And now that? hours after donald trump became the first person criminally charged to have passed through the presidency of the United States on Tuesday, the question is in the air. she is in the political ground, but it is also in the legal field. The legal strategy that the Manhattan district attorney’s office has used to criminalize 34 offenses of falsifying financial documents is new and never been tested before in the tribunals. And beyond political and partisan divisions, numerous legal experts see signs of weakness in the case or, at least, ambiguities and challenges that open doors to the defense of the former Republican president and candidate for 2024 to get him out of his first great legal quagmire.
The 34 charges facing Trump, summarized in the 16-page indictment, pertain exclusively to the Stormy Daniels case. Specifically, to many other checks and false documentary records linked to the payment of $130,000 that Michael Cohen, in 2016 personal lawyer of the then candidate Trump, made to the woman to ensure that she did not make public before the presidential elections of that year her claims that she had had a sexual relationship with Trump a decade earlier. When he was already president, Trump repaid Cohen in installments not only that money, but a total of $420,000.
He payment to silence Daniels is not illegal. Falsifying the documents would only constitute under the New York penal code a small fault. But the office of Democratic prosecutor Alvin Bragg has elevated each of those offenses to a crime, assuring that they were part of a plot to hide another crime, a plot that also involved the payments made by David Pecker, CEO of the publishing company of the tabloid ‘National Enquirer’. did in that same electoral campaign to suppress two stories: that of Karen McDougal, a ‘Playboy’ model who also claims that she had sexual relations with Trump, and a trump tower doorman which ensured that the businessman had a illegitimate child (a debunked story).
A key problem is that no one knows exactly what that other crime is. And although in his press conference after the accusation prosecutor Bragg assured that “It is not specified because the law does not require to do it & rdquor ;, on which or which they are, and on being able to convince a jury that it was or were given, a conviction for the 34 charges would depend.
Electoral Laws and Treasury
At Tuesday’s court hearing, one of the prosecutors claimed that Trump falsified the documents “to conceal an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the elections presidential elections of 2016 and other violations of electoral laws & rdquor ;. In the juicy “statement of facts & rdquor; with which the prosecution accompanies the statement of charges, ensures that it has communications that show that Trump urged Cohen to delay payment as long as possiblewith the idea that “if they could delay until after the election could avoid payingbecause at that point It wouldn’t matter if the story went public& rdquor ;, something that would dismantle the argument defended by Trump’s allies that he was only trying to protect his family.
That statement of fact also ensures that Trump and the other participants in his “plot” they took “steps that deceived, for tax purposes, the true nature of payments & rdquor ;. And at the press conference, Bragg pointed out both these possible treasury frauds and a violation of the New York state election law that it is an offense to conspire to promote a candidacy by illegal means as a federal election law that limits contributions to a campaign.
The questions in all cases are multiple. Legal experts question how a violation of state law could apply in the case of a presidential campaign. Also, what authority would a local prosecutor’s office have to prosecute a federal crime that it could never charge because it does not correspond to it. Forks lazy the language about the possible claims to deceive the Treasury, which would explain why the $130,000 that Cohen paid became $420,000 at the time of the refund, supposedly to face the tax increases that would come after the collections.
Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University, has told ‘The New York Times’ that “the reference to declarations to the treasury can save the case of legal challenges that could arise if criminal charges are based solely on federal and state election laws.” And the consensus is that that second alternative, that of Bragg focusing on electoral laws, is fragile.
Many do not go so far as to brand the case as “ridiculous & rdquor;, as Trump himself or his staunchest allies do, but they do question it. William Barr, who was attorney general in the Republican Administration but ended up estranged from him after Trump’s efforts to reverse the legal results of the 2020 presidential elections, has said that it is “pathetically weak & rdquor;. Richard Hassenone of the US legal authorities, has called it “mistake” in ‘Slate’ and has assured that “it is very easy to see him fall for inadequacies legal or entanglement in courts until well after the 2024 election if it ever comes to trial & rdquor ;.
Also Ian Millhiser, a progressive legal analysthas assured in ‘Vox’ that Bragg “has built one of the highest-profile and controversial criminal cases in US history about the more uncertain foundations”. And Andrew Weissmann, an NYU law professor who was one of the lawyers who worked on the Trump investigation and Russian meddling led by Robert Mueller, told MSNBC: “It leaves you a little wondering what precisely the crime is”.
Some questions will be answered in the next phases of the process, when the prosecution has to share information in its possession with the defense. But will be matter of months, and a potential trial will start no sooner than next year, with the next hearing scheduled for December 4.
Bragg, firm
Related news
Bragg, in any case, has not been guided by the voices that have long questioned the appropriateness of his acting against Trump, with a key witness being Cohen dotted with shadows of little credibility and, furthermore, before other federal and state investigations that may lead to more serious charges are finished. And on Tuesday, at his press conference, towards a strong plea to defend the historic step taken for his office, which Since 2019, it has made 280 charges for document forgery crimes.
“At its core, this case is one with accusations, like so many of White neck, that someone lied over and over again to protect their interests and evade Laws we all have to follow”, said Bragg. “As this office has done time and time again, we honor our solemn responsibility to ensure that we are all equal before the law, no amount of money or power changes that enduring American principle”.