Campaign finance case against Trump off to a shaky start for prosecutor Bragg
Most political pundits and legal experts – including those former prosecutors who populate the cable news networks – have said that of all the cases brought against President Trump the campaign finance case is the weakest. And apparently so.
We need to keep in mind that it only takes one juror who believes that Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg did not prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt and Trump walks. If that does happen, I bet Bragg would not attempt to re-try the case since a much later trial would have no influence in the campaign. The case is so bad that I think the odds favor a hung jury with more than one juror refusing to vote to convict.
The case is bad on two counts. It smells of partisan prosecutorial abuse. Bragg is a highly partisan Democrat prosecutor. He had to jump over numerous legal obstacles to trump up the case, so to speak. He has taken on a number of unprecedented – and some argue improper – legal theories to bring the indictment. He has taken a single charge and expanded it into 31 counts by making each check a different count rather than compiled evidence of a single count.
Basically, the charge is violating New York campaign elections law. That is a misdemeanor that results in a civil fine if found guilty. The statute of limitations for that crime was long passed before Bragg even started his investigation – curiously timed to the campaign schedule.
To get passed the statute of limitations, Bragg had to connect the campaign finance charge to a felony. So, what is the coincidental felony? Trump has never been convicted of any felony. In fact, Bragg has not yet specifically identified the felony he used to elevate the case to a criminal felony.
Bragg seems to be trying both the former misdemeanor and a federal campaign finance crime that has never been adjudicated by the federal government. Bragg is not empowered to try federal crimes even though that is exactly what he is attempting to do.
You need to remember that federal prosecutors in New York’s very aggressive Southern District did not pursue the case under Attorney General William Barr or Attorney General Merrick Garland. If there is a federal crime to be pursued, it is the Department of Justice that is responsible for investigating, indicting and trying.
Not only was the case brought under Bragg’s creative methodology, but the charges themselves seem very weak. And that is the second reason, I see the case as getting very shaky.
Granted, we are only in the initial phases of the trial with only one witness – and a lot of procedural debate, most notably on the issue of gag orders.
I fully understand the power of a judge to impose a gag order, but they can be abusive. That is especially true of a gag order on a presidential candidate.
As the likely Republican standard bearer, Trump must be allowed to campaign – to make his case to the American people — in the court-of-public-opinion. Restricting that right – or placing undue or unfair economic burdens to inhibit campaigning — is by definition campaign interference.
The fact that serial perjurer Michael Cohen has been allowed to use his fame and notoriety to constantly attack Trump as a person and a candidate – and that other Democrats and anti-Trump media can attack him unrelentingly — does not seem fair.
Even though the judge has a legal right to impose a gag order – and even though Trump does verbally attack his enemies — I think a fundamental sense of fairness wins sympathy for Trump with the public – and potentially with jurors.
Putting aside the mythical coincidental felony, the case against Trump is very weak. While Trump’s detractors in the court-of-public-opinion judge him guilty, that is yet to be decided by the jurors. And I am not sure that even with a jury chosen from a community of people who dislike Trump – and many passionately – the prosecutor can prove the charges beyond a lot of doubt.
Those following the trial from the anti-Trump news outlets are doing what they always do. They are only reporting what goes along with their political bias. They leave out certain portions of the testimony – and spin the rest.
However, if you look at the actual testimony – and we only have that of The Enquirer publisher David Pecker to analyze at this moment – the case is not a slam dunk.
Pecker, who has been granted immunity from prosecution in turn for turning on Trump, has not been as strong a prosecution witness as I would have expected. While he certainly said some things that appear damning, a lot of it did not rise to the level of crimes. Folks may think that purchasing scandal stories as a favor to Trump is bad journalism – even disgusting – but it is not necessarily a crime. Even the amount is not a crime. Although using corporate money in a federal election is a crime – but the case is not based on federal law. And the feds did not see an indictable crime when they investigated.
While Pecker seemed to be making it clear that the payments to the porn actress were to benefit the campaign, he also said that this was Michael Cohen talking, not Trump. When Pecker mentioned the payment to Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels, Trump replied that he was not aware of that.
I doubt that even Stormy Daniels will be able to testify as to what Trump said or thought – only what she heard from Cohen.
Apart from Pecker, the only other witness who has been involved in the patient conversation was Cohen. His credibility will be shredded under cross examination as a habitual liar and perjurer. His months of bitter and hateful attacks on Trump will be seen as sufficient motivation to lie. Cohen will be pictured as more interested in getting Trump than telling the truth — and I suspect that is exactly how members of the jury will see it.
Most of the other witnesses are there to make Trump look bad. They were not privy to the most critical conversations. Bragg’s challenge with them is to avoid the hearsay issue.
Bragg is attempting to take a common misdemeanor in terms of campaign financing and turning it into his personal ride to fame and fortune as a modern-day Clarence Darrow. Me thinks he has overreached by a long shot.
I could be wrong – and I know I am climbing out on a branch very early in the proceedings – but I now do believe the odds are against conviction.
So, there ‘tis.
Bragg should be prosecuting crack whores in Harlem and leave Trump alone. Who knows? He might snare his sister. If he hears of a ho down he would be making phone calls to check on his female relatives
Well, thanks to Horist, I did some reading.
I agree with Horist that most thought Bragg’s case was the weakest — hush money, shady financial transactions, maybe some campaign financing slaps on the wrist and a wonky uplift to felony. But what Horist missed was that while that did not change with the indictment, the indictment was unclear, especially the legal theory and specifics behind the felony uplift.
The weak part — charging Trump under New York Penal Law § 175.10, falsifying business records in the first degree. A misdemeanor. Yet Bragg did a jump shift to felony saying Trump lied on financial records, another low-level white-collar crime, with Trump’s “intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.” It’s the misdemeanor’s connection to the other crime that causes the felony.
Here’s the juicy part of the indictment making a “weak tea” theory impossible to predict: what other crime? The indictment didn’t have one and, by law, it did not need to. Now that’s unique, creative, innovative and certainly not a weak case — per se. One just couldn’t know.
As the trial starts, more on the missing crimes are now coming to light, you just need to look. For those thinking it’s weak, Bragg is not good, how can you raise a business record to a felony, as the case unfolds, the beauty of the Bragg’s legal machinations becomes clearer. Plus, Bragg is good, on his record, and he’s low key and well like by associates and even many on “the other side.”
There are right-sided comments that Bragg is a Democrat who got elected based on his Trump prosecution promise. He is and he did. But so what? He got elected on a lot of things beyond Trump. Some Republicans even donated to his election. He’s prosecuted many a Democrat so get over it. Trump is only persecuted because he makes it so damned easy by continually and consistently breaking the law. As Horist notes, he may not have his own felony, but Horist does not mention that TrumpCo has 17 felony convictions for business records, his CFO is in jail, and you have to know if Trump’s company did it, at minimum, Trump knew it. His CFO started with his dad, he’s family. Many of his close associates went to jail, he pardoned a lot. Most of his 2016 campaign staff went to jail. A few profited from Russia for decades. He held a rally that concluded with a Congressional shutdown stopping the peaceful transfer of power via the people’s vote. Some call it a coup attempt. Others wonder why he watched on TV for over three hours and did nothing to protect the Capital, the vote, and the nation. Trump makes his own bed when it comes to persecution. Bragg was the one who brought TrumpCo down FYI. His only remorse: that the penalties, by law, could not be stronger.
As to the 31 counts being egregious since it could be one: that’s piss poor prosecutorial thinking. If you want to get some guilty’s, spread em out. If you think one may come a cropper, and ruin the stew, spread them out. Only when it’s a no-brainer, bundle. That’s a prosecutor’s choice, totally legal.
.Statute of limitations is five years for a felony but “if the defendant was continuously outside New York state or if the defendant’s whereabouts were “continuously unknown and continuously unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence,” then the clock is stalled. Trump is easy to find, he most certainly was not living in New York, nor available while in office. So far, the case is good to go on the statute of limitations.
Next I will look at the actual counts to see how weak is Bragg’s tea. I think it’s a stretch for conviction, but much stronger than Hoirst thinks. Also, there are four crimes that lead to felony and one thing I have not figured out is does Bragg need to hit a home run with all? Or does a base hit with one do the deed?
It’s not a slam dunk but it’s not a weak case either. Many of the “weakers” were focusing on the records fraud. Until the opening filed, the felony part was obscured. Today we know:
All the counts and payments lead to Stormy. McDougal is there as scenic background as to behavior. Pecker is the point person; he catches the kill. His testimony was pretty bad for Trump. Cohen was the bag man, he took a home equity loan to pay Stormy, and Trump paid him, some checks may have been signed in the Oval Office. The case is Cohen’s fraudulent invoices for “legal services” aka hush money, plus Trump’s checks to repay Cohen, plus the fraudulent records Trump used to conceal the payments under false labels. Big deal, a chump change charge. But it’s documented and pretty much a no-brainer.
It’s the undefined crime that the payments hide that make it a felony. Before the trial, no one had a clue as to the crime so how could anyone call the case weak? Now, with the trial underway, we know more, and many have changed their previous “weak tea” view. A few have not. And one got drunk, ended up in jail for the night (where does Horist get this “many,” “most,” stuff. Oh well. The case has gone to “very complex” and stunning in it’s unusual approach.
In 11/23, Trump went for dismissal and got thumped when judge ruled “does not require that the other crime be completed or committed.” Just need to prove that the actions were purposeful and had the objective to commit the crime. That’s Bragg’s biggest hurdle to prove, and no one knows how strong or weak he is at this point. Given Bragg’s track record, he’s got something.
Bragg put four potential offenses that lead to the felonies: violations of federal, local, and state tax law (tax fraud), violations of federal campaign finance law under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA); violations of New York Election Law § 17-152; and additional falsifications of business records outside the Trump Organization. The judge tossed the business records crime.
The first one: tax fraud. This is just weird as Cohen pays Stormy, Trump pays Cohen twice that amount so Cohen can report income but does so knowing it’s illegal. The funny part is Cohen ends up paying more taxes that he would IF he had been legal. The judge laughed at Trumps allegation that even if there was a crime, the state was not harmed. Think bank robbers who give the money back. Felony. And this part of the case is not weak, it is strong, but — by itself is just not much of a case in terms of penalties. Fuhgit about it Jake, it’s just hush money.
The FECA offense gets stronger, but is tough to prove. The action was deemed viable by the judge even though it’s a Federal Law. Trump pushed back and got shot down. Remember, Bragg just needs to show Trump had the objective to do the deed, he is not trying the deed itself. The judge rules against Trump’s argument that Federal does not count. Trump also argued that FECA trumps State Law and therefore the State cannot charge. The judge said NO, with precedent. In the FECA story are Cohen’s 2018 campaign finance convictions for Stormy. Plus, Cohen and Pecker doing the same to McDougal where DOJ already fined AMI (Pecker) $187k for these actions but demurred on prosecution. This will be tricky as Trump pushed back and the judge said Cohen’s conviction and Pecker’s payment cannot not be entered as testimony UNLESS “the proper foundation is laid.” So Bragg needs to be uber careful here and the defense has to here as well so as to not “open the door.”
The NYS election law crime is the King of the four felonies. Bragg alleges Trump conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by an unlawful means. That’s pretty much the State Law, verbatim. Trump argues State Law cannot apply to Federal elections. Rejected. Then Trump argued FECA has precedent. Judge said “without merit.” If only one would hang Trump, this is the one. If Bragg can convince the jury that media-obsessed Trump, wounded by Access Hollywood, paid Stormy that ludicrous amount, just to keep the information that, due to freedom of speech and the free press, was about to be made public. IF the jury concludes that’s WHY Trump paid off, he’s toast I think. That’s a tough thing to prove, but stronger than Russiagate. Money did change hands.
During opening statements on April 22, prosecutor Steinglass said “The entire case is predicated on the idea that there was a conspiracy to influence the election in 2016.” To pull this off, Bragg will have to prove “unlawful means” and to do that he will possibly try: FECA violations, tax fraud, and AMI’s and Cohen’s misdemeanor falsifications of business records. According to the opening statement, Bragg will follow the money to prove the attempt to pull off the conspiracy. This is the good one, this is a tough one, but it is not weak. Bragg will need use the financial records tossed by the judge but applicable here. Still tricky. The FECA is tricky too since, to begin with, DOJ demurred without explanation. And the whole case is innovative, creative, and requires Bragg to make clear what I could not in this tome. But weak — time will tell.
An outstanding question is can Bragg get the jury to believe that Trump paid Stormy to increase his chances to win the 2016.
Frank did you read the article about Obama having a tranny so called wife? What about chuck Schumer having queer sex with Joe Scarborough? I doubt it would be interesting to you. And did Elizabeth Warren fart during her wedding? I’m not saying anything is true. It’s just a fact that you pick up on the stupidity and believe it. But it might be true. If so, I wish you were there. Or does this kind of rumors make your skin crawl? This would make a great Netflix series
Funny that a guy on an anonymous website clones himself as another anonymous poster, a liberal, to share blatant lies he made up, cannot source, about very silly things showing his own penchant for alternative sex, not that there’s anything wrong with him fantasizing. Or even him fulfilling his weird fantasies. He’s probably a catcher too.
He says it’s not true, but it’s his deepest desire, his fondest wish, that I could be there?
I guess in his way, he somehow equates his lies with something CSIS said. Well sir, they tell the truth, there may be new information that moves the dial, but, sans that, they tell the truth.
And you do not tell the truth, are a liar, and attempt to say CSIS is a liar because you are. I do not agree. CSIS is right and you are a liar. And one so low that you can’t even pick your own anonymous name but must “ride on top” of another’s. Sounds pretty gay to me, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Frank Stetson … Not to get in between one of your other Statler-like bickerings… but the CSIS report you cite is more than four years old — and it can be easily questioned based on information it leaves out, over emphasis on the Capitol Hill Riot. It suggests threats that never happened in the subsequent four year — strongly suggesting that it was flawed or biased analysis.
The report seems more like a conclusion looking for evidence — or perhaps just caught up in the political zeitgeist of the times. This is just another example your claiming “documentation” when you only cite opinion pieces that conform to your own. Citing another person’s opinion or analysis is not fact based, but that is all you have to support your MENDACOUS postings. LOL
Horist, you seem to know Statler quite well. Guess The Muppet Show is just your speed.
It’s pretty obvious that the CSIS reference is erroneously misplace in the wrong thread and you were too stupid to figure that out. 7am; coffee had not kicked in…… My bad to reference in the obviously wrong place. Way to kick the dog when it’s down though. Nice touch.
I will respond to your asinine assumptions in the correct post.
But thank you, I consider myself spanked by the expert.
On the rest: “Not to get in between one of your other Statler-like bickerings…” No, your passive-aggressive personality shows itself in such behaviors. I find most people mostly agree with most of that.
Frank Stetson. You are right. I should have seen you mental lapse. I figured that would be obvious to anyone who might be reading this old post. Just was addressing you and your reliance on CSIS. And I love your claim to know what “most people” think of me. You not only have your own imaginary Larry Horist, but you even have our own imaginary “most people” LOL. And I see you learned a new term … passive aggressive. Unfortunately you a clueless as to what it means. What every you may say about my personality, passive-aggressive is just not the appropriate term. Your posts are becoming the rhetorical equivalent of a comedic prat fall. Always worth a good chuckle.
Mr. Horist, obviously you missed Tom’s and my independently generated comments regarding your frequent use of “MOST” as your source. Thought you mostly got that one…. Guess I was being passive-aggressive and you could not decode the subtleties.
I addressed your CSIS issue with it being 4 years old while covering events from 4 years ago and older and asking you if you believe there’s an expiration date on facts and truth? You certainly provided zero pushback on the facts, just the source which is highly regarded. You just don’t.
From VeryWellMind: “Passive-aggressive behavior can show up in many forms. If someone is being passive-aggressive, they might:
“Ghost” you, or seemingly disappear
Give you a backhanded compliment (“I saw you did the dishes. I was surprised.”)
Give you the silent treatment
Indirectly refuse your request (not tell you no, but also not do what you’ve asked)
Make excuses rather than say what is on their mind
Procrastinate when you’ve asked them to do something
Respond to your requests with sarcasm or subtle digs.”
Sound familiar? In terms of examples, I will cherry pick a few Horistians:
“They give you the silent treatment for no apparent reason, and when you try to talk about what’s bothering them, they won’t tell you how they feel.
They seem angry, but when you ask them what’s bothering them, they say, “I’m fine” or “nothing is bothering me,” when something clearly is.
They complain about situations with other people that bother them as a means to indirectly say that they’re unhappy when these same situations occur with you.
They seem to “keep score,” talking about how they do so many things for other people yet they don’t get the same treatment in return.”
Point is Hoirst is passive aggressive, so am I. Matter of fact, I find only boring people are not… But the real point is that why are either of us looking at each other personally instead of discussing the issues of the day. I am ready whenever you are. And if it helps you, I am more than willing to accept all the blame for whatever gets your goat about my commentary.
Shakey start, nonsense, Bragg and his biased Judge are inflaming the jury with stories that have nothing to do with what is charged against Trump quite finely…. Right? It doesn’t matter to the judge or Bragg the legality or ethicalness as long as they can get the jury to say guilty!
And then let the appeals court work out how it washes out! After all Biden will be able to use the guilty verdict to campaign against Trump!
Ron C … I think what most people should be able to agree on is that this case has been grossly overcharged and timed for impacting on the election. The worst that Trump is guilty of is a misdemeanor infraction of a campaign finance law — and THAT is even open to debate. Bragg used prosecutorial chicanery to get around both the misdemeanor and the statute of limitations. — and to elevate it to a felony case. Bragg has politicized prosecution — and that is a danger to the Republic. Unfortunately, prosecution has been politicized more and more in recent years by a whole range of aggressive Democrat prosecutors..