Last April, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg announced a 34-count indictment against Donald Trump, alleging that he intentionally made false bookkeeping entries to cover-up hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels, intending to violate disclosure requirements of campaign finance laws.
A chorus of criticism greeted the indictments. The Right sneered that Bragg was criminalizing clerical errors. Legal pundits decried the “novel” legal theory on which the indictment was founded. The Left bemoaned that after everything Trump had done, this is the best we can do? Even one of Bragg’s former prosecutors on the case was critical.
Soon after, Special Counsel Jack Smith announced a federal Florida indictment based on Trump’s retention of national defense information. That was followed by another federal indictment, this time in D.C., claiming that Trump used unlawful means in a desperate attempt to cling to the presidency. And that was followed by a sprawling Atlanta racketeering indictment, charging Trump and 18 others with a conspiracy to subvert Georgia election laws. Now that was more like it!
Trump’s March 25, 2024 Manhattan trial date became a calendar entry, wedged in between overlapping trials for far more consequential allegations, and certain to be delayed. Now it appears that the New York trial may actually take place on the appointed date.
What happened? The Florida documents case is bogged down in extensive pretrial proceedings as to what documents, and in what form, will be shared with the defense, the jury, and the public. By contrast, the “discovery” in the New York case — the document owed by the prosecution to the defense — has already been provided, is straightforward, is and not voluminous, and none of it is classified. Indeed, much of it consists of Trump’s own records that were subpoenaed.
The D.C. case, set for trial on March 4, is on pause while a federal appeals court will decide, any day now, whether a president is immune for all actions he undertakes while in office. That ruling will certainly wend its way to the Supreme Court. The New York case, by contrast, addresses only Trump’s conduct prior to his presidency, for which there can be no claim of immunity.
The Georgia case is far too massive to go to trial this year — too many defendants and too many documents. The New York case has but a single defendant — Trump — and the evidence is nicely confined to a narrow set of transactions; checks and bookkeeping entries. It is true that Michael Cohen is an indispensable witness, but prosecutors rely on far more unsavory people to make their case, and his testimony will be corroborated by documents. Outside of Cohen and maybe Stormy Daniels, the New York case will be, well, boring.
In addition, questionable conduct by Fulton County DA Fani Willis is now the subject of legal motions by Trump’s defense. Say what you will about Bragg’s politics, his personal and professional life has been beyond reproach.
The New York indictment has other virtues that have become clearer over time. There are no First Amendment questions as to what speech is permitted and when it crosses the line into an attempt to unlawfully prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Not even Team Trump has argued that he had a constitutional right to cook the books. And this is a New York case under New York law, so Trump cannot pardon himself should he become president.
The legal theory on which the case is based — creating false records with the intent to commit another crime — is not novel. It has been widely used to criminalize fake books designed to mask intended offenses. It is true that the application of these laws has never been used to criminalize attempted campaign finance violations, but that is because most candidates for president keep better books. It is no more novel than arresting a presidential candidate for DWI; it has never happened before but the law is unambiguous.
There is one thing that the New York case has in common with all of the others — even if convicted and sentenced, Trump will not be imprisoned any time soon. There will be a long appeals process for any convictions, and Trump will remain free until that process comes to an end.
The New York case is elegantly simple and well within the understanding of the average juror. It charges a small-time grift, committed in an effort to avoid responsibility for tawdry conduct. A jury verdict of “guilty” will send a clear message that whatever else Trump is, he is a cheap fraud. We all get that.
Kuby is a noted criminal defense attorney in New York who’s represented Gambino associates, among others.
Here comes Trump’s NYC criminal case — what to know on this and all his other cases
9
33
30.01.2024
Last April, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg announced a 34-count indictment against Donald Trump, alleging that he intentionally made false bookkeeping entries to cover-up hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels, intending to violate disclosure requirements of campaign finance laws.
A chorus of criticism greeted the indictments. The Right sneered that Bragg was criminalizing clerical errors. Legal pundits decried the “novel” legal theory on which the indictment was founded. The Left bemoaned that after everything Trump had done, this is the best we can do? Even one of Bragg’s former prosecutors on the case was critical.
Soon after, Special Counsel Jack Smith announced a federal Florida indictment based on Trump’s retention of national defense information. That was followed by another federal indictment, this time in D.C., claiming that Trump used unlawful means in a desperate attempt to cling to the presidency. And that was followed by a sprawling Atlanta racketeering indictment, charging Trump and 18 others with a conspiracy to subvert Georgia election laws. Now that was more........
© NY Daily News
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Michael Kwet
