We’re all aware that Trump is himself expecting to be indicted/arrested any minute now, and that it’s all related to paying hush money to a porn actress. But what are the specific criminal charges they’re looking at? And are they felonies or misdemeanors or both? What kind of time is he looking at if found guilty?
According to this article, it’s about “falsifying business records,” though it could be a misdemeanor or a felony:
Also, note that this is the Manhattan district attorney’s office considering these charges, not the SDNY (which is the U.S. District Court).
Just to clarify, it’s not SDNY bringing these charges. It’s the Manhattan DA’s Office. So the charges are being brought at the state level, not the federal level.
Oops! Missed that @kenobi_65 already clarified this. Sorry!
Nitpick on thread title. SDNY is the Federal Court in Manhattan. The current discussion is about Manhattan DA’s office. (state court)
ETA: Ninja’d x2
I had been adding in that line as an edit, simultaneous to you and @Procrustus making your posts.
LOL, well, you can see that it really bugged at least 3 of us! I kind of hate to leave the misleading title but won’t modify it unless @HeyHomie wants me to. One of the FQ mods might, though.
Yes, please change the thread title.
Done.
Important note - Michael Cohen pled guilty to the original SDNY charges against him - no trial. In his book he says he did this because the property he used as collateral to get the money (later reimbursed) was jointly owned by his wife. She knew absolutely nothing about the whole scheme, but because she was co-owner the DA threatened to also arrest and charge her and drag her into court, even though the prosecution would obviously lose. Cohen pled guilty to avoid this indignity to his wife.
It says more about the slimy tactics of federal prosecutors than about the strength of the actual case. So the charges have not really been tested in court. Time will tell what happens going forward.
As mentioned, to up the charges from misdemeanor to felony means the “altering business records” (hiding a payoff as “legal fees”) has to be in furtherance of another crime. The question is whether a jury will buy the claim that the money was intended to help with the election (so, crime of election finance violation) rather than to keep the story out of the news to keep peace with Melania. It’s one thing to say “well obviously, just before an election…” and another to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Time will tell. I’m not clear on campaign finance laws, not sure if there is a reason the state can charge over federal election finance antics. I understood that limits on donations, need to declare campaign costs and donations, was federal law.
Slimy tactics? SDNY has some obligation to protect Mrs. Cohen from her husband’s poor choice to act as Trump’s bag man? Welcome to L-E-V-E-R-A-G-E. This is how it’s done. I think it says more about Cohen’s formerly slimy efforts to hide what he was doing from his wife. Not really SDNY’s problem.
(Emphasis mine.)
Cohen may have thought SDNY would “obviously lose,” but I doubt Geoffrey Berman, who was in charge of SDNY at the time, would agree.
By the way, are you aware that the only reason SDNY didn’t prosecute Trump at the time for this was because Trump’s DOJ, headed up by Bill Barr, interfered with the prosecution and directed them to stop their investigation/prosecution efforts? Berman is the one who revealed this fact in his own book. I guess he was in a position to know.
Are you also aware that it was the Trump’s own DOJ under Barr that concluded Individual One was equally culpable for the crime to which Cohen entered a plea? This was made clear in the charging documents against Cohen.
Trump signed the check reimbursing Cohen for the $130,000 payment. He stated on video that he did not know what it was for, demonstrating that he lied about the payment. It begs credibility from everything we know about this man that he would sign a check for $130,000 without knowing what it was for. Plus Cohen has audio tape (now in the possession of the Manhattan DA) of the conversation where he directly discussed the scheme with Trump.
It may be a bit tricky for Bragg to prove Trump was falsifying business records for the express purpose of hiding his conduct from voters, but far from impossible. The time line is damning, as is the fact that Trump never previously cared about hiding his affairs from Melania.
It’s also well known that Bragg is a cautious prosecutor. I am confident he would not pursue this prosecution unless 1) he is comfortable he can prove his case and 2) it will be filed as a felony. A misdemeanor won’t be worth all this kerfuffle.
It is, but New York State has a law that says if you are falsifying a record to conceal or commit another crime – irrespective of whether the other crime is a state crime or a federal crime – then that can be a basis to enhance the underlying misdemeanor charge to a felony.
Obviously none of this is knowable as fact unless/until indictments are issued by the grand jury, as you acknowledged, so we should probably move further speculative discussion to a P&E thread. The question posed in this one has been answered.
If this were literally true, it would be an appalling thing for the DA to do that would certainly be grounds for disbarment, if not prosecution. Is there any evidence besides Cohen’s claims that this is true?
The DA gets to choose who he prosecutes?
Next time, I’ll tell them that a knew absolutely nothing about the speed limit being 30mph.
If this isn’t too much of a hijack (reacting to the clarification re: who has jurisdiction), is there anything to the threats from Congress about investigating this despicable overreach? (To clarify myself, those last three words are sarcasm.)
Is it toothless huffing and puffing? Can the DA tell them to go @#$& themselves since Congress has no oversight authority? If the DA does submit to a subpoena, could every answer be “I’m not telling you assholes anything, this isn’t your party” without repercussion?
Nothing to it. We have Representatives who have no idea how the Constitution works. If Jim Jordan wants to move to NYC, meet the eligibility requirements, and run for DA he can give it his best.
Really? Someone behind your back uses your joint property to commit a crime and you are guilty? Deliberately taking someone to court for that just to get leverage is slimy. Why would he think he could win a conviction for Mrs. Cohen?
BTW, no argument from me on what Cohen was up to, Barr’s corrupt cover-up actions, or who was guilty of what. I just don’t see any possible reason why a person with no knowledge and took no actions can be guilty of a crime. Laying charges in that case is a upscale version of the fat-bellied cop “mah authritay” bully tactic, “You can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride.”
I don’t doubt he could have convicted Michael. Just, he used a slimy tactic to avoid a messy trial that maybe Barr would have cancelled.
That’s the key question that determines misdemeanour from felony. I would be surprised if there’s no case law on this; if not, it will work its way up the appeal courts. I’m inclined to agree with you, a crime is a crime is a crime - therefore the motivation to falsify records seems obviously to cover up a crime. The fact that Pecker (!) asked for and got immunity about paying off another “female friend” suggests they were well aware it was campaign related and so a crime.
A stupid effort with a great risk of total counterproductive failure. This matter is not all that important, anyone else without Trump’s notoriety would be offered a plea and a fine to put it away. This case at any level of success will hinder prosecutions of more important crimes that Trump has committed.
Use of one’s property to commit a crime is evidence that one was involved in the crime, yes. It’s not absolute proof, of course, but that’s what the trial is for. The question would come up in court whether Mrs. Cohen knew, and she would presumably argue that she didn’t know, and then the jury would decide.
IANAL, but one I heard on MSNBC said if the mischaracterization of the funds (as legal fees) was in the furtherance of another crime (e.g., campaign finance requirements), it’s a felony with a minimum of one year as punishment (and up to 4 years). A Class F felony, I think they said if that makes a difference to anyone, and if my rapidly diminishing memory isn’t faulty again.
Of course at this point no one knows what the charges will be, though an indictment seems imminent based on lots and lots of reporting.
No it isn’t. They would need substantially more. I would be surprised if that even got past arraignment, if that was the sum total of the evidence against her. but the point wasn’t to convict her, it was to put her through the process simply to put pressure on Michael.
Anyway, we’re arguing in circles. Just because the NY DA was a slimy bully does not mean that those who actually engineered and executed the coverup can’t be guilty, charged, convicted. The universe is unfolding as it should.
Regardless of whether that is true, it would necessarily be preceded by an indictment. People aren’t inclined to enter pleas, or pay fines, to resolve criminal cases unless and until they’ve been formally charged with a crime.
Meaning, this matter is proceeding just as it would be for “anybody else” who might be “offered a plea and fine to put it away.”
Since the money came from an equity line of credit on a home she owned, she had to have signed off on a mortgage. So it’s undeniable that she knew that $130,000 in cash was being withdrawn from her home’s value.
What did she think the money was being used for? Her husband must have told her something. That, I’m guessing, would have been the crux of that (hypothetical) case.