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
Manhattan prosecutors get a little more specific on Trump hush money charges
TFG wanted to know which specific second crime being used to enhance the fraudulent record charges to a felony. Evidently under NY criminal procedure, TFG is not entitled to this information right now but DA Bragg did provide some information that will not help TFG.
Link to tweet
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-hush-money-charges-bragg-rcna84860?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma&taid=6465e216d08236000157fca6&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Understandably, Trump’s legal team has asked for details. And in the new filing, dated Friday by Bragg’s team, prosecutors provided some detail. Prosecutors made clear they thought Trump wasn’t entitled to this information and that, in any event, they don’t have to prove intent to commit or conceal a particular other crime. Nonetheless, they wrote that “the crimes defendant intended to commit or to aid or conceal may include violations of” state tax and election law, federal election law, and falsifying business records (both the misdemeanor and felony variety). They also pointed to their “statement of facts” that accompanied Trump’s indictment, which the filing said referenced “an agreement to unlawfully suppress negative stories about defendant before an election in order to influence the outcome of the election.”
To be sure, it was expected that election and tax law violations would be the other crimes that encompassed Bragg’s legal theory against Trump, and the DA himself has alluded to that fact. But it’s still important that prosecutors got some specifics down on paper for all to see, even if they’re playing their cards close to the vest.
Speaking of playing it close, prosecutors likewise did so in response to Trump’s request for more information on who or what entity they think Trump intended to defraud. Remember, the statute refers to an “intent to defraud,” but that isn’t specified in the indictment, either. According to the new filing, prosecutors didn’t specify that because they don’t have to. Citing state precedent, they said they don’t have to show that Trump acted with intent to defraud “a particular person or business entity.”
Further pretrial litigation could shed more light on the charges and provide a clearer window into prosecutors’ theory of the case ahead of a potential trial next year. (Meanwhile, Trump is trying to remove the case to federal court, which probably won’t succeed but doesn’t delay the state case from moving forward.) Of course, we’ll see if and when this case even goes to trial, especially in light of possible additional criminal charges Trump could face in the Georgia and Justice Department probes between now and then.
To be sure, it was expected that election and tax law violations would be the other crimes that encompassed Bragg’s legal theory against Trump, and the DA himself has alluded to that fact. But it’s still important that prosecutors got some specifics down on paper for all to see, even if they’re playing their cards close to the vest.
Speaking of playing it close, prosecutors likewise did so in response to Trump’s request for more information on who or what entity they think Trump intended to defraud. Remember, the statute refers to an “intent to defraud,” but that isn’t specified in the indictment, either. According to the new filing, prosecutors didn’t specify that because they don’t have to. Citing state precedent, they said they don’t have to show that Trump acted with intent to defraud “a particular person or business entity.”
Further pretrial litigation could shed more light on the charges and provide a clearer window into prosecutors’ theory of the case ahead of a potential trial next year. (Meanwhile, Trump is trying to remove the case to federal court, which probably won’t succeed but doesn’t delay the state case from moving forward.) Of course, we’ll see if and when this case even goes to trial, especially in light of possible additional criminal charges Trump could face in the Georgia and Justice Department probes between now and then.
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
