Summary of Trump NY Crimes

I found two helpful summaries for those who wish to understand the nature of the law behind Trump's conviction. I retain my belief it was correctly brought, both legally and prudentially.* The crimes also have a sleazy aspect that is also a violation of how elections should be handled. 

The first article answers the basic questions a reader might have. The second provides a more detailed "pro" and "con" argument.  I will combine them in my summary below. 

In New York, it is a misdemeanor to falsify business records with “the intent to defraud.” It is a felony to do so to "commit another crime" or "aid or conceal" another crime when falsifying records.

The core of the scheme was money claimed to be for lawyer's [Michael Cohen] fees was really to pay off Stormy Daniels. Business records falsified for deception reasons are a misdemeanor. 

The "Trump did no wrong" brigade does not want to grant even this. But, it is generally granted he did this. Michael Cohen admitted guilt and other evidence was supplied to prove the case. 

The statute of limitations has run out for them. (I saw a discussion that it might not have but seems it was determined they had.) Felonies have a longer statute of limitations. Also, time spent outside of New York does not count for that. Not that a bunch of misdemeanors are totally trivial. 

The thirty-four counts corresponded to a check, invoice, and voucher generated to reimburse Cohen. Why was it a felony? The crime was done "to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” The second article calls this an "obscure" law. Nonetheless, it appears to be a standard campaign finance concern.

What is the "unlawful" means? The jury did not all have to agree with what specifically was unlawful. They had three options:

What exactly those "unlawful means" were in this case was up to the jury to decide. Prosecutors put forth three areas that they could consider: a violation of federal campaign finance laws, falsification of other business records or a violation of tax laws. 

This would address certain criticisms. For instance, some argue that an "attempt to defraud" has to be for concrete reasons, not something like hush money payments to protect your reputation during a campaign. 

But, New York law is more open-ended. Anyway, the violation of tax laws would alone cover that. It also helps refute the idea Michael Cohen got as much prison time as he did because of tax violations. 

The second article has a good general defense of the prosecution:

The prosecution’s argument rested on untested legal theories, not absurd ones. Contrary to the claims of prominent Republicans, Trump’s conviction does not prove that Democrats will stop at nothing to persecute their political adversaries. Rather, it proves that if a man perpetrates a wide variety of frauds over the course of decades — and routinely advertises his contempt for the rule of law — prosecutors may aggressively scrutinize the legality of his business records and get a bit creative in holding him legally accountable.

I dispute the idea that the only reason why the federal government did not prosecute Trump was that it was a hard case to bring against anyone. Nonetheless, little-used laws are in place for extreme cases. 

Trump qualifies here. The arguments against the prosecution try too hard.** They are more suitably applied to a law that severely hinders free speech. The specter of politically inspired prosecutions can be taken so far that they selectively provide immunity to those who run for office. This result would nullify the basic purpose of campaign finance laws.

I will not presumptively say that Trump will not win his appeals. Courts have bent over backward at times to narrowly interpret the general crimes involved here. But, my opening argument holds. 

==

* The fact that the NY criminal trial was the one that went first, taking the sting away from prosecuting a former president (officially), is an unfortunate result of Supreme Court stonewalling. 

Nonetheless, if this is the only trial before the election, it is better than nothing. Either way, it covers its own subject matter, particularly 2016 election interference. 

** For instance, one argument raised is that Michael Cohen's guilt, in the furtherance of his client's (Trump) interests, does not mean Trump himself is guilty. This doesn't pass the laugh test factoring everything in, including Trump's hands-on approach.