Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)


(12,558 posts)
Tue Apr 16, 2024, 07:01 PM Apr 16

An absolutely fantastic summary of the NYC "Hush Money Trial" of Donald Trump [View all]

I've been looking for something like this for days... this is good. All the legal nuts and bolts.


There are several layers that I believe District Attorney Bragg must show to convict Trump of committing a felony under Penal Law § 175.10.

First, Bragg must show that Trump made the false business records with intent to commit “fraud,” otherwise Trump would not be guilty of a crime at all, because falsifying business records for non-fraudulent purposes is not a crime under the statute.

Second, the District Attorney must show that the reason for Trump’s false entries was to commit or cover up a separate crime, presumably separate from the fraud. If the separate crime is the election law violation, Trump would have had to know that the payment was an election law violation, and to have falsified the records to cover it up that crime. It seems to me that the election law violation would be stronger, not weaker, by making it look like Cohen was the one making the payments for Trump. Disguising the payments through Cohen made it look more like an election law violation by a supporter, not less. Or was Trump trying to disguise the payments to prevent his family or the public from knowing about the embarrassing allegations, rather than covering up an independent crime?

I believe the District Attorney must show (1) that the payments were disguised as attorney fees to commit a fraud on someone, (2) that the underlying payments constituted an independent crime, (3) that Trump knew that the underlying payments constituted a crime, and (4) that the reason he covered up the payments was to disguise that crime. Those are going to be hard things to prove.

There. Now you know more than the content creators on the MSM attempting to tell you about the case.
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»An absolutely fantastic s...