1) What does the statute in question actually criminalize? The district attorney is attempting to criminalize the way in which Trump recorded the reimbursement to Michael Cohen for a non-disclosure agreement with Stormy Daniels.
The statute provides, "A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he ... Makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise." Media reports gloss over the specific elements of this statute as well as Trump's actions in the case, because Trump's actual guilt or innocence is simply irrelevant.
3) Did Trump intend to defraud anyone? In Trump's FEC filing, he wrote, "In the interest of transparency, while not required to be disclosed as 'reportable liabilities' on Part 8, in 2016 expenses were incurred by one of Donald J. Trump's attorneys, Michael Cohen. Mr. Cohen sought reimbursement of those expenses and Mr. Trump fully reimbursed Mr. Cohen in 2017. The category of value would be $100,001-$250,000 and the interest rate would be zero." The statute requires an intent to defraud.
If Trump reimbursed Cohen, long-standing precedent provides that Cohen is no longer the one making the contribution for purposes of the FEC reporting.
FEC regulations say, "A loan, to the extent it is repaid, is no longer a contribution." Thus, if Trump reimbursed Cohen for the Stormy Daniels payment, it can no longer be considered a contribution on behalf of Cohen.
Again, who did Trump supposedly defraud with the "False" business record? What is the "Other crime" Trump supposedly was covering up by recording the expense as "Legal fees?" In order to get there, we have to ignore FEC regulations providing that Trump reimbursing Cohen makes it a Trump contribution, not a Cohen contribution.
According to Bragg's theory, Trump attempted to "Cover up" Cohen's crime by recording the expenditure as "Legal fees." Essentially, the prosecutor is trying to argue it both ways.
The prosecution's entire theory rests on the proposition that Trump always intended to reimburse Cohen for the payment, making Cohen's payment a loan.
If Trump paid Cohen back and reported it to the FEC, then it appears he complied with campaign finance law.
Under New York law, and contrary to the statement made by the prosecutor during his press conference, an indictment must include, "A plain and concise factual statement in each count which, without allegations of an evidentiary nature ... asserts facts supporting every element of the offense charged and the defendant's or defendants' commission thereof with sufficient precision to clearly apprise the defendant or defendants of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation." Each of these indictment counts fails to identify the supposed false statement, fails to identify the underlying crime Trump is supposedly guilty of covering up, and fails to explain who Trump was supposedly defrauding by entering these "False" business records.
7) Does the prosecution apply the same rules to Democrats? Many have pointed to the lenient treatment Hillary Clinton received when the FEC settled with her for mischaracterizing the fees paid by her campaign for the dossier used to frame Trump as "Legal expenses." The fact pattern seems strikingly similar to the one now being used by the Manhattan D.A. to prosecute Trump, yet Clinton escaped with a measly $8,000 fine and, notably, was neither indicted nor arrested.
No comments:
Post a Comment