Why the hush money case against Donald Trump is on shaky ground
The Manhattan district attorney’s case against former President Donald Trump aptly illustrates the prescient warning that Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson issued in 1940, about the real danger that a prosecutor may “Pick the people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick the cases that need to be prosecuted.”
Now that the trial of Donald Trump is underway, it is clear that District Attorney Alvin Bragg, in his zeal to exact political revenge against a preselected target, has ignored a panoply of evidentiary matters that severely undermine the credibility of this prosecution.
First, the doubling of the amount paid to Michael Cohen in order to cover the taxes in the transaction is a significant fact that sheds light on Trump's state of mind. This is powerful evidence that Trump was attempting to comply with the law and did not have the requisite criminal intent.
It is also evidence that Trump could reasonably rely on the fact that Cohen was structuring the transaction properly. If one’s counsel is fastidious enough to ensure compliance with tax statutes, it is reasonable to assume that he has also vetted the propriety of the totality of the transaction. Trump’s only misstep here may have been relying on incompetent counsel who couldn’t structure a simple settlement agreement.
Second, the district attorney’s statement of facts glosses over the fact that the payments in question also included a bonus for Cohen. If the prosecution of a former president rests on the flimsy assumption that a settlement payment cannot be characterized as a “legal expenses” payment, how then are we to account for the bonus paid to Cohen? The bonus was likely for Cohen’s legal services in negotiating and effectuating the settlement. The entry on the ledger of legal expenses is therefore correct.
And even if, arguendo, it is not complete, is it credible to believe that Donald Trump somehow should have been aware of the precise nomenclature that the accountants would use on the general ledger?
Third, the prosecution is predicated on the notion that it was a crime to withhold damaging information from the American public before the election. Setting aside that all political campaigns by their very nature attempt to minimize potentially negative information, the allegations about Trump and Daniels were already in the public domain anyway, as they had been mentioned in a 2007 radio interview and had been published in a 2011 blog, The Dirty. In the parlance of insider trading, the information was already public.
For the mythical voters for whom the information about Daniels was material to their vote, they were certainly not unable to obtain it. Under Bragg’s convoluted theory, how were voters denied information that had already been made public a decade earlier? Was it Trump’s obligation to assist in publicizing what was arguably an extortion attempt?
Moreover, Bragg has asserted that Trump should have made this payment through campaign funds. But, of course, if he had made the payment with campaign funds, the Federal Election Commission would have cited Trump with the improper use of campaign funds. As the government learned in the prosecution of 2004 and 2008 Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, just because a payment has the ancillary benefit of helping a campaign doesn’t render it a campaign expense.
Of course, Trump had very real personal and family reasons wholly distinct from his campaign to enter into a settlement agreement.
Bragg’s crusade also conveniently ignores that the campaign expense filing would not have been due until after the election. It ignores the fact that there are no victims in this matter and that Trump did not have any pecuniary gain. If Bragg adheres to his bizarre theory that the voters were victims by being denied information, then by definition there could not have been a single “victim” in New York state, as it was a foregone conclusion that Hillary Clinton would win New York’s electoral votes.
Similarly, Bragg’s ludicrous reliance on Cohen’s guilty plea to federal election charges cannot have evidentiary value with respect to Trump. The fact that one party is pressured by prosecutors to plead guilty to a federal crime cannot be used to blithely assert against another party that such a crime was committed. Rather, it is evidence that either Cohen did not mount a proper defense or that he was too compromised with other allegations and that it was therefore in his personal interest to plead guilty.
Mark Pomeranz, who worked at the Manhattan district attorney’s office, described in his book, “People v. Donald Trump: An Inside Account,” that it was an "aggravating factor" in this case that Trump was running for president. To put it another way, the aggravating factor of being Donald Trump therefore bestows up prosecutors carte blanche to charge him with purported crimes that no one else has ever been charged with. Indeed, Justice Jackson’s famous admonition has come to fruition. A jury in Manhattan has now been seated, and a jury of 300 million Americans will render their verdict on Nov. 5.
George G. Demos is a former United States Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement attorney and an Adjunct Professor at U.C. Davis School of Law where he teaches corporate and white collar crime.
Date: | |
Tag: | Donald Trump |
Filter
-
Donald J. Trump’s Scandals Captivate the Court, but Hush-Money Case Hangs on Dry Details
Prosecutors started their criminal case against Donald J. Trump with eye-catching and lurid stories, but the heart of the matter is invoices and ledger entries.The New York Times - Top stories - Donald Trump -
Trump rails against Cohen call evidence at hush money trial
Former President Trump on Friday complained about a recording of a phone call between him and Michael Cohen played as evidence during his hush money trial. Trump, in a post on Truth Social, said the tape, “while good for my case, was cut off at ...The Hill - Politics - Donald Trump -
Hope Hicks tells hush-money jury of Trump’s control over 2016 campaign
Ex-president’s former communications director says Access Hollywood tape ‘was a crisis’ for his campaign. Hope Hicks, Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign press secretary, broke into tears on Friday while testifying in the ex-president’s New York criminal ...The Guardian - World - Donald Trump -
Alvin Bragg's entire case against Trump hinges on a disbarred serial perjurer
Before the bailiff administers the oath to Michael Cohen, Judge Juan Merchan might have to warn the spectators in the courtroom not to laugh.The Hill - Politics - Donald Trump
More from The Hill
-
Kim Godwin out at ABC News
Kim Godwin is leaving as the head of ABC News, she announced to employees on Sunday evening. Godwin is retiring after what she called a time of “considerable reflection," she wrote in a note obtained by The Hill. In another note to staff, Debra ...The Hill - Politics -
Biden administration pauses ammunition shipment to Israel: Report
The Biden administration halted a shipment of ammunition bound for Israel last week, Axios first reported, as pressure rises over the Israeli military’s promised invasion of Rafah in Gaza. Israeli officials were left scrambling as to why the ...The Hill - Politics - Joe Biden -
Boeing's Starliner spacecraft to launch first crewed mission
Boeing’s first crewed mission of its Starliner spacecraft is set to launch Monday night, a milestone for the aerospace manufacturer. The Starliner is scheduled to lift off at about 10:30 p.m. Monday, weather permitting, carrying two NASA ...The Hill - Politics -
UCLA announces new campus safety office after violent protests
The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) said it will create a new office focused on campus safety after violence broke out at a pro-Palestine protest encampment last week. Dozens of protesters were injured after counterprotesters ...The Hill - Politics -
White House: Trump Gestapo comment echoes 'appalling rhetoric of fascists'
The White House on Sunday slammed former President Trump after he compared the Biden administration to the Gestapo police force in Nazi Germany. "Instead of echoing the appalling rhetoric of fascists, lunching with Neo Nazis, and fanning debunked ...The Hill - Politics - Donald Trump