The very thin case against Donald Trump in New York
Considering that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s unsealed indictment of former President Donald Trump is 16 pages thick, the charges are remarkably thin.
Bragg charged Trump with 34 violations of Penal Law Section 175.10, “Falsifying business records in the first degree.” According to the state code, “A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” However, the indictment makes no mention of what other crime Trump allegedly had the “intent” to commit and conceal.
The grand jury charged a separate class E felony for each entry in the Trump business records showing that a payment was made to his then-attorney Michael Cohen. According to the indictment, the “false” entries were made between Feb. 14 and Dec. 5, 2017, during the time Trump was president.
At a news conference after the court proceeding, Bragg said the evidence will show that Trump made an arrangement with Michael Cohen and the publisher of the National Enquirer in 2015 to “catch and kill” potentially damaging stories about him that individuals might seek to sell to the tabloids. “As part of the scheme,” Bragg told reporters, payments were made to three people claiming to have negative information about Trump.
Bragg said “the participants’ scheme was illegal” under New York state election law, “which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means.” Yet the indictment did not cite that law or charge the former president with violating it.
Separate from the political overtones of this indictment, an issue that should concern all Americans is the intentional stacking of charges in order to add up more potential prison time. Thirty-four class E felony counts could result in 136 years in prison. For anyone who isn’t named Donald Trump, the pressure to agree to a plea bargain, pleading guilty even if innocent, can be overwhelming. The alternative is to face ruinous legal costs, risk a long prison sentence and endure years of life-destroying uncertainty.
Over-charging defendants to coerce a guilty plea is an abusive tactic that shouldn’t be used against a presidential candidate in the middle of an election cycle, or anybody else.
Of course, no one is above the law, not even current or former presidents. But in this case, even critics of Trump are likely to agree, upon reviewing the facts, that the charges here are too thin to justify.