ClydeR
03-09-2023, 08:00 PM
The former president was told that he could appear before a Manhattan grand jury next week if he wishes to testify, a strong indication that an indictment could soon follow.
More... (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/09/nyregion/trump-potential-criminal-charges-bragg.html)
Lying to the public, as Trump clearly did (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScLxVpOzR9I) during the 2016 presidential campaign, about paying hush money to his porn star mistress was not a crime. The below described legal theory, if that is really the theory being pursued by the grand jury, seems like an attempt to shoehorn Trump's legal lies into the definition of an unrelated crime.
Too many prosecutors recently are bring criminal charges because of public pressure. The Alec Baldwin case is an example. This case, if Trump is indicted under the legal theory described in the article, will be another example.
In the federal case against Mr. Cohen, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump’s company “falsely accounted” for the monthly payments as legal expenses and that company records cited a retainer agreement with Mr. Cohen. Although Mr. Cohen was a lawyer, and became Mr. Trump’s personal attorney after he took office, there was no such retainer agreement and the reimbursement was unrelated to any legal services Mr. Cohen performed.
In New York, falsifying business records can amount to a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. To elevate the crime to a felony charge, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.
In this case, that second crime could be a violation of New York State election law. While hush money is not inherently illegal, the prosecutors could argue that the $130,000 payout effectively became an improper donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign, under the theory that because the money silenced Ms. Daniels, it benefited his candidacy.
Combining the criminal charge with a violation of state election law would be a novel legal theory for any criminal case, let alone one against the former president, raising the possibility that a judge or appellate court could throw it out or reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor.
More... (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/09/nyregion/trump-potential-criminal-charges-bragg.html)
Lying to the public, as Trump clearly did (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScLxVpOzR9I) during the 2016 presidential campaign, about paying hush money to his porn star mistress was not a crime. The below described legal theory, if that is really the theory being pursued by the grand jury, seems like an attempt to shoehorn Trump's legal lies into the definition of an unrelated crime.
Too many prosecutors recently are bring criminal charges because of public pressure. The Alec Baldwin case is an example. This case, if Trump is indicted under the legal theory described in the article, will be another example.
In the federal case against Mr. Cohen, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump’s company “falsely accounted” for the monthly payments as legal expenses and that company records cited a retainer agreement with Mr. Cohen. Although Mr. Cohen was a lawyer, and became Mr. Trump’s personal attorney after he took office, there was no such retainer agreement and the reimbursement was unrelated to any legal services Mr. Cohen performed.
In New York, falsifying business records can amount to a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. To elevate the crime to a felony charge, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.
In this case, that second crime could be a violation of New York State election law. While hush money is not inherently illegal, the prosecutors could argue that the $130,000 payout effectively became an improper donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign, under the theory that because the money silenced Ms. Daniels, it benefited his candidacy.
Combining the criminal charge with a violation of state election law would be a novel legal theory for any criminal case, let alone one against the former president, raising the possibility that a judge or appellate court could throw it out or reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor.