Legal Experts Explain NY Case & Trump’s Possible Indictment/Arrest
Posted by FactReal on March 18, 2023
BASICS OF NEW YORK LEGAL CASE v. PRESIDENT TRUMP
News broke out yesterday about possible Trump indictment in the NY Case re: porn performer Stormy Daniels (real name: Stephanie Clifford).
This is a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Apparently [Stormy Daniels] was paid money as part of a non-disclosure agreement. It’s not “hush money.” But they use the phrase “hush money” because they want to create implications of criminality.“ “A lot of people who leave their jobs have to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to get severance payments.”
Even the leftist New York Times recognized on March 9, 2023, that:
– “The case against the former president hinges on an untested and therefore risky legal theory involving a complex interplay of laws, all amounting to a low-level felony.”
– “In New York, falsifying business records can amount to a crime, albeit a misdemeanor.”
– “[H]hush money is not inherently illegal[.]”
– “That would be a novel legal theory for any criminal case, let alone one against the former president, raising the possibility that a judge or appellate court could throw it out or reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor.”
Other legal experts point out that this case is ‘short on law’ and that the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg “devised a legally cockamamie plan to supercharge a misdemeanor into a felony.”
Scroll down for details and links.
NEWS REPORTS
Report: ‘Manhattan DA’s office ‘asked for a meeting’ with law enforcement ahead of possible Trump indictment’
The potential indictment stems from the yearslong investigation surrounding Trump’s alleged hush money scandal involving porn star Stormy Daniels. Towards the end of the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump’s then-lawyer Michael Cohen sent $130,000 to Daniels to prevent her from disclosing her 2006 affair with Trump. Trump reimbursed Cohen through installments.
Manhattan DA's office 'asked for a meeting' with law enforcement ahead of possible Trump indictmenthttps://t.co/W64MlqG997
Video: Fox News reports that New York City D.A. Alvin Bragg is preparing to arrest Donald Trump complete with fingerprinting and “normal processing” all under a misdemeanor charge federal prosecutors refused to pursue.
Fox News reports that New York City D.A. Alvin Bragg is preparing to arrest Donald Trump complete with fingerprinting and “normal processing” all under a misdemeanor charge federal prosecutors refused to pursue. pic.twitter.com/h1oNHcHNeS
– Liberal law professor at George Washington University, Jonathan Turley, found the case is legally pathetic:
‘Get ready for Manhattan DA’s made-for-TV Trump prosecution: high on ratings, but short on the law:’
Highlights:
– “[T]he New York case would be easily dismissed outside of a jurisdiction like New York, where Bragg can count on highly motivated judges and jurors.”
– “[T]he case is legally pathetic. Bragg is struggling to twist state laws to effectively prosecute a federal case long ago rejected by the Justice Department against Trump over his payment of “hush money” to former stripper Stormy Daniels.”
– “In this case, Trump reportedly paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to cut off or at least reduce any public scandal. The Southern District of New York’s U.S. Attorney’s office …ultimately rejected a prosecution based on the election law violations. ”
– “It was not alone: The Federal Election Commission (FEC) chair also expressed doubts about the theory.”
– “Prosecutors working under Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr., also reportedly rejected the viability of using a New York law to effectively charge a federal offense.”
– “Bragg himself previously expressed doubts about the case, effectively shutting it down soon after he took office.”
– The charges in the indictment could “fall under Section 175 for falsifying business records, based on the claim that Trump used legal expenses to conceal the alleged hush-payments that were supposedly used to violate federal election laws.” Legal experts “were conspicuously silent when Hillary Clinton faced a not-dissimilar campaign-finance allegation.” [Hillary’s campaign paid for the Steele dossier hoax about “Trump-Russia collusion.”]
– “A Section 175 charge would normally be a misdemeanor. The only way to convert it into a Class E felony requires a showing that the “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” That other crime would appear to be the federal election violations which the Justice Department previously declined to charge.”
– “The linkage to a federal offense is critical for another reason: Bragg’s office ran out of time to prosecute this as a misdemeanor years ago; the statute of limitations is two years. Even if he shows this is a viable felony charge, the longer five-year limitation could be hard to establish.”
– Constitutional lawyer, Mark Levin, spoke about this case on his podcast on March 9, 2023:
Via: The Mark Levin Show / YouTube:
– – Mark Levin (at 1:22:32):
They call it “hush money.” Isn’t that interesting? This is a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Apparently [Stormy Daniels] was paid money as part of a non-disclosure agreement. It’s not “hush money.” They use the phrase “hush money” because they want to create implications of criminality.”
Has the New York Times ever entered into a non-disclosure agreement? Yes. Do they call it “hush money”? Has the Washington Compost [Washington Post] ever entered into a non-disclosure agreement…CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC…A lot of people who leave their jobs have to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to get severance payments and so forth. Almost all of them. Is that “hush money”? Oh, “hush money,” “hush money.” You’re paid to shut your mouth, to keep your complaints confidential, and you accept that money.”
Podcast description:
“There are multiple leaks that Donald Trump will face indictment in New York over charges related to payments from an NDA with Stormy Daniels and payments made to then-lawyer Michael Cohen. This would be the first ever indictment of a former present, and would completely upend the 2024 presidential election, but these Soros prosecutors have nothing better to do. This is a phony case, but radical New York Democrats are twisting laws in any way they can to get Trump.”
– Mark Levin also spoke about it yesterday, March 17, 2023:
Via: The Mark Levin Show / YouTube: (at 1hr 18 min) Podcast description:
“On Friday’s Mark Levin Show, Special Counsel Jack Smith is using intimidation tactics, casting an extremely wide net on anyone who may have seen or heard anything at Mar-A-Lago regarding Donald Trump’s presidential documents, all because Smith wants to get Trump in any way he can.
At the same time, the Manhattan District Attorney’s office is looking for a novel legal argument against Trump so they can indict him. If Trump is indicted, it will be a disaster for this country for decades to come.”
Jarrett also wrote an article: New York District Attorney Appears Determined To Indict Trump On Legally Feeble Charges:
Highlights:
– They want us to “[f]orget about the statute of limitations that expired two years ago. Or that his predecessor declined potential prosecution because the law does not support a criminal charge. Or that the case is bereft of any credible evidence. Never mind that Bragg’s legal theory is bizarre, if not comical. Or that his star witness, Michael Cohen, is a confessed liar who went to prison and whose name is synonymous with sleaze and dishonesty.”
– “In Bragg’s twisted book, Donald Trump should be treated like a hardcore criminal because so-called “hush money” was given to porn star, Stormy Daniels, in exchange for keeping her mouth shut in the run-up to the 2016 election. Bear in mind, such agreements are legally permissible. Silence that is conditional upon payment is not against the law. Non-disclosure agreements with pecuniary benefits attached are a common method of maintaining confidentiality. Even if it involves consensual sex, which Trump vigorously denies.”
– “The DA’s only impediment is the law and how to circumvent its narrowly defined language to trump up a case against Trump. That’s when Bragg was forced to get creative. He devised a legally cockamamie plan to supercharge a misdemeanor into a felony by bootstrapping a supposed secondary crime to it.>
Here’s how it works, at least in Bragg’s brain. It is a mere misdemeanor under New York law to falsify business records. But by claiming that the Stormy payment was somehow meant to violate arcane campaign reporting laws, viola! A second crime that elevates it to a felony.”
Read more here.
– Former law clerk to Justice Neil Gorsuch,Mike Davis, noted:
Highlights:
– “Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is hellbent on charging Mr. Trump. In fact, the New York City District Attorney’s office has been searching for any way to charge the former president since 2017. The investigation has poured over President Trump’s personal and business life. They’ve reportedly settled on charging Donald Trump for the non-crime of his attorney Michael Cohen paying Stormy Daniels settlement money.”
– “Even The New York Times admits the case is a stretch: “The case against the former president hinges on an untested and therefore risky legal theory involving a complex interplay of laws.””
Even if Mr. Trump is indicted, convicting him or sending him to prison will be challenging. The case against the former president hinges on an untested and therefore risky legal theory involving a complex interplay of laws, all amounting to a low-level felony. If Mr. Trump were ultimately convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of four years, though prison time would not be mandatory. […]
In New York, falsifying business records can amount to a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. To elevate the crime to a felony charge, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.
In this case, that second crime could be a violation of New York State election law. While hush money is not inherently illegal, the prosecutors could argue that the $130,000 payout effectively became an improper donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign, under the theory that because the money silenced Ms. Daniels, it benefited his candidacy.
That would be a novel legal theory for any criminal case, let alone one against the former president, raising the possibility that a judge or appellate court could throw it out or reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor.
While the tryst and the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) comprise is the interesting action in this saga, they do not comprise the crime. Marital infidelity is a moral wrong but not a criminal one. And while hush-money is a pejorative term, and the details of this one are sleazy, NDAs per se are perfectly legal and common in civil-law settlements of claims.
The crime under investigation is falsifying business records…that is generally a misdemeanor under New York law, but it can be a fairly minor felony — Class E, punishable by up to four years’ imprisonment — if prosecutors can prove that the records were falsified in order “to conceal another crime.”
In New York, the statute of limitations for misdemeanors is two years. For felonies, it is generally five years. (…)
Let’s reasonably hypothesize that these 2017 payments had bookkeeping implications in 2018, when the 2017 fiscal year was presumably accounted for. Assuming the statute of limitations was thus triggered in 2018, the five-year period would lapse sometime this year. That, at least in part, explains the frenetic investigative activity that has gone on the last few weeks: If the state doesn’t indict soon, the case would be time-barred.
Or . . . it could be time-barred already. Again, the five-year period only applies if Bragg can establish felony falsification of records. The felony calls for proving that Trump was concealing another crime. As I argued in the above-linked column, that is a dubious proposition to say the least. (…)
If Bragg cannot prove the felony, we are left with misdemeanor falsification of records and the two-year statute of limitations would apply. We don’t know all the accounting facts, but we can probably assume that that has run by now – indeed, it likely lapsed in 2020 or 2021. If it’s just a misdemeanor, Trump is probably right that the case is time-barred.
This entry was posted on March 18, 2023 at 6:58 pm and is filed under Government Abuse, Law, Left.
Tagged: Trump. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
FactReal 
Leave a comment