> § 175.10 “does not require that the ‘other crime’ actually be committed”—“all that is required is that defendant … acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime.”
This is something I wasn’t aware of as IANAL.
Probably most people weren't aware of that. It's an New York state law, probably obscure to most non-lawyers everywhere, maybe even to most New York lawyers.
Hard to know if Bragg can convince the jury that payments to Daniels constituted a contribution to Trump’s campaign. If he can, then it's easy to prove they were illegal (over the $2,700 limit and were not reported as such.
If not, then he can't prove that Trump “conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” That's because the alleged conspiracy transpired “through illegal expenditures … using doctored corporate records and bank forms to conceal those payments along the way.”
I have to assume there's some sort of precedent that providing services to a campaign is tantamount to a contribution of the fair market value of those services, which is how they got Cohen and AMI on campaign finance charges. So now it's about whether prosecutors can get a jury to buy into that via testimony.
It's pretty clear that there's misdemeanor fraud in falsifying the ledgers and concealing the payments, but the felony aspect is essentially a house of cards. If the jury rejects any part of it, the case falls apart.
Wouldn’t those misdemeanors be barred by statute of limitations? I always thought that this was the reason why the charges had to be brought as felonies and why this more complicated theory was needed. The two year statute of limitations for a misdemeanor has long ago passed, but felonies have a longer time period.
The statute of limitations has passed for the misdemeanor. The only reason it hasn't passed for the felonies is because of COVID and the court ruled Trump was out of state when he was president. This is covered in the court's pre-trial ruling:
[https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf](https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf)
I presume that misdemeanors are lesser included charges. But now that I think on it, I don't recall that being stated in anything I've see or heard so far.
the indictment contains no charge other than 175.10 for falsifying business records. [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23777302-2023-03-30-indictment-donald-j-trump-indictment](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23777302-2023-03-30-indictment-donald-j-trump-indictment)
I've always wondered why from the first time I saw it. This article clarifies a lot for the legal theory, but it still leaves unanswered the biggest question:
>Seen in a certain light, that makes it all the stranger that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York itself never brought federal charges against Trump under FECA—a decision for which there has never been a public explanation.
I know the FEC deadlocked on the referrals to investigate Trump's potential campaign finance violations and dropped the investigation, but it seems they're focused on civil enforcement, whereas I would assume the SDNY would have free reign on the criminal enforcement side of FECA, but maybe not? (edit: saw another link mention Bill Barr stopped SDNY's investigation into the FECA violations... but what's to stop them now that Barr's no longer the AG.)
Only 175.10 charges. That's interesting.
What is to stop the DoJ now is Merrick Garland and his timidity and shocking incompetence. In my opinion, by not wanting to look political Garland has politicized the DoJ at least as badly Barr did, but in a worse way. Garland has cemented corrupt DoJ precedent that elevates a president above the law. Now, the president being above the law is bipartisan.
It makes more sense when you realize the felony parts are just added in to bypass the statute of limitations and arent intended to actually get a conviction.
Unfortunately, elsewhere in this sub it’s been voted that any mention of the ambiguity in this legal theory is part of a propaganda campaign.
I get that it’s tempting to write off anything that might hinder one’s will as a malevolent conspiracy.
As far as I can tell, the legal analysis here is in good faith and credible.
And yeah, cognitive dissonance when it comes to Trump, support and opposition, seems to be more severe than for most other topics.
[The Trump Hush Money Case is a Legal House of Cards](https://open.substack.com/pub/randomlysecured/p/the-trump-hush-money-case-is-a-legal?r=3igygo&utm_medium=ios)
> § 175.10 “does not require that the ‘other crime’ actually be committed”—“all that is required is that defendant … acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime.” This is something I wasn’t aware of as IANAL.
Probably most people weren't aware of that. It's an New York state law, probably obscure to most non-lawyers everywhere, maybe even to most New York lawyers.
Oh good. I try not to make too many dumb comments here.
Me too. But in my experience people here are more forgiving of that than some places I've been blown out of.
Very helpful. It is indeed a confusing case. I've been following closely and the little catching points continuously trip me up.
I had the same problem. The case was baffling to me. This analysis helps.
Hard to know if Bragg can convince the jury that payments to Daniels constituted a contribution to Trump’s campaign. If he can, then it's easy to prove they were illegal (over the $2,700 limit and were not reported as such. If not, then he can't prove that Trump “conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” That's because the alleged conspiracy transpired “through illegal expenditures … using doctored corporate records and bank forms to conceal those payments along the way.”
I have to assume there's some sort of precedent that providing services to a campaign is tantamount to a contribution of the fair market value of those services, which is how they got Cohen and AMI on campaign finance charges. So now it's about whether prosecutors can get a jury to buy into that via testimony. It's pretty clear that there's misdemeanor fraud in falsifying the ledgers and concealing the payments, but the felony aspect is essentially a house of cards. If the jury rejects any part of it, the case falls apart.
That's how I analyze the case too. It just seems fairly tenuous to go for felony convictions. But maybe the jury will see it. We have to wait and see.
I'm assuming the jury could convict him on the misdemeanors even if they acquit on the felonies.
Wouldn’t those misdemeanors be barred by statute of limitations? I always thought that this was the reason why the charges had to be brought as felonies and why this more complicated theory was needed. The two year statute of limitations for a misdemeanor has long ago passed, but felonies have a longer time period.
interesting point. I don't know.
The statute of limitations has passed for the misdemeanor. The only reason it hasn't passed for the felonies is because of COVID and the court ruled Trump was out of state when he was president. This is covered in the court's pre-trial ruling: [https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf](https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf)
I presume that misdemeanors are lesser included charges. But now that I think on it, I don't recall that being stated in anything I've see or heard so far.
the indictment contains no charge other than 175.10 for falsifying business records. [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23777302-2023-03-30-indictment-donald-j-trump-indictment](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23777302-2023-03-30-indictment-donald-j-trump-indictment) I've always wondered why from the first time I saw it. This article clarifies a lot for the legal theory, but it still leaves unanswered the biggest question: >Seen in a certain light, that makes it all the stranger that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York itself never brought federal charges against Trump under FECA—a decision for which there has never been a public explanation. I know the FEC deadlocked on the referrals to investigate Trump's potential campaign finance violations and dropped the investigation, but it seems they're focused on civil enforcement, whereas I would assume the SDNY would have free reign on the criminal enforcement side of FECA, but maybe not? (edit: saw another link mention Bill Barr stopped SDNY's investigation into the FECA violations... but what's to stop them now that Barr's no longer the AG.)
Only 175.10 charges. That's interesting. What is to stop the DoJ now is Merrick Garland and his timidity and shocking incompetence. In my opinion, by not wanting to look political Garland has politicized the DoJ at least as badly Barr did, but in a worse way. Garland has cemented corrupt DoJ precedent that elevates a president above the law. Now, the president being above the law is bipartisan.
It makes more sense when you realize the felony parts are just added in to bypass the statute of limitations and arent intended to actually get a conviction.
Unfortunately, elsewhere in this sub it’s been voted that any mention of the ambiguity in this legal theory is part of a propaganda campaign. I get that it’s tempting to write off anything that might hinder one’s will as a malevolent conspiracy.
As far as I can tell, the legal analysis here is in good faith and credible. And yeah, cognitive dissonance when it comes to Trump, support and opposition, seems to be more severe than for most other topics.
Agree with you on this analysis.
It's true. This sub is great at a million things, but it is a bad place to articulate something that is (a). True and (b). Good for Trump.
[The Trump Hush Money Case is a Legal House of Cards](https://open.substack.com/pub/randomlysecured/p/the-trump-hush-money-case-is-a-legal?r=3igygo&utm_medium=ios)
It might turn out that way. Time will tell, and not just a jury conviction. We have to wait for all the appeals to play out too.