Just Security: The Manhattan DA’s Charges And Trump’s Defenses — A Detailed Preview And Analysis
“While bringing a felony case presents complexities, DA Bragg is to be applauded for taking the matter seriously.”
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is apparently on the verge of charging former President Donald Trump regarding hush money payments that may have affected the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
In a new report, part of an important series published on Just Security, Joshua Stanton, Ambassador Norman Eisen (ret.), E. Danya Perry, and Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer do a deep dive into a particular point in the Manhattan DA’s case: the legal bases for elevating a misdemeanor charge of falsifying business records to a possible felony. The authors also analyze Trump’s likely defenses.
“The hush money payments were a significant matter for our democracy,” Stanton, Eisen, Perry, and Wertheimer write. “The election of 2016 was a close one, in which Donald Trump was already coping with a sex scandal because of the Access Hollywood tape. Had the Stormy Daniels allegations emerged, they might have changed the outcome of the election. And the payments certainly seem to run afoul of the N.Y. books and records statute. While bringing a felony case presents complexities, DA Bragg is to be applauded for taking the matter seriously.”
In addition to falsifying business records, which may be charged in New York as either a misdemeanor or a felony, the authors discuss the “more likely” potential felony charges that might also be filed.
“Despite the numerous possible violations that could theoretically be charged” as felonies, they write, “we focus our analysis on three possibilities based on publicly available information and our collective decades of experience prosecuting and defending criminal cases.”
Those three possibilities, outlined in detail by the authors, are: federal campaign finance crimes, state campaign finance crimes, and conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.
The authors also discuss Trump’s possible legal arguments and the legal hurdles he may try to put in front of the Manhattan District Attorney. Those arguments, the authors write, can be overcome.
“Trump for his part recognizes the peril he faces and is responding in a familiar fashion,” Stanton, Eisen, Perry, and Wertheimer write. Trump’s “call to ‘PROTEST, PROTEST, PROTEST!!’ is reminiscent of his ‘will be wild!’ tweet summoning the mob to January 6. Bragg has said his office does not tolerate attempts to intimidate—rightly so. Trump’s incitement failed last time and will here as well. We await the DA’s next move.”
Read the full report and analysis on Just Security.
A PDF of the full report is available here.
# # #
