Bagh! Nobody is grappling with the real problem with this prosecution. It is a legal, not a factual weakness. What does Ben think about the strength of the prosecution’s case that this is a felony because done to conceal a second crime, when that second crime has not been prosecuted? That has always been seen as a weakness and as far as I can tell, this has not changed!
Bagh! Nobody is grappling with the real problem with this prosecution. It is a legal, not a factual weakness. What does Ben think about the strength of the prosecution’s case that this is a felony because done to conceal a second crime, when that second crime has not been prosecuted? That has always been seen as a weakness and as far as I can tell, this has not changed!
“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”
The all caps is mine, showing the heart of the controversy. On its face, the law says Trump only has to intend to commit another crime, not actually commit it or be proven to commit it. But is that right? Merchan ruled yes:
Merchan clarified that § 175.10 “does not require that the ‘other crime’ actually be committed”—“all that is required is that defendant … acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime.”
Our legal eagles on these podcasts should start by clearly explaining this, then describe whether they think it’s a novel theory, a sound theory, or a bogus theory. They should talk about whether Merchan’s ruling is a correct interpretation of NY law and if it is, whether that NY law is sound.
Doesn't matter, it's a weird staple of NY business fraud law. The second crime doesn't need to be adjudicated, just used to show the reason the initial fraud was committed. If the jury buys into the reason, the business fraud charges become felonies.
It might be an intellectual weakness (and one could agrue a moral weakness) but it's pretty covered under New York precedent. New York *charges* about 1000 Class E felonies a year and it's decently frequent that it's only the classified business records that are charged
(* Orginally said prosecuted but that's not right very, very few make it to trial as most plead out)
If it's intellectual weakness, it is a weakness of the law as written and therefore it's up to the legislature to "fix" it. The DA is using what the law offers.
Bagh! Nobody is grappling with the real problem with this prosecution. It is a legal, not a factual weakness. What does Ben think about the strength of the prosecution’s case that this is a felony because done to conceal a second crime, when that second crime has not been prosecuted? That has always been seen as a weakness and as far as I can tell, this has not changed!
Here's a good summary from Lawfare (the publication Ben Wittes) works for
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-legal-theory-behind-people-v.-trump
That IS good.
So in essence, NY law says:
“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”
The all caps is mine, showing the heart of the controversy. On its face, the law says Trump only has to intend to commit another crime, not actually commit it or be proven to commit it. But is that right? Merchan ruled yes:
Merchan clarified that § 175.10 “does not require that the ‘other crime’ actually be committed”—“all that is required is that defendant … acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime.”
Our legal eagles on these podcasts should start by clearly explaining this, then describe whether they think it’s a novel theory, a sound theory, or a bogus theory. They should talk about whether Merchan’s ruling is a correct interpretation of NY law and if it is, whether that NY law is sound.
Doesn't matter, it's a weird staple of NY business fraud law. The second crime doesn't need to be adjudicated, just used to show the reason the initial fraud was committed. If the jury buys into the reason, the business fraud charges become felonies.
It might be an intellectual weakness (and one could agrue a moral weakness) but it's pretty covered under New York precedent. New York *charges* about 1000 Class E felonies a year and it's decently frequent that it's only the classified business records that are charged
(* Orginally said prosecuted but that's not right very, very few make it to trial as most plead out)
If it's intellectual weakness, it is a weakness of the law as written and therefore it's up to the legislature to "fix" it. The DA is using what the law offers.