#falsification of business records
Text
The Donald Trump hush money trial starts today in NYC.
Jury selection is the first order of business. In normal trials that may take a day or two. With Trump's legal foot-dragging, that could go into weeks.
There had been some doubts about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's approach to this case. There is some new ground here. But Slate's Mark Joseph Stern, an attorney who initially had some reservations about the prosecution, is now "fully onboard" with it.
Over the past year, though, I have realized that my initial doubts about Bragg’s indictment were misplaced. It now seems clear that Trump’s New York trial, slated to begin this week, will be the former president’s only criminal trial before the November election. The other three strong indictments against him in other jurisdictions have unfortunately been delayed by a corrupt judge, a foot-dragging Supreme Court, and a district attorney’s questionable conduct in an already complex case. This, combined with Bragg’s excellent pretrial briefing, has substantially strengthened the case for this prosecution. It is important to American democracy that Trump be forced to defend at least some of his alleged criminal conduct before a jury of his peers in advance of Election Day.
[ ... ]
Shortly before the 2020 election, Trump wanted to kill a story about his alleged affair with Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress. So he allegedly directed his longtime fixer Michael Cohen to pay off Daniels, through a shell company, for her silence. Afterward, Trump funneled $420,000 to Cohen in installments. But he allegedly concealed the payments by listing them as legal expenses for a retainer that did not exist.
Last year, I was uncertain whether this scheme, while sordid, rose to the level of a felony offense. I am now convinced that, if proved that he took these actions, it surely does. The falsification of business records is, by itself, a misdemeanor under New York law, but it’s a felony when it’s done with the “intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” In his indictment, Bragg claims that Trump lied about the payments with the intent to violate election law, which is what elevates the crime to a felony. Initially, I was suspicious of this theory; what election law, exactly, was the former president attempting to violate? The district attorney’s initial statement of facts was hazy on this crucial point, raising the possibility that he couldn’t tie the underlying fraud to a state or federal statute.
Turns out he could. Bragg has argued, convincingly, that the former president intended to violate at least two election laws—one state, one federal. First, Bragg asserted that Trump and Cohen ran afoul of the Federal Election Campaign Act by making unlawful campaign contributions (in the form of a payoff) at the direction of a candidate (that is, Trump).
As a criminal defendant, Trump has to be in court for the trial. And except for holidays, court will be in session four days a week.
So Trump will be in Lower Manhattan quite a bit for the next couple of months. The New York County (Manhattan) Courthouse is at 100 Centre Street. And he owns a major property at 40 Wall Street (modestly called The Trump Building) where he might occasionally be seen. Google Maps puts the walking distance between the two locations at 0.8 miles (1.28 km). So if you're tempted to exercise your First Amendment right to express your opinions to Trump...
#new york#donald trump#hush money#trump's legal problems#alvin bragg#stormy daniels#michael cohen#falsification of business records#cover-up#federal election campaign act#lower manhattan#mark joseph stern#lock him up#election 2024#vote blue no matter who
27 notes
·
View notes
Text
Today’s Reminder that it’s not a Trump “hush money” trial. Hush money payments are generally legal.
It’s a Trump “Criminal Fraud” Trial.
Trump stands accused of violating criminal statutes on Election Fraud [17-152)] and on Tax Fraud [1801(a)(3) and 1802]
~~~~~~~~~~ELABORATION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New York Election Law § 17-152 prohibits a conspiracy to use “unlawful means” to promote or prevent a person’s election. The phrase “unlawful means” is interpreted broadly and is not limited to crimes but rather includes any conduct unauthorized by law. In denying Trump’s motion to dismiss, Justice Merchan upheld DA Bragg’s theory under this statute, namely: “the People allege that Defendant intended to violate N.Y. Election Law § 17-152 by conspiring to ‘promote the election of any person to a public office… by entering a scheme specifically for purposes of influencing the 2016 presidential election; and that they did so by ‘unlawful means,’ including by violating FECA through the unlawful individual and corporate contributions by Cohen, Pecker, and AMI; and… by falsifying the records of other New York enterprises and mischaracterizing the nature of the repayment for tax purposes.’ People’s Opposition at pg. 25
For the purposes of tax violations, Bragg relies on two related tax provisions: New York Tax Law §§ 1801(a)(3) & 1802. Section 1801(a) sets out relevant tax fraud acts, with subsection (3) prohibiting “knowingly suppl[ying] or submit[ting] materially false or fraudulent information in connection with any [tax] return, audit, investigation, or proceeding.” The tax fraud includes four elements: (1) a tax document filed, submitted or supplied; (2) falsity; (3) materiality; and (4) intent (willfulness). Any person who commits a tax fraud act, including under 1801(a)(3), is guilty, at a minimum, of criminal tax fraud in the fifth degree, a Class A misdemeanor crime under Section 1802, where the tax liability is less than $3,000. No additional mens rea is required, such as an intent to evade taxes or defraud the state. In this case, the primary alleged tax violation was Cohen falsely declaring the reimbursement as income, which artificially increased his tax liability. As Justice Merchan already found, however, an allegation of tax fraud where the state “was not financially harmed … and instead would wind up collecting more tax revenue” does not preclude the tax violation from being a predicate act for the first degree falsification of business records.
32 notes
·
View notes
Text
AUDREY MCCABE, REED MCMASTER, and PETE TSIPIS at MMFA:
On April 15, former President Donald Trump walked into a Manhattan courtroom for the first day of his trial for charges of falsifying business records in order to conceal hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Trump and right-wing media immediately began spreading lies about the trial.
Right-wing media have wrongly claimed: that a gag order the judge issued on Trump is a violation of his freedom of speech, that the judge has barred Trump from attending his son’s graduation, that Trump should have been charged with misdemeanors rather than felonies, and that Trump should not be prosecuted because Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the Steele dossier is similar and yielded only a fine.
In reality, the case centers on Trump’s attempts to conceal hush money payments to Daniels, who allegedly had an affair with the former president. Trump funneled the payments to Daniels through his former lawyer Michael Cohen, who was sentenced to three years in prison for his role in the scheme as well as other crimes. Prosecutors allege that Trump violated election law in paying off Daniels as it was part of a coordinated effort to assist his 2016 campaign and may have also violated state tax law by mischaracterizing Cohen’s reimbursement.
Experts say Merchan’s gag order is consistent with case law. Merchan also declined to answer Trump’s request to be excused from court on May 17 to attend his son’s graduation, stating that it was too early to make a decision but signaling an openness to it.
@mediamattersforamerica has a handy guide debunking the right-wing media's myths about the Donald Trump election interference trial for falsification of business records in Manhattan.
#Donald Trump#People of New York v. Trump#Donald Trump Trial#Conservative Media Apparatus#Juan Manuel Merchan#Gag Orders#Michael Cohen#Stormy Daniels#Stormy Daniels/Donald Trump Affair#Fact Checking
15 notes
·
View notes
Text
Trump’s criminal trial begins in Manhattan
The criminal trial of Donald Trump for election interference began on Monday. Despite nearly non-stop media coverage, the proceeding was similar to the first day of most criminal trials in America—a fact that should give us all comfort. The first-day proceedings were consistently ordinary, sometimes boring, but glorious in their relentless insistence that all persons are equal before the law.
Rather than overinterpreting small actions or obsessing over whether a Trump-friendly juror can lie their way onto the jury, it is helpful to recall how we got here and what the case is about.
Rachel Maddow presented a superb summary of the sorry path to Trump's prosecution in state court for a federal conspiracy that sent Michael Cohen to prison for a year—but allowed the person who directed the conspiracy—Donald Trump—to escape prosecution. See The Rachel Maddow Show 4/15/24.
Although you already know the story, Maddow’s explainer is an absolutely essential refresher for the state prosecution. The short version is this: When Trump's DOJ investigated and prosecuted Michael Cohen for his role in the hush money payoff, then Attorney General Bill Barr ordered the Southern District of New York to cease its investigation of Michael Cohen’s co-conspirator--Donald Trump.
The failure of the DOJ to pursue Trump in 2018 was political corruption at its height. The fact that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg picked up the prosecution three years later is a credit to Bragg—not a ground for criticism.
The fact that Bill Barr was able to quash the federal investigation into Trump also explains the central legal theory of the state prosecution. Trump is charged with a state crime of falsifying documents in furtherance of a second crime—election interference, which is a federal crime.
Many observers were initially skeptical of Bragg’s legal theory, but some have come to believe that Bragg has a strong case. See Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, I Was a Skeptic of the Stormy Daniels Prosecution. I Was Wrong.
Stern writes,
Last year, I was uncertain whether this scheme, while sordid, rose to the level of a felony offense.
I am now convinced that, if proved that [Trump] took these actions, it surely does.
The falsification of business records is, by itself, a misdemeanor under New York law, but it’s a felony when it’s done with the “intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”
In his indictment, Bragg claims that Trump lied about the payments with the intent to violate election law, which is what elevates the crime to a felony.
Bragg has argued, convincingly, that the former president intended to violate at least two election laws—one state, one federal.
First, Bragg asserted that Trump and Cohen ran afoul of the Federal Election Campaign Act by making unlawful campaign contributions (in the form of a payoff) at the direction of a candidate (that is, Trump). . .
Second, Bragg argued that Trump ran afoul of a New York election law that forbids any conspiracy “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”
Read Stern’s article for additional explanation of the legal theory of the case. I find Stern’s analysis convincing.
Of course, the fact that Trump should be found guilty under a proper application of the law to the facts does not guarantee that a jury will return a guilty verdict. In every trial, it is always possible that a juror will not participate in good faith. Given the high-profile stakes and intense scrutiny involved in this case, I think the odds that a “stealth bad faith juror” will lie their way onto the jury are low.
But I am speculating in the same way as all other legal commentators. We must simply await the jury’s verdict and trust in a system that works most of the time. Trying to predict the future is a fool’s game. And remember, the prosecution of Trump is not a substitute for beating Trump at the ballot box.
[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]
6 notes
·
View notes
Text
An Ohio man is facing charges after lying about how he suffered injuries, baselessly claiming he was the victim of an anti-Palestinian hate crime, local police said.
Hesham A. Ayyad, 20, of North Olmsted, Ohio, is charged with making false alarms, falsification, obstructing official business, domestic violence and assault, according to records from the Lorain County Jail, which show he was released on bond on Wednesday.
Ayyad was taken to the hospital on October 22 after telling officers he had been hit by a vehicle in a "racially motivated" attack, claiming that he was struck on Cook Road in Olmsted Township near the North Ridgeville border, North Ridgeville police told local media.
Ayyad's claims sparked a Muslim civil rights group to demand that police investigate the alleged attack, according to an October 23 statement by the Cleveland chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Cleveland)
As police investigated the incident, they discovered that Ayyad fabricated the ordeal, the North Ridgeville Police Department (NRPD) said in a statement.
Newsweek reached out via email and social media on Saturday to the NRPD.
It was unclear at the time of publication whether Hesham Ayyad had retained an attorney who could speak on his behalf.
Ayyad initially claimed, according to the CAIR-Cleveland statement, that he was walking home shortly after 4 p.m. on October 22 when a dark-colored SUV approached him. He said the driver rolled down the window and began yelling anti-Palestinian comments at him, including "Kill all Palestinians" and "Long live Israel," before swerving his car. The SUV driver allegedly struck Ayyad, then drove away while shouting, "Die!"
Faten Odeh, interim executive director for CAIR-Cleveland, urged authorities to monitor crimes related to the "rising Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism" in the statement issued a day after Ayyad was hospitalized.
The CAIR-Cleveland statement also included a photo of Ayyad appearing to be in the hospital while wearing a neck brace.
"We hope the North Ridgeville Police Department and the FBI will collect all the information they need to charge this individual with a hate crime," Odeh said in the October statement. "We should all feel safe to walk down the street to grab a bite to eat, go to the store, and go to school."
In response to Ayyad's charges, Odeh told Newsweek in an email that CAIR-Cleveland does not have any additional information on the case.
"We are currently seeking more information about this development," Odeh said. "Our understanding is the individual has secured his own legal counsel. We do not yet know anything more about the nature of the charges."
Investigators believe that Ayyad lied, saying that he was never struck by a vehicle nor subjected to racial slurs, but rather he was injured during a fight with his younger brother, who is also facing charges. Video surveillance from the scene confirms an altercation occurred, NRPD said.
His brother, 19-year-old Khalil A. Ayyad, of North Olmsted, was also arrested and charged with domestic violence and assault for his involvement in the fight.
Both brothers are scheduled to appear in Elyria Municipal Court on Tuesday.
17 notes
·
View notes
Quote
The prosecution has Trump dead to rights on the question of falsification of business records. In addition to a damning paper trail of the cover up, there will be key witnesses, including Trump’s fixer Michael Cohen, who will explain the whole scheme to the jury first hand. And there is audio tape of a conversation between Trump and Cohen about the catch and kill scheme. The challenge for the prosecution will be to show that Trump falsified the records in order to help his election chances. His lawyers likely will argue that he did this instead to protect his marriage (ha!) or to protect his public image (which was inextricably wound up with his candidacy).
Don’t Sleep On This Case
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
I'm probably the only one who cares about this but I typed it out in case anyone else is interested lol
S2E3: For He Is a Liar and the Father of Lies
Local Wrestling Promoter Rumored Behind Gambling, Extortion Rackets
Glendon Marsh Charged with Conspiracy and Extortion
By G. NAYLOR
MEMPHIS, Tenn. June 20
A Federal grand jury indicted Memphis community figure and wrestling promoter Glendon Marsh with five counts of conspiracy and extortion. Police think Marsh is a key figure in the Memphis underground, but have had only unreliable jailhouse informants as circumstantial evidence. The District Attorney may now have Marsh in a full-nelson and ready to tap out and rat on a wider syndicate that the FBI thinks may be connected to a nation wide money laundering scheme. But the court can only hold him so long with out concrete evidence. Marsh’s bail is set to $40,000. Which he can easily post by next week.
Indicted with Marsh were many of the wrestlers he employs at the American Legion Hall. Police also think Marsh’s young son may be deeply involved with his father’s business, possibly using his young age to hide certain activities from law enforcement and tax officials. Marsh is a known union buster and was quite outspoken about [indecent] sanitation strikes that … shut down Memphis.
Conspiracy Charges
The indictment charges that the defendants conspired to obstruct [or delay] local gambling laws that used numbers betting loop holes to avoid restriction applied to casinos. He’s also known in the pro-wrestling circuit as a cut-throat manager with an eye for talented “heel” characters. His Memphis League run by Glendon Marsh Promotions is known across the region as the best spot to see bad guys in the ring. One former employee, who wants to remain nameless, gave us a [sic] inside scoop on what goes on behind the scenes in the wrestling world.
“He just knows how to pick ‘em and he has a talent for knowing the crowd and how riling them up enough to get them coming back.”
3 Companies Also Named in Gambling Racketeering Case
The indictment charges that the defendants conspired to obstruct members receiving ballots and $ counts under a Federal Indictment accusing him of falsification of union records and fabricating employees and supervisors all together. [A] retired union leader said that he was once kidnapped by Marsh to change one of his votes and subsequently retire. He commented.
“He dropped me off at the court house. I took it as a message and that message said, ‘I dare you.’ I kept my mouth shut for years.”
Marsh was never tried on the charge and the Federal Indictment for kidnapping and falsification was never pushed. There were suggestions that Marsh had been protected by someone at the governor’s office. No one knows.
Many are asking what will happen to the Federal witnesses if Marsh posts bond. The District Attorney as [sic] said that they have their witnesses under lock and key and there’s “No way Marsh can get to them before the grand jury hears testimony.”
Many are asking what will happen to the rising Memphis pro-wrestling scene that Marsh is entirely responsible for overturning and creating. Some may think the sport will rise to the national stage in the near future.
Continued on pg. [##]
#the righteous gemstones#the righteous gemstones meta#tv meta#eli gemstone#the maniac kid#glendon marsh#junior marsh#.disco
6 notes
·
View notes
Link
From the March 30, 2023 article:
CNN’s John Miller on-air Thursday evening announced, “I am told by my sources that this is 34 counts of falsification of business records, which is probably a lot of charges involving each document, each thing that was submitted, as a separate count.”
The commentators they consulted suggest that the indictments might cover hush money payments for other scandals, not just Stormy Dean.
19 notes
·
View notes
Text
Republicans who are facing tough races in 2024 are defending Donald Trump against his criminal charges, either by assailing what they say is a political prosecution or offering full-throated support for the former president. And Democrats are betting they'll pay for it.
The day Trump was arraigned in New York on felony charges, two GOP House members from New York — Reps. Mike Lawler and Marc Molinaro – attacked Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, with Molinaro accusing him of pursuing a "political vendetta."
Rep. Mike Garcia, of California, appeared to invoke a comparison to Joseph Stalin's reign of terror in Russia. Embattled Rep. George Santos, embroiled in his own series of scandals, showed up at a pro-Trump rally in Manhattan and tweeted "that's what real supporters do" using the hashtag "#Trump2024NowMorethanEver."
Trump's indictment in New York on charges of 34 felony counts of falsification of business records leaves vulnerable down-ballot Republicans in a predicament: Avoid the topic and risk losing pro-Trump voters in a potential GOP primary, or defend him now and risk losing swing voters later in a general election.
THE GOP ONCE AGAIN BOXED IN BY TRUMP
While some vulnerable Republicans have remained quiet, others have weighed in with comments that Democrats expect will age poorly.
"It's the latest iteration of the Republican Party being owned by this guy and paying the electoral price for it," said Shripal Shah, a partner at Left Hook and a former spokesperson for both the House and Senate Democrats' campaign arms. "I think it helps Democrats across the board, in both House and Senate races. Just like in 2022 — when you have to embrace everything about Trumpism in order to survive a primary you're doing so at your own peril."
Republicans are still reluctant to criticize Trump, even after he lashed out against federal law enforcement. Only three of the 18 Republicans who represent districts that President Joe Biden won in 2020 — Molinaro, Rep. Young Kim of California and Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon — would go on the record with Punchbowl News to distance themselves from Trump's call to defund the FBI and Department of Justice.
The 2024 elections are still a long way off and it's unclear which issues will motivate voters the most. But Democrats are betting that MAGA-charged politics will be a loser.
"Voters overwhelmingly rejected Trump and MAGA extremism in 2020 and 2022, but having learned nothing, House Republicans are eagerly showing voters that they are still at the mercy of one disgraced ex-president, even as he calls to defund federal law enforcement," Tommy Garcia, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told Insider. "It's dangerous and will likely cost them."
Spokespeople for the National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee did not respond to a request for comment.
PROSECUTING TRUMP POLLS WELL
Most Americans — 60%— approve of Trump's indictment, according to a CNN poll, though about three-quarters said politics played some role in it. About 4 in 10 said they thought he acted illegally in making alleged hush-money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential election, while 33% said he acted unethically but not illegally.
MAGA booster Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado called that poll "as fake as Biden's White House play set." Boebert, who only narrowly won her 2022 election in a Trump 2020 district, called on her Twitter followers to be vocal about "this assault on our nation."
Boebert is on House Democrats' list of 31 vulnerable Republicans and two competitive open seats that they are targeting to take back control of the House in 2024.
Senate Democrats face a tough election cycle with 20 Democrat-controlled seats and three independent seats up for election, but they're expecting to see Trump playing a role in messy primaries on the Republican side.
In Pennsylvania, former gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano, a potential Senate candidate, called out the "weaponizing of our Justice system against the leading Republican candidate for president is unprecedented, disconcerting and dangerous." He also retweeted a supporter who criticized a potential opponent, David McCormick, for being "completely silent" on Trump's indictment and arrest and called him a "coward."
"Donald Trump's indictment is intensifying Senate Republicans' nasty primary dynamics across the map — exacerbating their intra-party fighting and pushing GOP Senate candidates further away from the voters who will decide the general election," Nora Keefe, a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesperson, told Insider.
Biden hasn't commented on Trump's charges, and Democrats in Congress are treading carefully.
Democrats shouldn't get ahead of the judicial process, said Rodell Mollineau, a cofounder and partner at Rokk Solutions in Washington, DC. They should say Trump deserves his day in court and "be the party of the rule of law," he said.
If it comes out that this was political overreach or a stretch, he said, "this is where I think it becomes more problematic for our side."
#us politics#business insider#2023#news#donald trump#republicans#conservatives#2024 elections#2024 presidential race#Rep. Mike Lawler#rep. Marc Molinaro#alvin bragg#manhattan district attorney#manhattan grand jury#Rep. Mike Garcia#Rep. George Santos#rep. lauren boebert#Shripal Shah#Rep. Young Kim#Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer#defund the fbi#defund the doj#Tommy Garcia#Doug Mastriano#Nora Keefe#Rodell Mollineau
8 notes
·
View notes
Text
Trump has said that no one ever gets charged with felony record keeping offenses so that means the prosecutor is out to get him. As usual, this is Trump, so you probably should double-check that.
And, look, no one is going to blame you if you have no idea if it's true or not, who really pays that close of attention to business record keeping prosecutions in Manhattan anyways?
Well, luckily, this is what we have journalists for. The New York Times looked into it and found that Mr. Bragg, the prosecutor who just indicted Trump, has actually filed 117 counts of felony falsification of business records since taking office in 2022 against 29 individuals and companies.
So yeah, not only is Trump lying about this not being something that other people get charged with, it's not even something that is unusual for THIS PROSECUTOR to charge someone with. The only difference is that he thinks being an ex-President should be a get out of jail free card.
Source
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
We’re only one week into the first criminal trial of Donald Trump, yet he and his MAGA allies are already intervening to identify and drive off the jury anyone they think could pose a risk to the former president.
At Fox News, host Jesse Watters has launched attacks on the jurors, saying at one point that any juror who says they can be unbiased in the case is a liar, and citing Trump’s legal team as having uncovered potential jurors who were “undercover activists.” Trump himself quickly amplified Watters’ remarks (and as Lawrence O’Donnell noted, partially altering Watters’ quote) on Truth Social — an action that risks violating Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order prohibiting attacks on jurors, potential witnesses and other people related to the case. A prosecutor in the case reportedly called his remark disturbing while saying that Trump did, in fact, violate the gag order.
None of this has stopped Watters, who continued attacking the jury Thursday evening after it was fully seated. Steve Bannon, set to face trial himself later in the year before Merchan over the “We Build The Wall” scheme, cited Watters’ remarks as a reason that Trump’s team should move for an immediate mistrial.
Watters has gone further than merely making general complaints about jurors; his efforts may have contributed to a juror leaving the trial entirely. On Wednesday, Watters called out “juror number 2,” describing extensive details about her work and personal life. By the next morning, the juror noted in court, her friends and family seemingly had figured out she was a member of the jury, and she withdrew from the trial as a result.
[...]
But the core issue here is that Trump and his media allies don’t believe that they should have to be subject to the same legal system as the rest of us. Instead, there’s a clear and concerted effort by MAGA forces to use media pressure to give Trump more preferential treatment, and to drive off any juror they believe poses a risk to Trump. That’s why Fox Corp. personality Clay Travis is happy to publicly urge the former president’s supporters to “do everything you can” to get on the jury and acquit Trump, regardless of the evidence at hand.
This coordinated attempt to use chaos to undermine public confidence in Trump’s trial should be understood as part and parcel of Trump and his supporters’ attack on democracy — and their media allies are fully on board.
[...]
At the heart of what Watters and Bannon are saying is that Trump deserves special treatment because of his political following. Without getting into the minutiae of jury selection in New York state, their claims are preposterous.
John Whitehouse for MSNBC.com on the MAGA media's attacks on the People of New York v. Trump jury selection (04.22.2024).
In a column on MSNBC.com, MMFA news director Jon Whitehouse exposes the MAGA media's jury tainting strategies in the jury selection for the People of New York v. Trump election interference/business record falsification criminal trial.
See Also:
MMFA: The MAGA attacks on Trump's jury are part of their anti-democracy push
#John Whitehouse#MMFA#MSNBC.com#MSNBC#Opinion#People of New York v. Trump#Donald Trump Trial#Jury Tampering#Clay Travis#Stephen Bannon#Jesse Watters#Donald Trump
14 notes
·
View notes
Photo
Jesse Duquette, The Daily Don
* * * *
The Trump indictment.
On a day of non-stop coverage of the indictment of Donald J. Trump, less is more.
Here are the facts that matter:
The people of the State of New York filed this Indictment against Donald Trump.
The indictment alleges 34 felony counts of falsification of business records.
The Manhattan District Attorney separately released this Statement of Facts. If you have time, read the 13-page document in full. It sets forth the essential facts and legal theories for everything that will transpire in the case of People of New York v. Donald Trump.
Important allegations in the Statement of Facts include the following:
From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant [Trump] orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant's electoral prospects. In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York.
[Michael Cohen] who then worked for the Trump Organization as Special Counsel to [Trump] covertly paid $130,000 to an adult film actress shortly before the election to prevent her from publicizing a sexual encounter with the Defendant. [Michael Cohen] made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and [Cohen] has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution . . . .
In a conversation captured in an audio recording in approximately September 2016 concerning Woman 1's account, the [Trump] and [Cohen] discussed how to obtain the rights to Woman 1's account from AMI and how to reimburse AMI for its payment.
[Trump] directed [Cohen] to delay making a payment to Woman 2 as long as possible. He instructed Lawyer A that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public.
During a 58-minute appearance before Judge Juan Merchan, Donald Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in the indictment.
Judge Merchan declined to impose a gag order, although he cautioned the parties to exercise restraint in making out-of-court statements. Trump promptly disregarded the judge's cautionary warning by making incendiary statements during an evening speech at Mar-a-Lago.
Judge Merchan set the next hearing in the case for December 2, 2023.
Discussion of the indictment.
The indictment alleges financial crimes were committed to protect Trump's presidential prospects. The cover-up was part of a broad ranging “catch-and-kill” strategy that continued into Trump's first months as president.
The indictment has provoked a torrent of criticism by legal commentators. Most of the criticism hinges on the fact that the underlying offenses of financial fraud are typically charged as misdemeanors. Here, they are charged as felonies. To leverage misdemeanors into felonies, New York must prove that Trump intended to commit other crimes.
Alvin Bragg identified those other crimes during a news conference, which include:
tax fraud,
facilitating false statements by the National Enquirer's parent company (AMI),
violation of state election laws, and
violation of federal election laws.
Most commentators focus on the difficulty of proving the last two crimes—violations of federal and state election laws. For example, one of my favorite legal commentators, Ian Millhiser, has annoyed me greatly with this article in Vox, The dubious legal theory at the heart of the Trump indictment, explained.
Millhiser's analysis is as good as it gets—but I disagree. At the core of Millhiser's criticism is this:
Bragg has evidence that Trump acted to cover up a federal crime, but it is not clear that Bragg is allowed to point to a federal crime in order to charge Trump under the New York state law.
Millhiser suggests that Bragg must prove a federal crime to prevail. Not true, entirely. Bragg can rely on uncharged state crimes—including violations of New York election laws and income tax violations, as Bragg said in his news conference. Moreover, as Millhiser concedes above, "it is not clear" whether an uncharged federal crime will suffice. The relevant New York statute says that a person is guilty of a felony under state law
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records [and has] the intent to commit another crime . . . .
The New York statute refers generally to "another crime," not a "state crime" or a federal crime. Just "another crime." Millhiser says that ambiguity might get Trump off the hook. I doubt it. The statute is plain on its face. Trump will undoubtedly make Millhiser's argument, but I believe Trump will lose the argument.
Okay, that's as deep as I will examine the legal issues. The issues are more complicated than I have described above, and there are other worrisome defenses (including the timing of the payments—all of which occurred after Trump took office).
Despite my disagreement with Millhiser, his analysis is excellent and cannot be easily dismissed. If you are interested in a deep dive into the alleged weaknesses of Bragg's case, Millhiser's article is an excellent resource. See also Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, Donald Trump indictment is not the slam-dunk case Democrats wanted.
Although two of my favorite legal commentators are raising red flags, I think Bragg can convince the judge that the false financial records were part of a broad-ranging "catch-and-kill" strategy designed to violate state and federal election and tax laws. That should be enough to get the case to the jury.
Trump cannot appeal any pre-trial rulings, which means that if the judge denies the expected motions to dismiss, the trial will take place in the spring of 2024. By then, Trump should be defending two federal indictments and one from Georgia.
Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter
#Robert B. Hubbell#Robert B. Hubbel Newsletter#Trump Indictment#Jesse Duquette The Daily Don#justice#legal#Millhiser
29 notes
·
View notes
Note
Congratulations to Alvin Bragg for the shortest and most meaningless trial in N.Y history. Enjoy your 15 mins of fame.
Looks like it's still going, he's just been formally charged now.
Nonviolent financial crime, they're not going to hold him, not without running afoul of several recently enacted laws that have let people out that just go and do more violent crime the next day.
And for the people that are saying take his passport, where does anyone think he could actually go where he wouldn't be recognized, man is not inconspicuous.
Time to wait for the trial, if it gets that far.
Whole thing has been a massive boost to his fundraising for his white house run.
Wonder how bragg will feel if as a result of this trump wins next year
This is also interesting.
yes I know these are both fox, easiest place to go where i know the info will be front and center.
Be interesting to see how this plays into the defense.
22 notes
·
View notes
Text
Former President Donald Trump arriving at Trump Tower in New York City on Monday. (David Dee Delgado/Reuters)
Donald Trump will be placed under arrest on Tuesday and informed that he has been charged with 34 felony counts for falsification of business records, according to a source who has been briefed on the procedures for the arraignment of the former president.
A New York City police arrest report summarizing the charges against Trump will then be prepared and entered into the court system before he is led into a courtroom to be formally arraigned on the charges, none of which are misdemeanors.
But, the source said, Trump will not be put in handcuffs, placed in a jail cell or subjected to a mug shot — typical procedures even for white-collar defendants until a judge has weighed in on pretrial conditions. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, which has been consulting with the Secret Service and New York City court officials, concluded there was no reason to subject the former president to handcuffs or a mug shot.
The stated reason for handcuffing defendants is that they might be a flight risk or a threat to the district attorney or court personnel, neither of which was judged to be relevant to the handling of a former president protected at all times by a phalanx of Secret Service agents.
The charge of falsification of business records can be prosecuted in New York state as a misdemeanor. But Bragg’s office bumped up all the charges to Class E felonies — the lowest level of felonies in the New York state penal code — on the grounds that the conduct was intended to conceal another underlying crime, according to the source.
Under the New York State penal code, a conviction for the Class E felony of falsifying business records can result in a prison term of up to four years. But as a practical matter, that seems extremely unlikely. “No one gets jail time for that as a first offender,” said a New York law enforcement official.
The evidence for the underlying crime that escalated Trump’s alleged misdemeanors to felonies is still not clear and won’t be until the indictment is unsealed on Tuesday. But it is believed to relate to the payment of $130,000 in hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels during the closing weeks of the 2016 election to conceal an extramarital encounter with Trump.
After this story was posted, a spokesman for Trump said the former president’s legal team had not seen the indictment or been briefed on the details. Trump himself responded with a post on TruthSocial.
“Wow! District Attorney Bragg just illegally LEAKED the various points, and complete information, on the pathetic Indictment against me,” Trump wrote. “I know the reporter and so, unfortunately, does he. This means that he MUST BE IMMEDIATELY INDICTED. Now, if he wants to really clean up his reputation, he will do the honorable thing and, as District Attorney, INDICT HIMSELF. He will go down in Judicial history, and his Trump Hating wife will be, I am sure, very proud of him!”
A spokesperson for Bragg said in an email that the district attorney’s office “declined to comment on a sealed indictment.”
5 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
