I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see why Trump's 1st degree felony charge

[pnwmom]

depends on a connection to the Federal campaign finance law.

All the felony charge requires is that the false business entry facilitate breaking another law, right?

The false business entry totaling more than $400K in attorneys fees allowed Trump to take a tax deduction for those attorney fees.

So his false business entry was connected to NY state and city income tax evasion.

What am I missing?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/what-charges-does-trump-face-new-yorks-hush-money-case-2023-04-05/

WHAT LAWS DOES THAT VIOLATE?
It is against New York state law to make a false entry in a company's records. While falsification of business records on its own is a misdemeanor, meaning it is punishable by a sentence of less than one year, it is considered a felony punishable by up to four years in prison if it is done to conceal or further other crimes.

[former9thward]

1. Those crimes were not charged.

As every legal expert has said this is uncharted legal territory.

[pnwmom]

4. What is uncharted is using a Federal law, like the campaign finance law,

to be the law that raises the penalty to a felony.

But prosecuting people for tax evasion in NY isn't uncharted.

[former9thward]

6. Trump was not charged with tax evasion.

So linking to an uncharged crime is indeed uncharted. Also the federal crimes were not charged and the DOJ under both Barr and Garland passed on charging the case.

[pnwmom]

11. But the prosecutor's statement says this:

Each check was processed by the Trump Organization and illegally disguised as a payment for legal services rendered pursuant to a non-existent retainer agreement. In total, 34 false entries were made in New York business records to conceal the initial covert $130,000 payment. Further, participants in the scheme took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the reimbursements.

https://www.manhattanda.org/district-attorney-bragg-announces-34-count-felony-indictment-of-former-president-donald-j-trump/?fbclid=IwAR3pQWGRE4bQxF22tmCY6jlEYrrDydfjS-YLAU-2D0J2efexGA6yZj2z6tI

[former9thward]

14. If it was illegal why wasn't he charged?

[inthewind21]

41. No

it's not.

[Johnny2X2X]

7. Not even close

This is done all the time. It’s normal. And plenty of legal experts have pointed that out. Only thing uncharted is that is was an ex president who committed the crimes.

[former9thward]

8. If its done "all the time" then someone should be able to point to a specific case.

[pnwmom]

12. JustSecurity did an analysis.

https://www.justsecurity.org/85605/survey-of-past-new-york-felony-prosecutions-for-falsifying-business-records/?fbclid=IwAR0GZ5fuN3ErQeB1rZLxh4dqg-Ovwsc4vYZdZohk4gm7Wg6K_Rz7ugB6TEE

[former9thward]

49. And if you look at those cases the defendants were charged with the underlying crime(s).

We don't have that here.

[pnwmom]

50. Bragg says that the underlying crimes were to do with both NY state and Federal election law

and with tax crimes.

NY law doesn't require him to spell all this out in detail in the indictment or the statement.

[former9thward]

51. Any juror is going to ask why the crimes were not charged.

Saying NY law doesn't require him to do that is giving the finger to the jury.

[pnwmom]

52. Of course a juror will. But the details don't have to be included in the indictment/ statement now.

They will be presented to the jury during the trial.

Maybe the problem is that you're seeing this case through your own state's law.

This piece is co-written by people familiar with NY law.

https://archive.ph/P54aE

On edit: Also, Dan Horowitz, a former assistant NY prosecutor, is explaining how this works to Ari Melber on MSNBC right now.

And he thinks that Bragg made a "shrewd" decision to leave the door open to more than one legal theory.

[inthewind21]

42. Or

I don't know, maybe google one.

[former9thward]

48. I tried.

Zero results. Maybe you can help...

[dsc]

44. they don't have to be

but whatever crime he is using must be proven charged or not.

[Model35mech]

45. I'd guess for many folks a crime isn't a crime until there is a conviction

My guess is Bragg although not charging such crimes, is going to try to show Trump did break the law... something of a trial within a trial.

[NJCher]

2. Defrauding the American public

Out of a fair and honest election. He was elected under false ptetenses.

[emulatorloo]

3. Yes. NY State taxes.

[Retrograde]

9. After nearly 40 years in California

I still give thanks every April that I no longer have to file New York State taxes! They'll get you coming and going.

[Gaugamela]

5. My understanding is that the prosecutor only needs to prove intent to

violate another law, but they don’t have to prove he actually did break the law. So my guess is that Alvin Bragg has the goods on Trump’s intent to violate federal campaign finance law.

[former9thward]

10. I don't agree with your assessment but even if that were true

why are the "goods" not in the indictment Statement of Facts?

[pnwmom]

13. They don't have to include every detail in the statement of facts

and the charges in the indictment are written very broadly.

[former9thward]

15. The prosecutor can't hide evidence.

This is not a TV show where evidence is sprung out of nowhere at trial.

[pnwmom]

18. It's not hidden. Read the statement, especially this part:

The TO CFO and Lawyer A agreed to a total repayment amount of $420,000.
They reached that figure by adding the $130,000 payment to a $50,000 payment for another
expense for which Lawyer A also claimed reimbursement, for a total of $180,000. The TO CFO
then doubled that amount to $360,000 so that Lawyer A could characterize the payment as
income on his tax returns, instead of a reimbursement


AND THIS:

Each month, Lawyer A was to send an invoice to the Defendant through Trump Organization
employees, falsely requesting payment of $35,000 for legal services rendered in a given month
of 2017 pursuant to a retainer agreement. At no point did Lawyer A have a retainer agreement
with the Defendant or the Trump Organization.


ALL OF THIS WAS IN THE SERVICE OF TAX EVASION.

[former9thward]

19. That is not tax evasion.

Just the opposite.

[pnwmom]

20. It is classic tax evasion. This allowed Trump to take a huge tax deduction $420,000

for an expense that was falsely labeled -- and deducted on his taxes -- as attorney's fees; but was really a reimbursement for expenses that weren't eligible for a tax deduction.

[Sgent]

32. Yes but whether it was

reported as a reimbursement or income to Cohen made no difference to Cohen's taxes, which is what the bolded portion seems to be referring to.

[pnwmom]

34. And Cohen went to jail for his crime. But the $420K payment Trump made gave Trump a huge

deduction that he wasn't entitled to, and he hasn't suffered any consequence.

[Sgent]

24. I think you quoted that wrong

if not, the DA is clueless about taxes. It should have been income to Attorney A (Cohen), and counted as salary towards Trump.

[pnwmom]

28. I copied and pasted from the Statement.

[The Magistrate]

22. The 'Statement Of Facts' Is Not Evidence, Sir

It is in effect a sort of legal press release.

Evidence bearing on the charges will be made available in discovery.

The prosecution is not required to press all charges at once, or to inform a target future charges are contemplated. Further indictments may issue.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

38. There is a footnote you might like...

This Statement of Facts contains certain of the information that is relevant to the events described herein, and does not contain all facts relevant to the charged conduct.

This is from page 12 of the Statement Of Facts:
https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-SOF.pdf

[former9thward]

39. Yes, that is a cut and paste boilerplate I have seen a 1000 times if I have seen it once.

It doesn't absolve the prosecutor's obligation to release evidence.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

46. When does discovery begin?

Is there any obligation to release evidence to the public before a public trial?

[former9thward]

47. Discovery began Tuesday for the defense as far as starting to see evidence.

The court will not tolerate surprise attacks. No obligation to the public. But in high profile cases the prosecution will attempt to influence the potential jury pool by leaking evidence to compliant reporters.

[Gaugamela]

17. This is what I've heard repeatedly from the lawyers on Meidas Touch. It's not

my “assessment”. Those lawyers include Karen Agnifilo, who was 2nd prosecutor in the office of the Manhattan DA for about 30 years. This is what I meant when I said “my understanding”. If you have different information then post it.

[former9thward]

21. I posted my views in this thread.

Not a secret. I was a DOJ prosecutor in Phoenix until I went to defense. So I guess I don't know how they do it in Manhattan.

[pnwmom]

25. Even in Arizona, how is taking a large tax deduction under false pretenses --

claiming it is for tax-deductible attorney's fees, not a non-deductible reimbursement -- NOT tax evasion?

[former9thward]

27. If Trump did that why wasn't it charged?

[pnwmom]

30. All the indictment counts are written broadly, merely referring to another crime.

The false business records crime can be raised to a felony if done to "further" another crime.

Why can't that crime be the tax evasion that happened when Trump took a $420K deduction falsely labeled as an attorney retainer? By doing that, he got a large tax deduction for himself that he wasn't qualified for.

[inthewind21]

43. You don't

Have to agree. The professionals on the other hand.

[RockRaven]

16. I'm not sure you ARE missing anything since I've seen pundits claim that the talk of tax evasion

is a very savvy move, and that it is a backstop in case the campaign finance angle gets rejected/struck down.

Different pundits and journos are relying on experts with different opinions/interpretations, apparently (or they're relying on their own judgments, which also may vary).

Who is right? I dunno, yet.

[former9thward]

23. "the talk of tax evasion"

You can't just talk. You have to prove it. And if you can prove it then why didn't it get charged?

[pnwmom]

26. It's discussed in the Statement.

And the Indictment was written broadly enough to include the tax evasion discussed in the statement.

The phrase "another crime" could include tax evasion.

The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017,
with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission
thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in
the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number
842457, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization

[Sgent]

29. Have to find intent for tax fraud

did Trump intend it or did Weisenburg just assume? Since Weisenburg isn't going to testify is any of this written?

Paying a personal expense out of a business account isn't tax fraud unless you don't clean it on the back end (claim it as income which Trump didn't). But I'm not sure Trump forgetting to tell Weisenburg to clean it up is enough to prove intent.

Even if you got through that, you have to prove Trump paying off Stormy wasn't a business expense. Trump would lose in a civil case, but reputation management could buy him enough doubt in a criminal case.

[jgo]

31. Andrew Weissmann on TV said that the linkage to tax crime was stronger

than the linkage to election crime. Because, election crime linkage was open to more motions/appeals/litigation. Tax crime was more cut and dry. But, it was good to have multiple linkages. So, supports your intuition.

[pnwmom]

33. Thank you, jgo! So there are legal opinions on both sides of this.

But Weismann's makes sense to me.

[ripcord]

35. Linking it to the election needs Cohen's testimony

There is a very real chance a jury isn't going to believe anything he says.

[wishstar]

36. Which is why other witnesses were brought in to corroborate the election motive

including Hope Hicks and Kellyanne Conway who had direct knowledge of the payoff scheme. Kellyanne who was the campaign manager was actually the person who conveyed to Trump the "good news" that Cohen had paid off Stormy. Plus David Pecker and another executive with direct knowledge of the payoff schemes testified and all 3 payoffs are included in case. Bragg mentioned having new witnesses plus email and text message evidence that bolstered the case.

[pnwmom]

53. But he also supplied the prosecutors with written documents and audio recordings

which will be harder for the jurors to disbelieve.

[wishstar]

37. Bragg emphasized NY State campaign law also, not just Federal

in his press conference

[inthewind21]

40. That

Bragg laid out about 4 different ways to upgrade to felony.