The Donald Trump hush-money case is now in full swing, and prosecuting attorneys took no time at all to come out swinging at Trump.
On Tuesday, New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass revealed the "other crime" that was allegedly committed by Trump.
Talking Points…
- Bragg prosecutors reveal "other crime"
- Reaction to early days of proceedings
- Analysis
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg has charged Donald Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. He did this by stacking ledger entries related to hush-money payments made during the 2016 election cycle. According to Bragg, Trump miscategorized the transactions.
Steinglass tried to explain to the court on Tuesday that the "other crime" committed by Trump, in violation of New York law, was "conspiracy to promote or prevent an election." They are going to try to prove that Trump's alleged felonies were a conspiracy to help promote his candidacy. Prosecutor Michael Colangelo added that the case against Trump is "about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up." He added:
"Those three men formed a conspiracy to influence the election."
But Trump's defense attorney, Todd Blanche, immediately pushed back on that statement, telling the court:
"None of this was a crime. People say that Trump is trying to cover up payments – think … President Trump did not pay Cohen back $130,000. He paid Cohen $420,000.
"Would a frugal businessman repay a $130,000 debt to the tune of $420,000?"
In response to the early days of the trial and the narrative being pitched by Bragg's prosecutors, Boston University law professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman posted an op-ed in the New York Times, absolutely shredding the prosecution for having failed to specify "an election crime or a valid theory of fraud." He added:
"Mr. Trump's lawyers argued that the New York statute requires that the predicate (underlying) crime must also be a New York crime, not a crime in another jurisdiction.
"The Manhattan DA responded with judicial precedents only about other criminal statutes, not the statute in this case. In the end, they could not cite a single judicial interpretation of this particular statute supporting their use of the statute."
Shugerman went on to slam Bragg, accusing him of taking part in "Manhattan politics" rather than evenly applying the law for prosecution. He stated:
"This case is still an embarrassment of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selective prosecution.
"But if Monday's opening is a preview of exaggerated allegations, imprecise legal theories and persistently unaddressed problems, the prosecutors might not win a conviction at all."
From the outset, I have considered this the weakest of all the federal cases that Trump will face. I have also stated that due to the judge and jury pool, I expect Trump to be convicted, but like Shugerman, I also expect that Trump will win this case on appeal. At some point, a judge will see through this facade and right what is a very loose interpretation of the law by Bragg's office. This will not be the case that takes Donald Trump down… of that, I am sure.
