When one thinks of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, chances are their mind immediately goes to the recent bombshell criminal indictment against Donald J. Trump in the infamous Stormy Daniels hush money case. However, that historical indictment isn’t the only thing Bragg has going against the corrupt ex-president.
The Manhattan DA also maintains business fraud charges against Trump that have been cloaked in mystery for some time now, with very few details making it into the public light. What we do know, is that Bragg bears the burden of proving that the Trump-related fraud was committed to cover up another underlying crime, if he wants to elevate the charges against the ex-president from mere misdemeanors to felonies.
To date, Bragg has yet to confirm what the underlying crime even is in this case, and has even gone so far as to consistently decline the “bill of particulars” requests repeatedly made by Trump’s legal team. Allies of the former president have latched on to this specific move by Bragg and attempted to leverage it as some sort of “proof” that the DA’s entire case against the ex-president is illegitimate.
But according to some of the nation’s top legal experts, Bragg has a method to his madness, a bit of a secret legal weapon, if you will, and according to the leading minds on the matter, it’s damning for Donald Trump.
Stay up-to-date with the latest news!
Subscribe and start recieving our daily emails.
Legal experts Paula Junghans, Norm Eisen, Siven Watt, Joshua Stanton, and Fred Wertheimer penned a new analysis for Just Security, in which they break down what they believe is DA Bragg’s brutal legal method against Donald Trump.
“The main facts of the case have been known for some time,” the collective of experts wrote in the new piece. “DA Bragg alleges that, in October 2016, Trump had attorney Michael Cohen pay adult film actress Stormy Daniels (whose real name is Stephanie Clifford) a $130,000 payment to prevent her from publicizing an alleged sexual encounter she had with Trump.”
“To conceal the hush money payment, it was agreed that Cohen would make the payment to Daniels via a shell company (Essential Consultants), on the agreement that Trump would later reimburse Cohen.”
According to the experts, it’s violations of US tax law that tie this whole mess together and open the door for the elevation of charges to felonies — not just on a state level, but possible federal felonies against the former president.
“Because Bragg’s response to the request for a bill of particulars leaves open the door that other offenses than those listed might also serve as the ‘bump-up’ predicates to the falsifying business records charges, in addition to New York state tax statutes, we also consider the possibility that prosecutors will attempt to leverage federal tax offenses for this purpose,” the analysis reads.
“Two statutes appear most relevant: Declaration under Penalties of Perjury (26 U.S.C. 7206(1)), and Willful Assistance in Preparation of False or Fraudulent Tax Documents (26 U.S.C. 7206(2)).”
If Trump is found to be in violation of these laws, it would mean that he was guilty of misrepresenting his finances on legal tax documents, for the purpose of defrauding the state in an effort to acquire more favorable financial situations for himself and his business. Now, some of these crimes are just misdemeanors in and of themselves. However, they turn into far larger legal efforts for the big guy because when you commit business fraud to cover up those misdemeanors, you’re then looking at a felony.
“Whatever the effectiveness of such a bump-up based on the alleged primary campaign finance violations, pursuing an approach based upon state tax violations is wise and well grounded,” the legal experts concluded in their analysis.
“The strongest case involves statements to tax authorities falsely characterizing the payments to Michael Cohen as ‘legal fees,’ rather than their true nature (reimbursements for a hush money payment). A strong case could also involve other variations on state criminal tax violations, as well as possible federal ones.”
Read the full analysis piece from Just Security here.
Featured image via screen capture
