For weeks, Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, has been heavily criticized for pursuing a case against Donald Trump. Potential fees are described as being developed under a new legal theory. And criticism doesn’t just come from Mr. Trump and his allies, as expected, but also from much Who Normally Do not have friend of the former president but who feared it would be a weak case.
With the release of Indictment and attached event statement, we can now say that there is nothing novel or weak about this case. Mr. Bragg and other New York DAs were repeatedly accused of creating fake financial records. In particular, the creation of forged documents to cover up the campaign’s financial breaches was launched been prosecuted many times in New York. That is exactly what Mr. Trump is accused of.
The judge and jury will make the final decision, but they will not be the first to consider this question, and the answer is usually a guilty verdict.
First, a note about the office of the Manhattan DA that will prosecute this case: It’s hardly a typical local cog in the justice system. In fact, it is unique. Its jurisdiction is the financial capital of the world. That means the office regularly prosecutes complicated white-collar cases with crime scenes involving people like that. BNP Paribas international banking scandal A major case involving high-powered individuals has been handled by the office for decades. That was most recently demonstrated by the office’s conviction of the Trump Organization and the confession of one of its top executives, Allen Weisselberg, to charges related to a scheme. complex tax fraud that spans many years.
The number of books and records presented in the papers accusing Mr. Trump is the bread and butter of the DA office. Mr. Trump, who pleaded not guilty to all charges on Tuesday, is 30th defendant was indicted by Mr. Bragg on forgery records since he took office more than a year ago, with the DA issuing 151 counts regulations to date. Indeed, the convict the Trump Organization and Weisselberg begged including felonies of business forgery.
The 34 felony books and records counted in Trump’s indictment turn out to be errors about the hush payment to Stormy Daniels arranged by Michael Cohen in the final days of the 2016 election and Mr. return the money to Mr. Cohen, ostensibly a legitimate expense. There are 11 counts for false invoices, 11 counts for counterfeit checks and stubs, and 12 counts for false general ledger entries. This allegedly violated the false records statute as various entries were made in the business documents describing those refunds as legal fees.
Furthermore, the statement of fact alleges that the transactions, including one for Daniels and another for Karen McDougal involving The National Enquirer, which has a long relationship with Mr. Trump, were intended to to help him win the presidency. If that is proven, then the deals will be “attempt to violate state and federal election laws,” as Mr. Bragg said in a statement, such as about their number and disclosure. According to this theory, the false record in the indictment covered up a campaign finance breach.
While the details of Mr. Trump’s case are unique, his conduct is not. Candidates and others often try to circumvent disclosure requirements and dollar limits in campaign finance regulations and falsify records to hide it. Contrary to the objections of Mr. Trump and his allies, New York prosecutors charge frequently felony book and record violations — and convictions — when the offenses are disguised as campaign finance violations, resulting in misrepresentation of business records to conceal criminal activity .
For example, Rockland County DA sentenced chief executive officer Richard Brega for falsifying business records by misrepresenting the source of funds he funneled into a campaign. Oneida County DA accused the chair of the county’s political party, John Dote, of stealing campaign funds and failing to properly explain, resulting in conviction, conviction, judgment for felony falsification of business records (and second-degree grand theft). DA Brooklyn sentenced Congressman Clarence Norman for illegally soliciting campaign donations and for falsifying business records. And so on, in New York and the Confederacy.
There have also been a number of similar prosecutions for falsifying records to cover up campaign finance violations in New York and elsewhere. that does not lead to conviction. That in itself is not unusual, as judges and juries sometimes disagree with the prosecution. And in fact, that’s a good thing – a sign of a criminal justice system that’s trying to be fair.
What these cases demonstrate is that Mr. Bragg does not navigate uncharted waters. They also support a corollary point in favor of this prosecution. Some legal analysts have sharp to one fraudulent intent problem with costs. The Act states that “a person is guilty of falsifying business records when “with fraudulent intent,” the individual commits certain acts.
These analysts says that it requires proof that the conspiracy leads to deception or deprivation of another’s property or valuables or rights and that there is no such evidence here. That could be the case in other jurisdictionsbut in New York, There is no such requirement.
New York Court of Appeals organized IN a long series of cases that thing fraudulent intent include cases in which the defendant acted “with the aim of disappointing the power of the state” in order to “correctly carry out his own laws.” To the extent Mr. Trump is covering up campaign contributions in violation of New York law, that seems to be exactly what he did.
It should also be noted that Mr. Trump is a federal candidate, while the other cases in New York involve states. But court after court around the country has recognized that state governments can enforce state law in cases involving federal candidates. Those courts have state permitted related to federal campaign contributions under very different circumstances, including money transfer fraud from political action committees established to support federal presidential campaigns, in violation of state law Level about corporate contributions to federal campaigns and violate State laws regarding donations to PACs have funded federal campaigns. Some examples involve criminal judgment enforcement by state agencies, some are civil, but what they have in common is this: They can act.
So it’s hardly new for Mr. Bragg to bring a state case in connection with a federal campaign. In an abundance of caution, he not only Alleged violation of state campaign finance laws but also alleged federal violations. We believe it is licensedbecause fraudulent books and records and other related statutes simply refer to covering up “another crime” or using “illegal means” and do not specify whether they should fall under federal or state.
This approach is wise because to dismiss the case, a judge would have to rule that Mr. Trump is not subject to state or federal campaign finance law. We think the courts will not accept that Catch-22.
Whatever happens next, one thing is clear: Mr. Trump cannot convincingly argue that he is being criticized for some unprecedented prosecution theory. He is being treated like any other New Yorker with the same evidence against him.
Therefore, the indictment is anything but political. If anything, the more political choice would be to not prosecute when there is so much surveillance. Mr. Bragg appears to have reason to avoid such considerations in impeachment decisions. Good for him – and for the rule of law.
Karen Friedman Agnifilo, former assistant chief district attorney for Manhattan, is a partner at Agnifilo Law Group. Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, is special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee for the impeachment and first trial of Donald Trump.
