UPDATED: 11 Key Facts On Trump’s Legal Battle In Manhattan
Former President Donald Trump has been indicted on 34 felony counts by the Manhattan District Attorney. The former President has pleaded not guilty.
Former President Trump has been charged with falsifying business records in the first degree, in violation of New York State law, after allegedly illegally doctoring his official accounting books and records to conceal hush money payments to an adult entertainer with whom he had an extramarital affair. In New York, falsifying business records is a crime. When it’s being done to benefit a campaign and keep vital information from voters, that’s a felony for which anyone else would be prosecuted and they have been.
The full 34-count felony indictment: The People of the State of New York against Donald J. Trump
The Statement of Facts, prepared by the Manhattan DA’s office: Statement of Facts
The Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Jr. has a strong case. Here are 11 key facts in this case:
Key Fact #1: No one — not even a former President of the United States — is above the law.
The bedrock principle of our democracy is that no one is above the law. There is no good reason to exempt Trump from prosecution amid ongoing investigations into his criminal activity when anyone else would be – and have been – prosecuted for this conduct.
Key Fact #2: Experts say federal law does not preempt New York State law in this case.
Trump’s alleged payments in relation to the hush money scandal were not just limited to federal election laws, but also reportedly violated New York State law that prohibits falsification of business records. Moreover, the payments were allegedly made in New York and involved individuals and entities based in the state.
Federal election laws set limits on campaign contributions to presidential candidates and require disclosure of such payments. But New York State law still regulates other aspects of federal elections in New York. Experts say that federal law does not prevent New York from enforcing those laws, even when they are tied, in part, to violations of the federal limits or requirements.
Key Fact #3: Experts say it doesn’t matter if the payment was made with personal or campaign funds.
What matters in this case is that payment was made to influence the election. The payments in question were not made coincidentally weeks before the election; the evidence shows they were made to benefit Trump’s campaign by preventing another damaging sex scandal.
This was especially important given that Trump had just recently admitted to improper sexual activity on the Access Hollywood tape, which could have cost him the election. If the truth about the affair had emerged, it could have played a decisive role in an election that was determined by a relatively small number of votes across several states. Similar to how campaigns are required to disclose their spending on TV ads intended to impact the election, Trump should have disclosed these alleged payoffs intended to influence the election. Many other defendants have been prosecuted and convicted for making covert payments to benefit political campaigns.
Key Fact #4: The statute of limitations has not expired.
Although prosecutors could still charge Trump with a felony regardless of the statute of limitations, misdemeanors in New York have a two-year limit. However, the amount of time Trump spent outside of New York after committing the last criminal act under investigation is factored into the statute of limitations. According to Just Security, Trump spent only 81 days in New York after December 5, 2017, so there are still 21 months left to press charges.
Key Fact #5: Experts say “intent to defraud” has a broad scope, providing grounds for prosecutors to elevate charges from a misdemeanor to a felony.
Some of Trump’s defenders argue that the Manhattan District Attorney will have a difficult time proving the “intent to defraud” needed to elevate a misdemeanor offense for falsifying business records to a felony. However, experts have said that New York’s case law shows that “intent to defraud” is defined broadly and, more importantly, in expansive terms that cover the allegations made in Trump’s case.
New York State courts have found such intent in a wide range of cases — including making covert contributions to a political campaign, covering up sexual misconduct, and much more. Since Trump is likely to be charged with falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments as a campaign finance or election law violation, legal experts say that falls within the broad scope defined by case law.
Key Fact #6: This is not a “novel theory.” In fact, these charges are regularly prosecuted in New York.
New York district attorney offices frequently use the charge of falsifying business records in the first degree to prosecute various types of criminal behavior. This includes both minor and more serious offenses, and such cases have been prosecuted dozens of times in the last 15 years.
Additionally, there are multiple cases charged where a books and records violation is elevated to a felony for violating campaign finance law.
As District Attorney Bragg charged in this case, Trump altered records to obscure violations of federal and state campaign finance laws that prohibit payments of this kind. New York State law allows a prosecutor to elevate the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony if the cover-up was done to hide or advance another crime.
Key Fact #7: The evidence in this case has already been used to send Michael Cohen to jail for the same payments.
Donald Trump is certainly not the first person tried for falsifying their business records. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, went to jail for campaign finance violations regarding these very same payments. Others have been prosecuted for similar conduct.
Key Fact #8: The Manhattan DA did not previously pass on this case.
The claim that the current or former DA “passed” on the case against Trump is untrue. Manhattan prosecutors have been investigating Trump’s financial practices since 2018. The previous Manhattan DA, Cy Vance Jr., began the grand jury process that could lead to an indictment of Trump before leaving office, but was reportedly asked by prosecutors with the Southern District of New York to hold their investigation while others were ongoing.
Vance handed the investigations off to Bragg when Bragg took office about a year ago. Bragg continued to look at the matter and now is bringing charges. It is not unreasonable for a new district attorney to take a little over a year to set up his office and make an independent decision on whether to bring a very high profile indictment against a former President. That is particularly true – as here – when the statute of limitations has not run out.
Vance also previously led the successful prosecution of Trump’s eponymous company for criminal tax fraud.
As for the decision of the Trump Justice Department not to charge this matter, Justice Department policy (of which we disagree) prohibits charging a sitting President. That explains why nothing was done during the years of the Trump Administration. So does the fact that Trump’s Attorney General William Barr interfered with the federal US Attorney in Manhattan working on the case.
Key Fact #9: This is fundamentally different from the John Edwards’ case.
The facts in both of these cases are not the same. John Edwards could credibly claim he was trying to keep a lid on a scandal for the benefit of his family, who did not know about his affair. Melania Trump already knew about Trump’s affair. Moreover, in the Edwards’ case, payment continued after the election, evidencing this was not just campaign related. Here, as the Manhattan District Attorney alleges, the hush money payment came just before the election and was made to influence it.
In Edwards’ case, a federal trial jury found insufficient proof to convict. In Trump’s case, the substantial evidence for a state indictment is damning.
Key Fact #10: Our leaders – including former Presidents – have a responsibility to directly condemn and deter any attempts to incite violence in response to electoral defeat.
Even Mike Pence, who wrongly defended Donald Trump, condemned his inflammatory rhetoric. There is no place for Trump’s comments like “death and destruction” or resharing on Truth Social a photograph of himself holding a baseball bat positioned next to a photo of Bragg.
Like his “will be wild” tweet and other behavior in the aftermath of the 2020 election, Trump is risking political violence with his behavior.
Key Fact #11: Experts say GOP Members of Congress have no authority to interfere with an investigation.
Representatives Jim Jordan, James Comer, and Bryan Steil have attempted to interfere with the investigation, including by demanding that Manhattan DA Bragg appear before Congress.
The U.S. Constitution prohibits as a matter of federalism Members of Congress from intruding upon a pending state criminal case. It has long been the policy of the Justice Department to refuse to answer open cases and Bragg is legally correct to refuse to do so. Indeed, the behavior of Trump’s enablers raises serious questions of whether their intent is to obstruct justice.
# # #
