Blue Lives Matter
2023-04-24 18:40:33 UTC
From the excellent Lawfare blog:
The indictment identifies thirty-four falsified business records, but it didn’t
indicate what the criminal predicates were, because New York law doesn’t require
that it do so. But some clues about the predicates can be found in the 13-page
Statement of Facts that accompanied the indictment, as well as from Bragg’s
comments in a press conference following the arraignment.
The statement creates certain inferences about the predicates. Generally
speaking, the statement describes an “unlawful scheme” designed to “influence
the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative
information about [Trump] to suppress its publication and benefit the
Defendant’s electoral prospects.” In short, the DA alleges what the popular
press calls a catch-and-kill scheme, which itself consists of more specific
unlawful activity. The scheme itself was illegal, says the indictment and
accompanying statement, as was much of the activity used to effectuate it. Some
combination of the activity used to effectuate the scheme and the scheme itself
predicates each of the thirty-four charges under § 175.10. The second paragraph
of the indictment indicates that the predicating criminality includes (1)
violations of “election laws” and (2) violations associated with
“mischaracterize[ing], for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments[.]” The
third paragraph makes clear that the election law predicates include Michael
Cohen’s federal conviction for “making an illegal campaign contribution.” In
paragraphs 41 through 44, the statement alleges that Cohen worked with Trump and
American Media Inc. (AMI), the parent company of the National Enquirer, to
effectuate the scheme. Those paragraphs also recite AMI’s agreement that it
purchased the salacious stories without ever having intended to publish them.
The Bragg press conference provided some additional clues about the predicates.
Bragg repeatedly emphasized that the § 175.10 offense was concealment of prior
criminality: “That is exactly what this case is about. Thirty-four false
statements made to cover up other crimes.” Bragg’s prepared remarks detailed the
catch-and-kill scheme generally, and suggested the DA’s view that the scheme or
its parts violated several different criminal laws: (1) New York Election Law §
17-152, making it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means;
(2) federal limits on campaign contributions (federal election law); (3) New
York laws violated by false statements on AMI’s books; and (4) tax laws violated
by a mischaracterization someone made or planned to make to taxing authorities.
The major point is this: Bragg is sketching a lot of different predicates
involving a lot of different people. Importantly, the predicates do not have to
be crimes committed by Trump; they can be crimes committed by Cohen, AMI, or
someone else. So the universe of predicates might look something like a 2x2x2
grid: (1) federal tax law violations by Trump; (2) federal tax law violations by
third parties; (3) New York tax law violations by Trump; (4) New York tax law
violations by third parties; (5) federal election law violation by Trump; (6)
federal election law violations by third parties; (7) New York Election Law §
17-152 violations by Trump; and (8) § 17-152 violations by third parties. The
list is a touch under-inclusive, because it doesn’t capture the possibility that
AMI’s false statements violated some other provision of New York law, which is
something that Bragg alluded to several times in his remarks.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/preemption-and-known-unknowns-trump-indictment
Bragg doesn't *have* to charge Trump with any other crime. In fact, it doesn't
even have to be a crime that Trump committed. If he deliberately misclassified
business expenses to conceal or to further *any* crime, whether committed by
Trump or some other person or entity, he committed felonies.
*LOCK HIM UP*
The indictment identifies thirty-four falsified business records, but it didn’t
indicate what the criminal predicates were, because New York law doesn’t require
that it do so. But some clues about the predicates can be found in the 13-page
Statement of Facts that accompanied the indictment, as well as from Bragg’s
comments in a press conference following the arraignment.
The statement creates certain inferences about the predicates. Generally
speaking, the statement describes an “unlawful scheme” designed to “influence
the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative
information about [Trump] to suppress its publication and benefit the
Defendant’s electoral prospects.” In short, the DA alleges what the popular
press calls a catch-and-kill scheme, which itself consists of more specific
unlawful activity. The scheme itself was illegal, says the indictment and
accompanying statement, as was much of the activity used to effectuate it. Some
combination of the activity used to effectuate the scheme and the scheme itself
predicates each of the thirty-four charges under § 175.10. The second paragraph
of the indictment indicates that the predicating criminality includes (1)
violations of “election laws” and (2) violations associated with
“mischaracterize[ing], for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments[.]” The
third paragraph makes clear that the election law predicates include Michael
Cohen’s federal conviction for “making an illegal campaign contribution.” In
paragraphs 41 through 44, the statement alleges that Cohen worked with Trump and
American Media Inc. (AMI), the parent company of the National Enquirer, to
effectuate the scheme. Those paragraphs also recite AMI’s agreement that it
purchased the salacious stories without ever having intended to publish them.
The Bragg press conference provided some additional clues about the predicates.
Bragg repeatedly emphasized that the § 175.10 offense was concealment of prior
criminality: “That is exactly what this case is about. Thirty-four false
statements made to cover up other crimes.” Bragg’s prepared remarks detailed the
catch-and-kill scheme generally, and suggested the DA’s view that the scheme or
its parts violated several different criminal laws: (1) New York Election Law §
17-152, making it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means;
(2) federal limits on campaign contributions (federal election law); (3) New
York laws violated by false statements on AMI’s books; and (4) tax laws violated
by a mischaracterization someone made or planned to make to taxing authorities.
The major point is this: Bragg is sketching a lot of different predicates
involving a lot of different people. Importantly, the predicates do not have to
be crimes committed by Trump; they can be crimes committed by Cohen, AMI, or
someone else. So the universe of predicates might look something like a 2x2x2
grid: (1) federal tax law violations by Trump; (2) federal tax law violations by
third parties; (3) New York tax law violations by Trump; (4) New York tax law
violations by third parties; (5) federal election law violation by Trump; (6)
federal election law violations by third parties; (7) New York Election Law §
17-152 violations by Trump; and (8) § 17-152 violations by third parties. The
list is a touch under-inclusive, because it doesn’t capture the possibility that
AMI’s false statements violated some other provision of New York law, which is
something that Bragg alluded to several times in his remarks.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/preemption-and-known-unknowns-trump-indictment
Bragg doesn't *have* to charge Trump with any other crime. In fact, it doesn't
even have to be a crime that Trump committed. If he deliberately misclassified
business expenses to conceal or to further *any* crime, whether committed by
Trump or some other person or entity, he committed felonies.
*LOCK HIM UP*