Bragg’s critics say this is an outrageous allegation, not because Trump is not to blame for falsifying records, but because Bragg would never make such a ridiculous accusation against anyone other than Trump. Bragg is a Democrat elected in the radical mold of the “progressive prosecutor”; his default setting is anti-law enforcement, and he campaigned in blue, blue Manhattan, promising to exploit the workplace strength of the prosecutor who opposes Trump.
In Stormy Daniels’ embrace, Michael Cohen, then Trump’s “fixer,” paid $130,000 to get the porn star (whose genuine calling is Stephanie Clifford) to keep quiet about an affair she claims to have had with Trump in 2006. There is nothing illegalabout such a confidentiality agreement; in fact, NDAs are a fundamental detail of resolving civil disputes and personal settlements.
NYPD COMMISSIONER ADAMS HOLDS SECURITY BRIEFING AHEAD OF TRUMP OUTBURST: ‘CONTROL YOURSELF’
However, corporations that do business and pay taxes in New York, such as the Trump organization, must keep accurate books and records, so if an NDA relates to the business, it should be how it should be accounted for. Here, Cohen sought reimbursement from the Trump Organization, where he worked when he filed the NDA with Daniels days before the 2016 election. It was agreed that Cohen would be reimbursed. (I’m employing the passive voice here because, while it’s indisputable that Trump reimbursed Cohen, the extent to which he was concerned about the design and main points of the rebate will be disputed. )
It is clear that the resulting industry documents are false: Trump actually paid a debt he owed Cohen; however, in the files, it was revealed that Cohen, an attorney, paid a fee for ongoing legal representation.
In short, the $130,000 Trump owed Cohen was doubled to $260,000 to make sure Cohen didn’t suffer a tax hit. (Legal fees are taxable income; payment of a debt is not. )Cohen then had to file a monthly bill for 2017 and it was paid through monthly installments: the first checks drawn on Trump’s revocable account and signed with the account (Donald Trump Jr. and the organization’s chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg), the others signed with President Trump himself, and drawn from his private bank account.
TRUMP’S LAWYER SAYS HE HOPES TO MAKE MOTION TO DISMISS MANHATTAN GRAND JURY CHARGES
(The above is a simplified explanation. Cohen was owed other money for cross-polling and also earned a bonus; they were added to the $260,000 similar to the NDA and included in invoices sent through Cohen and checks he earned. . in payment. )
Since the log entries that make repayment of a loan look like paying legal fees are fake, is Trump to blame for the crime of falsifying business documents?Not necessarily.
In an interview Sunday with Fox News’ Shannon Bream, former Attorney General Bill Barr said Bragg’s case had no legal basis. Being a crime, you have to go out to defraud someone, and you don’t know precisely who defrauded. It’s his business. “
The former GA makes a point.
The New York burglars law that codifies the crime of forgery of documents is Section 175. 05. In the applicable part, it states: “A user is at fault for falsifying records. . . When, in order to defraud,. . . makes or motivates false access to a company’s records” (emphasis added).
As Barr points out, it’s not enough for prosecutors to prove that a defendant made false access to business records. Section 175. 05 explicitly adds the distinction and detail of proving that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud.
CLICK HERE FOR THE REVIEW BULLETIN
It would be understandable, especially for non-lawyers, to ask, “What can be more indicative of fraudulent intent than making a false entry?”irreproachable and the slightest doubt.
In legal interpretation, we have interaction in a presumption opposed to what is called “surplus”. This means that we assume that legislators do not upload situations to a law without any explanation. Applying this precept here, we will have to conclude that if the mere fact of making a false access was sufficient to be guilty, there would be no explanation for the New York legislators to raise that the forgery had been done “with the intent to defraud”—those words would only be an unnecessary surplus.
This is similar to federal misrepresentation cases. We refer to the crime as making a “false statement. “But not all false statements are prosecuted; Federal law adds that falsehood will have to be a curtain, it will have to be a curtain for the case under investigation. In New York law, “intent to defraud” serves the same function: it ensures that the law does not criminalize trivial false entries. that they do not harm anyone.
There is a dispute in the law about what “intent to defraud” means. Prosecutors still need it explained in general terms, for the law to come up with any deceptive action, as if “intent to defraud” were a surplus. The defendant needs the expression to be reduced to its non-unusual meaning: seeking to discharge cash or assets under false pretenses.
Expect Trump’s lawyers to push hard for the interpretation of this moment. We have not yet noticed the allegation, but so far there is no indication that New York State has been harmed in the slightest, let alone financially, through the falsification of records.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Trump will argue, plausibly, that his only goal is to cover up a silent monetary deal with a porn star, not to let anyone down. evasion, even though Bragg’s office has prosecuted the Trump Organization and its most sensible financial official for minor tax crimes.
Rest assured: If there was evidence that victims were scammed because Trump defrauded them, the government that originally had this investigation would never have abandoned it.
CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ANDREW McCARTHY
Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and editor-in-chief of National Review. Follow him on Twitter@andrewcmccarthy