Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsVox: The dubious legal theory at the heart of the Trump indictment, explained
Link to articleThe actual felony counts arise out of allegedly false entries that Trump made in various business records in order to make the payment to Daniels appear to be ordinary legal expenses paid to Cohen.
But Bragg built his case on an exceedingly uncertain legal theory. Even if Trump did the things hes accused of, its not clear Bragg can legally charge Trump for them, at least under the felony version of New Yorks false records law.
As Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan DAs office who played a significant role in the Trump investigation prior to his resignation in 2022, wrote in a recent book, a key legal question that will determine whether Trump can be charged under the felony version of New Yorks false records law has never been resolved by any appellate court in the state of New York.
The felony statute requires Bragg to prove that Trump falsified records to cover up a crime. 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.
The answer to this gnarly legal question, as Pomerantz put it, is simply unknown. So there is a serious risk that a New York judge will toss out the charges against Trump on technical legal grounds unrelated to the former presidents actual conduct.
And even if Braggs legal team convinces New Yorks own courts that this prosecution may move forward, there is also a very real danger that the Supreme Court of the United States, with its GOP-appointed supermajority, could decide that it needs to weigh in on whether Trump should be shielded from this prosecution.
But Bragg built his case on an exceedingly uncertain legal theory. Even if Trump did the things hes accused of, its not clear Bragg can legally charge Trump for them, at least under the felony version of New Yorks false records law.
As Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan DAs office who played a significant role in the Trump investigation prior to his resignation in 2022, wrote in a recent book, a key legal question that will determine whether Trump can be charged under the felony version of New Yorks false records law has never been resolved by any appellate court in the state of New York.
The felony statute requires Bragg to prove that Trump falsified records to cover up a crime. 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.
The answer to this gnarly legal question, as Pomerantz put it, is simply unknown. So there is a serious risk that a New York judge will toss out the charges against Trump on technical legal grounds unrelated to the former presidents actual conduct.
And even if Braggs legal team convinces New Yorks own courts that this prosecution may move forward, there is also a very real danger that the Supreme Court of the United States, with its GOP-appointed supermajority, could decide that it needs to weigh in on whether Trump should be shielded from this prosecution.
This is a little worrisome, as it's from someone who is generally reasonable. I want the case against Trump to have clear precedent and evidence-- I worry that a case based on a legal theory that hasn't been tested before won't have public trust behind it.
Edited to add: This thread contains an opposing opinion that the case is strong and not unprecedented.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 778 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Vox: The dubious legal theory at the heart of the Trump indictment, explained (Original Post)
BlueCheeseAgain
Apr 2023
OP
yardwork
(61,700 posts)1. I just saw a NYT column that says the opposite.
BlueCheeseAgain
(1,654 posts)2. Link, please?
I can add it to this post so people can see every side.
yardwork
(61,700 posts)3. See this thread on DU:
BlueCheeseAgain
(1,654 posts)4. Thanks!
Cha
(297,565 posts)7. Wow.. Mahalo, yeadwok!
BlueCheeseAgain
(1,654 posts)5. I will say, legal opinions aside...
Trump and his cronies definitely acted like what they were doing was wrong. If they thought what they were doing was so aboveboard, why go to all the trouble to conceal it?
emulatorloo
(44,175 posts)6. Vox article seems dubious. Legal panel of former Manhatten DA prosecutors etc believe it is strong.
On Lawrence O'Donnell show right now.
These people know NY law backwards and forward.