[ There is nothing weak about Alvin Braggs case against Donald
Trump. Big cases involving powerful, high-profile individuals have
been handled by the Manhattan DA for decades. That was proved most
recently by the conviction of the Trump Organization]
[[link removed]]

WE FINALLY KNOW THE CASE AGAINST TRUMP, AND IT IS STRONG  
[[link removed]]


 

Karen Friedman Agnifilo and Norman Eisen
April 4, 2023
New York Times
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ There is nothing weak about Alvin Bragg's case against Donald
Trump. Big cases involving powerful, high-profile individuals have
been handled by the Manhattan DA for decades. That was proved most
recently by the conviction of the Trump Organization _

Former President Donald Trump (left) speaks in Waco, Texas, on March
25, while Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg speaks at a press
conference in New York on September 8, 2022, Photos by Suzanne
Cordeiro and Alex Kent / Agence France-Presse (AFP)

 

For weeks, Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, has come
under heavy fire for pursuing a case against Donald Trump. Potential
charges were described as being developed under a novel legal theory
[[link removed]].
And criticism has come not only from Mr. Trump
[[link removed]] and
his allies, as expected, but also from
[[link removed]] many who
[[link removed]] are
usually no friends
[[link removed]] of
the former president but who feared it would be a weak case.

With the release of the indictment
[[link removed]] and
accompanying statement of facts
[[link removed]],
we can now say that there’s nothing novel or weak about this case.
The charge of creating false financial records is constantly brought
by Mr. Bragg and other New York D.A.s. In particular, the creation of
phony documentation to cover up campaign finance violations has
been repeatedly prosecuted
[[link removed]] in
New York. That is exactly what Mr. Trump stands accused of.

The judge and jury will make the ultimate determination, but they will
be far from the first to consider this question, and the answer has
usually been a guilty verdict.

First, a note about the Manhattan D.A.’s office that will prosecute
this case: It is hardly a typical local cog in the judicial system. In
fact, it is unique. Its jurisdiction is the financial capital of the
world. That means the office routinely prosecutes complex white-collar
cases with crime scenes that involve the likes of the BNP Paribas
[[link removed]] international
banking scandal. Big cases involving powerful, high-profile
individuals have been handled by the office for decades
[[link removed]].
That was proved most recently by the office’s conviction of the
Trump Organization and the guilty plea of one of its top executives,
Allen Weisselberg, on charges relating to an intricate yearslong tax
fraud scheme.

The books and records counts laid out in the charging papers against
Mr. Trump are the bread and butter of the D.A.’s office. Mr. Trump,
who pleaded not guilty to all charges on Tuesday, is the 30th
defendant
[[link removed]] to
be indicted on false records charges by Mr. Bragg since he took
office just over a year ago, with the D.A. bringing 151 counts
[[link removed]] under
the statute so far. Indeed, the Trump Organization conviction
[[link removed]] and
the Weisselberg plea
[[link removed]] included
business falsification felonies.

The 34 felony books and records counts in the Trump indictment turn on
the misstatement of the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels arranged
by Michael Cohen in the waning days of the 2016 election and the
repayment of that amount by Mr. Trump to Mr. Cohen, ostensibly as
legal expenses. There are 11 counts for false invoices, 11 for false
checks and check stubs and 12 for false general ledger entries. This
allegedly violated the false records statute when various entries were
made in business documents describing those repayments as legal fees.

Moreover, the statement of facts alleges that deals, including one for
Ms. Daniels and another for Karen McDougal that involved The National
Enquirer, which had longstanding ties to Mr. Trump, were for the
purpose of helping him win the presidency. If that is proved, then the
deals would be “attempts to violate state and federal election laws
[[link removed]],”
as Mr. Bragg said in a statement, such as on their amount and
disclosure
[[link removed]].
In this theory, the false records in the indictment covered up the
campaign finance violation.

While the particulars of Mr. Trump’s case are unique, his behavior
is not. Candidates and others have often attempted to skirt the
disclosure and dollar limit requirements of campaign finance
regulations and falsified records to hide it. Contrary to the
protestations of Mr. Trump and his allies, New York
prosecutors regularly charge
[[link removed]] felony
violations of the books and records statute — and win convictions
— when the crimes covered up were campaign finance violations,
resulting in false entries in business records to conceal criminal
activity.

For example, the Rockland County D.A. convicted
[[link removed]] the
executive Richard Brega for falsifying business records by
misrepresenting the source of funds that he funneled into a campaign.
The Oneida County D.A. charged a county political party chair, John
Dote, with pilfering campaign funds and failing to properly account
for them, resulting in conviction
[[link removed]] for
felony falsification of business records (and second-degree grand
larceny). The Brooklyn D.A. convicted
[[link removed]] Assemblyman
Clarence Norman for soliciting illegal campaign contributions and for
felony falsification of business records. And on and on, in New York
and federally
[[link removed]].

There have also been several analogous prosecutions for falsifying
records to cover up campaign finance violations in New York and
elsewhere that did not result in conviction
[[link removed]].
That in itself is not unusual, as judges and juries sometimes disagree
with a prosecution. And it is, in fact, a good thing — a sign of a
criminal justice system that tries to operate with fairness.

What these cases demonstrate is that Mr. Bragg is not navigating
uncharted waters. They also support a corollary point in favor of this
prosecution. Some legal analysts have pointed
[[link removed]] to
an intent to defraud
[[link removed]] issue
with the charges. The statute says that a person is guilty of
falsifying business records when, “with intent to defraud,” the
individual commits certain acts.

These analysts
[[link removed]] say
that requires proving that the scheme resulted in cheating or
depriving another person of property or a thing of value or a right
and that there is no such evidence here. That may be the case in
other jurisdictions
[[link removed]], but in New
York, there is no such requirement.
[[link removed]]

New York appellate courts have held
[[link removed]] in a long series of
cases [[link removed]] that intent
to defraud
[[link removed]] includes
circumstances in which a defendant acts “for the purpose of
frustrating the state’s power” to “faithfully carry out its own
law.” To the extent Mr. Trump was covering up campaign contributions
that violated New York law, that seems to be exactly what he did.

It’s also worth noting that Mr. Trump was a federal candidate,
whereas the other New York cases involved state ones. But court after
court across the country has recognized that state authorities can
enforce state law in cases relating to federal candidates. Those
courts have allowed state cases
[[link removed]] concerning
federal campaign contributions under widely varied circumstances,
including for fraudulently diverting funds
[[link removed]] from
political action committees founded to support federal presidential
campaigns, violating state law limits
[[link removed]] on
corporate contributions to federal campaigns and transgressing
[[link removed]] state
laws concerning donations to PACs that funded federal campaigns. Some
of the examples involve criminal enforcement by state authorities,
some civil, but the point is the same: They can act.

So Mr. Bragg’s bringing a state case concerning a federal campaign
is hardly novel. In an abundance of caution, he not only alleges
violations of state campaign finance law
[[link removed]] but
also alleges federal violations. We believe that is permitted
[[link removed]],
given that the fraudulent books and records and other relevant
statutes refer simply to covering up “another crime” or using
“unlawful means” and do not specify whether they need be federal
or state.

This approach is wise because to throw out the case, a judge would
have to rule that Mr. Trump is covered by neither state nor federal
campaign finance law. We think it is unlikely that the courts will
embrace that Catch-22.

Whatever happens next, one thing is clear: Mr. Trump cannot
persuasively argue he is being singled out for some unprecedented
theory of prosecution. He is being treated as any other New Yorker
would be with similar evidence against him.

The indictment is therefore anything but political. If anything, the
more political choice would have been not to indict when there is so
much scrutiny. Mr. Bragg appears to have the backbone to avoid such
considerations in charging decisions. Good for him — and for the
rule of law.

_[KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, a former Manhattan chief assistant district
attorney, is a partner at Agnifilo Law Group. NORMAN EISEN, a senior
fellow at the Brookings Institution, was special counsel to the House
Judiciary Committee for the first impeachment and trial of Donald
Trump.]_

* Donald Trump
[[link removed]]
* Trump Conviction
[[link removed]]
* Alvin Bragg
[[link removed]]
* Manhattan District Attorney
[[link removed]]
* Manhattan D. A.
[[link removed]]
* campaign finance violations
[[link removed]]
* white collar crime
[[link removed]]
* election fraud
[[link removed]]
* conspiracy
[[link removed]]
* High Crimes and Misdemeanors
[[link removed]]
* 2024 Elections
[[link removed]]
* 2016 elections
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]