within their statutes of limitations. The important thing here is his intent to commit them, and I think I can prove that.
“We have a menu of intended crimes to choose from. We’d like to get an affirmative ruling from the State Supreme Court about whether we can use federal crimes under this theory. But if the ruling goes against us, we have plenty of New York State crimes that Trump intended to commit. Please look to the New York Tax Code and New York Election law. Take your pick of which crimes Trump intended to commit. Any of them enhance these charges to felony counts.”
I just don’t see this as a weak case with these things in mind (assuming I’ve got it right).
Nitpick. (but we’re going to have to get this straight going forward) The highest court in NY is the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court in New York is the trial level court. In between is the Supreme Court, Appellate Division.
Everything I’ve seen says it came out of Trump Org payments to Cohen, who billed them as legal services to Trump Org. But, I could be wrong. There’s an awful lot being tossed about in the news accounts.
New York is the only state I know of that does it this way. It can be very confusing. Other states use “District Court” or “Superior Court” for their general jurisdiction trial courts. Some, I think, use “Circuit Court.” Only NY calls their trial courts “Supreme.” It’s kind of cool. But confusing.
The parties claimed it as earned income for tax purposes; a business write off for Trump. That’s tax fraud, and would elevate it to a felony. You don’t need to limit yourself to election interference.
This, exactly.
This prosecution wouldn’t be as viable if not for the cooperation of Cohen and Pecker (the National Enquirer guy). Cohen even recorded conversations with Trump!
And it’s true that their cooperation was coerced by their own legal jeopardy.
But when co-conspirators rat you out, your chance of avoiding conviction becomes very low.
(And sure, the defense will work hard to discredit these guys. But the prosecutor then gets to trot out that time worn argument - “Are these people sleazy? Would we have preferred to bring you better witnesses? Sure. But we didn’t select these people. Trump did. They are his compatriots. If you find them to be shady people, then consider that this is who Trump decided to align himself with”).
And to make matters worse, after the arraignment last Tuesday, Trump’s doltish, thuggish attorney, Joe Tacopina, said on live tee vee, “He didn’t even take that write off on his tax return!” as if that was somehow exculpatory.
Ehhhrrrmmmm, excuse me?
If it was a bonafide tax write off, why didn’t he take it?
Agreed. I think that’s why Bragg at the press conference mentioned state laws as the underlying offence, which has the effect of undercutting arguments that the state can’t use a federal offence as the underlying offence, if the feds didn’t prosecute it.
I don’t think that is correct. I think Trump didn’t pay Stormy at all.
From what I understand, Stormy Daniels didn’t ask for ‘hush money’. What she did was sell her story to the press, in the expectation that it would be a front-page story. But the press bought her story, and then didn’t print it.
It was the press that paid her. And then Cohen repaid them.
I believe you’re conflating Daniels with Karen McDougal.
In November 2016, The Wall Street Journal reported that McDougal had told a friend that she had an affair with a married Donald Trump from 2006 to 2007, with various sources quoting that it had lasted from ten months to a year. It also reported that American Media, Inc. (AMI), the owner of the National Enquirer, had paid McDougal $150,000 for exclusive rights to her story, but never published it. AMI stated to The Wall Street Journal that it had paid the amount to McDougal not “to kill damaging stories about” Trump, but for “exclusive life rights to any relationship she has had with a then-married man” and “two years’ worth of her fitness columns and magazine covers”.[47][48] On June 20, 2016, Dylan Howard, chief content officer for AMI, interviewed McDougal for several hours at the offices of her lawyer.[49] McDougal later met with investigative reporters from ABC News, which prompted AMI to offer to buy the rights to McDougal’s story for $150,000 on August 5, 2016.[49]
Coming from California, it was always the State Supreme Court. I’m happy for your correction, and I’ll get it right going forward.