I would really like to see Donald Trump indicted over his efforts to overturn the election results in Georgia. The problem is that it would be a tough case since Trump was savvy enough to avoid saying outright, "Hey, just invent the extra votes I need." Still, everyone knows that's exactly what he meant, and it's a serious crime. Trump deserves to go to prison for that.
Ditto for the classified documents case. The problem is not that Trump took the documents when he left office. That might have been a mistake, after all. The problem is that even when he knew he had classified documents in his possession and he knew that the government wanted them back, he refused to return them. That's why the FBI had to get a warrant to search Mar-a-Lago. Trump deserves to go to trial for that too.¹
But you go to war with the charges you have, not with the charges you wish you had. And right now, the charges we have are related to payoffs Trump made to a porn star. Here's my understanding of the case:
- In 2006 Trump (allegedly) had an affair with Stormy Daniels. This is not illegal.
- Daniels threatened to tell her story while Trump was running for president in 2016. This is not illegal. (Not for Trump, anyway.)
- Trump agreed to pay her off. This is not illegal.
- But Trump wanted to keep it a secret, so he asked Michael Cohen to handle the payoff money. Trump would then reimburse Cohen. This is not illegal.
- Trump reimbursed Cohen via payments from the Trump Organization. If this were a public company, that would be illegal. But it's not, so apparently it isn't.
- However, in order to maintain the secrecy, the payments to Cohen were labeled "legal expenses."
And that's illegal. Moreover, you can argue that the payoff was a campaign expense that Trump didn't report. That would be illegal too.
So the case against Trump is this: In order to keep his payoff of a blackmailer secret, he had it labeled as a legal expense.
This strikes me as pretty trivial, and I have my doubts that a jury would convict Trump if it goes to trial. We should probably save our legal firepower for something more serious.
And like it or not, public opinion matters too. One of the mistakes that Republicans made in their impeachment jihad against Bill Clinton was misjudging public opinion. To them, Clinton lied under oath, and a lie is a lie. It was an open and shut case.
But the public never really agreed. To them, it mattered what the lie was about. In Clinton's case, he was lying about having an affair with a White House aide. To most people, this seemed (a) not all that big a deal, (b) completely unrelated to his fitness as president, and (c) something that of course he lied about. Anybody would. Come on.
Democrats may be making the same mistake here. To us, Trump falsified his business records, and a lie is a lie. It's an open and shut case.
But the public, as usual, will care what the lie was about. They're likely to think it's (a) not all that big a deal, (b) completely unrelated to his fitness as president, and (c) something that of course he lied about. He was being blackmailed! Come on.
So tread carefully here.
POSTSCRIPT: The bizarre thing is that Trump did this in the first place. The traditional way of making payoffs like this is with a suitcase full of cash. If Trump had just done that in the first place he wouldn't be in any trouble.
¹But I'm not sure what the sentence should if he were convicted.
Legal fees are tax-deductible business expenses, and porn-star hush money is not. So Trump avoided a bunch of state taxes by doing it this way. That's a real crime!
To me a key question is: what's the usual legal sanction in NY State for tax evasion of this sort? We'll have to wait and see what the indictment says, but either Trump the individual or one of his business entities would appear to have underreported income to the tune of $130K. I suspect people don't normally do prison time for tax evasion of this degree in NYS (rather, they face civil penalties). But admittedly I haven't looked into it. I think the case might be stronger than Kevin infers if it's common for folks to do time in such cases in New York. But if not, Kevin's probably correct that this isn't a particularly strong case.
It's more like $280K because they grossed it up because Cohen would have to pay taxes on it as income.
But that does not answer your question. I don't know the answer to your question.
the obvious thing that is illegal is that he took a tax write-off for the payment, since it was categorized as a legal expense. I would assume legal expenses are indeed legitimate business expenses that you can write off for tax purpose. But hush money payments so that your pregnant wife and your electoral opponents don't know that you are cheating with a porn actress? That doesn't strike me as tax exempt.
Yeah I think the crimes are the tax fraud and campaign finance.
Edwards was charged and went on trial for the campaign finance thing when he paid off his mistress, I don’t think he did the tax fraud part.
Regarding the public opinion: I think the majority of the public knows that Trump is a liar and a cheater. So have him indicted for lying and cheating probably aligns with public opinion. "Of course Bill Clinton lied" about it may not move the needle, but that's the same with Trump: no one will be offended if he's indicted for cheating on his taxes. There is also a major difference: you may relate with Bill Clinton's lying - you probably know people who had affairs; but with Trump, he's lying about hush payments to a porn actress. There is an (alleged) affair underneath, but who can relate with: "here's $130,000 for you to shut up, you porn actress."
"The bizarre thing is that Trump did this in the first place. The traditional way of making payoffs like this is with a suitcase full of cash." Yeah, but if you do it this way, you don't get to deduct the payment from your taxes as legal expenses! There's nothing bizarre in Trump cheating on his taxes.
What is bizarre is that his tax returns kinda fizzled. There is the investigation in lying to banks about his property valuation. But that's it? What's happening with the other stuff that was suspicious in the taxes? Why was he trying so hard to hide them?
The story as it's been reported is that Michael Cohen literally could not figure out how to get his hands on that amount of money at the speed it was required. So he ended up taking out a home equity line of credit to come up with the money, which obviously was easily traceable by investigators looking into Cohen's dealings.
Any way you slice it, it's because Trump is a skinflint and possibly cash-poor. He either a) figured he'd pinch pennies on his taxes, even on a matter that could swing his presidential run; b) refused to just give Cohen the cash himself because, well, he didn't wanna: maybe he figured he could eventually screw Cohen out of reimbursement, too, just like he does with everyone else he does business with.
Even if Trump hadn't classified the payment as a deductible expense, it'd still reduce his net income and therefore his taxes, right?
Are you being snarky?
On what planet does spending money on stuff that isn’t a deductible expense lower your net income and reduce your taxes? I bought groceries today that doesn’t lower my net income, I’m going to a concert tonight, the cost of the ticket doesn’t lower my net income.
In the business world, where you reduce your profit that is taxable, how is that akin to you buying groceries?
The correct tax treatment is not to reduce your profit, pay taxes on all profit, and then use post-tax money to pay all non-business-related expenses, such as food for your family, your home electricity bill, and your porn-star hush money payments.
The problem is precisely that business gets special treatment in a way that personal does not.
I believe the analysis below is basically correct, but welcome corrections.
Suppose that I am a Hollywood studio and, to get my movie made, I need to get my star sober, so I pay rehab. Business expense?
OK, suppose my star got involved with a porn star so I pay hush money. Business expense?
OK, now suppose Trump claims that his business is essentially one of personal brand and self-promotion (which is basically true, like say, a Kardashian).
So now the *business organization* is making payments on behalf of its star (Donald Trump). Is that so far a leap?
Yes, we can mock that it's not like an affair with Stormy Daniels would hurt the pristine Trump brand. But that's not the point – you're allowed to make dumb business expenses based on a deluded idea of what the public thinks, and Hollywood does so all the time.
Now mislabelling the payments as legal expenses, that's unjustifiable. But it's also minor. The supposed tax evasion, that I think could be argued away and by a not especially unreasonable argument.
Don't like this outcome? Change the law! It doesn't have to be the case that businesses can expense random BS on behalf of their stars; this could be changed to something like "business gets to expense salary and that's it"...
(Of course that will not actually change anything material, it will just shuffle the labels!
Instead of an unlabeled payoff, Stormy Daniels will be taken on-board as a "Brand Consultant" or something equally vague, get her money as employment compensation, and still no tax is paid. That's life kid, sometimes things are unfair; and sometimes things that you think are unfair are just not important in the grand scheme of things.)
"...get her money as employment compensation, and still no tax is paid. .."
She would owe tax.
Are you saying she didn't owe tax on the payoff under the current scheme?
(a) Why not?
(b) I find it hard to believe that she did NOT pay tax on the payoff. Given the fury surrounding this issue, I suspect that if she missed paying even one dollar on that income, some section of the press would be coming after her and publicizing this to the skies.
"Democrats may be making the same mistake here."
You mean Democrat? It's Alvin Bragg's call. The rest of us have nothing to do with it.
But if you mean all Democrats who would like to see Trump indicted and prosecuted for any and all of his crimes but have been watching and waiting literally for years for a prosecutor somewhere -- anywhere! -- to file charges, then I think this applies:
"And like it or not, public opinion matters too."
Why assume Democrats (like me) don't count when people like Alvin Bragg ought to consider public opinion?
We are in our 8th freaking year of the orange man blatantly breaking the law and (so far) getting away with it. For all the good reasons that is an abomination, I'll give you one: What about the children? What does that say to our future generations about justice in America? Don't blame them for being cynical and pessimistic about our country if the lesson you want them to learn is that Trump was a big shot and above the law.
My son was in elementary school when stories about "Trump's growing legal troubles" became a regular feature on our nightly news. It's the same damn story every night. Nothing has changed. My son will be in college before Trump will ever stand trial (if he does at all). Christ Almighty, enough is enough.
Well said. Count me also in the segment of public opinion who thinks Trump is not above the law. I don't understand the logic of failing to prosecute him for this because it is not his most serious crime.
Worst would be not to prosecute him. Second worst is that the jury lets him beat the rap. But at least future generations would see that the American system tried to mete out justice.
I'll take second worst over worst if it comes to that. And it might not. Kevin is wrong here.
Isn't falsifying business records what Martha Stewart went to jail for?
I thought it was insider trading ...
Could be wrong but, I think Martha Stewart thought she might be guilty of insider trading, even though she wasn't, so she lied to the FBI about it. Basically she went to prison for lying to conceal a crime she didn't commit.
Wasn't there something about her erasing a line from an account book then writing it back in without changing it that they called falsifying business records?
How about we not talk about Trump, and just let the legal systems work their way through his cases.
That way, we're not caught in a trap of making hay of something Trump said was imminent, but never comes, allowing Trump to sell it as proof of his power and righteousness.
I’m for this. We don’t yet know whether Alvin Bragg will file charges or not, or what the charges, if any, might be. Meanwhile, the discussion that has been stirred up is helping TFG fleece his cult yet more.
I think it's work considering that sophisticated criminal actors are basically always going to get indicted for trivial-seeming things, because they are sophisticated criminal actors who understand the major laws that they are breaking very well and are focused on avoiding getting implicated in them.
That's how you get to be a sophisticated criminal- you develop skills around doing crimes that involve avoiding being legally culpable for those crimes. There isn't really a choice like "indict Al Capone for a real crime or indict him for tax fraud", because Al Capone used a lot of his focus and expertise making sure that he couldn't be indicted for murder.
This strikes me as pretty trivial, and I have my doubts that a jury would convict Trump if it goes to trial.
A lot about how Bragg has handled this has bugged me. I don't understand what he's doing. One theory that fits the facts is that he is feeling pressured to indict, but doesn't want to convict - as if this were a cop. So he's intentionally throwing it. If that's the case, I hope his payoff is worth it...
But I don't think that's it. I really don't understand the thinking of effectively tossing all the case development Vance did, and then pushing ahead with this instead.
"...The traditional way of making payoffs like this is with a suitcase full of cash. If Trump had just done that in the first place he wouldn't be in any trouble."
You might ask Dennis Hastert about that. According to wikipedia:
"In May 2015, Hastert was indicted on federal charges of structuring bank withdrawals to evade bank reporting requirements and making false statements to federal investigators. Federal prosecutors said that the funds withdrawn by Hastert were used as hush money to conceal his past sexual misconduct.[4][3] In October 2015, Hastert entered into a plea agreement with prosecutors. Under the agreement, Hastert pleaded guilty to the structuring charge (a felony); ..."
Paying a porn star for her silence is not a deductible business expense on any tax form, business or personal.
Tax fraud.
Maybe. But a lot of what the general public labels "tax fraud" in the real world simply gets ruled as an impermissible deduction, and the entity in question gets off with a fine.
Didn’t Leona Helmsley go to prison for that?
Kevin wrote: "The traditional way of making payoffs like this is with a suitcase full of cash."
But if Trump had done it that way he would have had to spend *his own* money, and Trump never does that.
It doesn’t matter… let’s harass and hound him until he finally withers away to dust. Be relentless. He and His so called supporters are evil. End of story. Whether he’s convicted of jay walking or murder, his people will still hate the rest of us. Let him go and he’ll still come after us. It doesn’t matter what we do or don’t do… the die is cast.
So Let’s provoke them endlessly. There’s an old man in my neighborhood who wears his MAGA hat while walking. He’s evil. And I glare at his sorry ass whenever I see him.
Good luck.
Tell him the same people that created Tik Tok also made his hat and they are recording everything he does and says. Tell him when he masturbates and his hat sees it, China knows. Keep it up. Tell him to buy a hat made in America, for once.
I think, and we really will not know until charges are actually filed, that the tax aspect is what gets Trump into trouble regarding the Stormy affair. Personally, I would like to see more on his property inflation and deflation, all which lead to hundred of millions of hidden money.
As I understand it he inflated the value of his properties when applying for loans. I don’t know if he underreported the value on his taxes or if he correctly reported their lower value. If he underreported their value on his taxes that would be a crime. If he inflated the value of the property to get a loan that might be a crime. But only if the bank stated that it relied on his estimation of the value and would not have made the loan had they known the truth. In Trump’s case, as I understand it, the banks did their own valuation of the properties and made the loans based on that. So, although he lied it would not be fraud.
Trump mania continues unabated in the US, eveen after seven years. Trump makes a baseless announcement that he's going to be arrested last Tuesday and everyone in Washington from the Speaker of the House down goes into a tailspin. He dominated the media for days simply by tweeting some shit he made up; just like he always has and will continue to do for as long as political pundits are obsessed with him.
>> In 2006 Trump (allegedly) had an affair with Stormy Daniels.<<
Why is Trump’s hour or so of sex with a porn star referred to as an “affair”? It seems to me that it is better described as a “hook up”. Trump was, in fact, having an affair with a porn celebrity. That was Karen McDougal, a woman who he was reportedly seen with for at least several months. She indicated she was shocked he “cheated” on her.
I think it would be foolish to assume there weren’t more women he was having sex with when the opportunity presented itself. Those were just the ones who tried to make money on the event afterwards. In that way, I suppose they were grifters just like Trump.
Bragg is an idiot.
This is like complaining about going after Capone on penny-ante tax evasion charges, and declaring that if we can't get him on the murders and smuggling and racketeering, we shouldn't charge at all on what we CAN get him on.
Just so.
Re: I would really like to see Donald Trump indicted over his efforts to overturn the election results in Georgia. The problem is that it would be a tough case since Trump was savvy enough to avoid saying outright, "Hey, just invent the extra votes I need."
Trump didn't say to investigate, check-out, or review the election process or results. He said:
Look, we need only 11,000 votes.
So what are we going to do here folks? I only need 11,000 votes.
Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.
That is not musing about election accuracy. It is, within the context of a call to election officials, ASKING FOR A RESULT. The specificity (11,000) stated three times is what makes "need" a necessary duty (obligation), as opposed to a generalized "Hey, we're behind in the count and want to be sure" statement.
That alone should be sufficient for a charge of election interference. If the law or legal-profession cannot address such a simple situation, then it is seriously defective. Or maybe the law is unable to deal with words - because virtually any word has an alternate (legal) definition, which means "communication" white collar crime is extremely difficult to prosecute unless a physical act is also involved (hacking, opening a locked door for thieves).
But as I understand things the grand jury has recommended several indictments in that case. What I don’t understand is why nothing has been filed yet.
I'm hearing next month.
They are worried of violent response from Trump supportes.
You have a terror organization comprising ~20% of the population, that is not easy to deal with.
IF Michael Cohen went to jail, then Trump deserves to go to jail.
Cohen initially took the fall, then wised up--but that could complicate the case.
As I understand it, from lawyer Ken White on Serious Trouble, the only way the Manhattan case can go forward is if there is a predicate crime. Hence the attempt to bludgeon campaign finance into that shape.
Alvin Bragg came into office and almost immediately, for whatever reason, killed the Trump investigation. Suddenly, part of it reappears. My theory is that if anyone goes down in history as the first person to indict a former president, Bragg wants that person to be him. Whatever problems this case has, it is his best shot. It doesn't really matter if he wins or loses. He has still accomplished his goal.
This post is all kinds of bonkers.
- This was a real crime.
- It isnt at all clear that devout Trump and GOP followers will be at all swayed by any real world outcomes. This kind of 'if we just be nice to Trump/McConnell/etc... those people will be rationale next time' logic has been attempted before with bad results.
- Not prosecuting tax or campaign finance crimes becsuse maybe, just maybe they will appreciate our generosity this time around doesnt really make a lot of sense even if it works out. Whats the gain?
As a lawyer, I will tell you this: if you or I posted ourselves going after a DA with a baseball bat, we would likely be facing charges.
"The traditional way of making payoffs like this is with a suitcase full of cash. If Trump had just done that in the first place he wouldn't be in any trouble."
Yes, but he also wanted his company to pay off the porn star, not himself personally. Usually, companies have harder times producing suitcases full of cash. Accounting and procurement departments usually are skeptical when such requests come in... and even private companies have to maintain accounting records that will withstand scrutiny from the IRS. (I am aware that Trump's accountant fell on his sword taking the blame for Trump's fraudulent tax returns... so maybe he would have rubber stamped a purchase order for "suitcare full of cash" too. Still, it's not a common request for a company to process.)
There is another reason: The money came with a non disclosure agreement. Trump needed a proper receipt to make that stick. (Stormy unstuck it anyway bury most people wouldn't have).
With the suitcase-of-cash method one would have to use the Mafia method to make it stick. A bit risky during a Presidential campaign.
"How about if we indict Donald Trump for something serious?"
So many poor people rotting away in prison for mere legal infractions like "shoplifted a candy bar" or "driving with a broken tail light" or (soon) "helping a friend research abortion pills" wish for the same thing. Indictments should only be pursued for "serious" crimes like theirs, not for campaign finance law violations or tax fraud.
It would be helpful if someone explained why Cohen went to jail for this, and it isn't a crime for Trump.
I like the focus on the tax cheating issue better than "sex with PORNO STAR!!!" spin. The usual suspects of the GQP are painting it as "well, every businessman pays for sex with porn stars; what's the biggie?" (and the Clinton impeachment managers spin in their unhallowed graves, while Bill and Hill open a bottle of Jack Daniels).
The Oh-So-Moralistic "Religious" Right doesn't care, because trump is their Chosen One, the New Messiah ... and look how he's suffering for (his) sins! The rest of More Tolerant America finds it hard to get worked up.
But tax fraud? Using company (or even campaign) money and characterizing it as a "business expense", like the toner cartridges for the printers, so as to decrease his taxes by tens of thousands of bucks? At this time of year, pointing out the tax fraud involved (and this is why the US has such a big deficit and can't have nice things) -- that stings.
Also, New York State's taxes. Don't want to leave them out, since they're the ones bringing suit.
Isn't Kevin missing the point that this was an illegal in-kind campaign contribution? We know that the DOJ declined to prosecute this as a Federal campaign finance violation, but nobody at DOJ ever said that -- it's just a conclusion based on the fact that it was never pursued. And there are some technicalities about whether or not the campaign violation could be prosecuted in New York as a felony based on it being "in furtherance of another crime" -- the Federal violation -- if that OTHER crime was never prosecuted.
To all this I say: COME ON NOW! This was a scumbag move without which trump very likely would never have become president. If there is any way in hell to hold him legally accountable for it, they should do it. You know damn well that if the shoe was on the other foot and it was a Democrat at risk of prosecution, a Republican DOJ would do it. And they would be right!
I don't care if all the lawyers in the solar system could find some technicality that could get him acquitted. We have all heard the saying "The scandal is not what's illegal; it's what's legal." And that's absolutely right. If the laws are poorly written and don't anticipate everything that could happen, that's no reason to accept misconduct. Another saying: "We don't have a government of men; we have a government of laws." That one is not really true, because laws do not come to us from out of the cosmos; it's men -- lawyers, actually -- who write and pass the laws. If the laws are skewed to protect the wealthy and those with status, then we have to find workarounds to hold them accountable.
The thing that makes this case easier is that Trump's henchman in this crime has already been convicted and spent time in jail
If you have already convicted the lackey then the person who ordered the crime should be an easy shot