Days of fervent speculation gave way on Tuesday to the official unveiling of the 34 charges against former US President and Republican hopeful Donald Trump from 2024.
In an arraignment in Manhattan Criminal Court that has been followed around the world, in an unsealed indictment and statement of facts, and in a press conference by New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the clearest picture yet of the case is emerged against Trump.
But the new details also raised several questions, leaving some legal experts divided on the strength of the case based on what is currently known.
Speaking to Al Jazeera, former federal prosecutor Alan Baron said, based on what is known, it appears to be a “very strong case” against Trump.
“People who are well acquainted with this kind of prosecution in New York say it’s very solid,” he said.
John Malcolm, a former federal prosecutor and legal expert at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said the former president could prevail. “You never want to make short work of 34 felonies, especially when you’re at the defense table, but [Trump] has strong defenses he can make against these charges.
For his part, District Attorney Bragg has maintained the strength of the case and the investigation behind it, despite the fact that the investigation appears to be ramping up at several points since it was first launched by his predecessor, Cy Vance Jr.
“I’ve been doing this for 24 years and I’m no stranger to rigorously complex investigations,” Bragg said at a news conference Tuesday. “Having now carried out a rigorous, thorough investigation, the case was ready to be brought and it was brought.”
What do we know about the charges?
The indictment — the official document containing the accusations against Trump — was unsealed after the former president’s first appearance on Tuesday. It charged Trump with 34 counts of “falsification of business records in the first degree,” a Class E misdemeanor, the lowest degree in the highest category of indictment in the New York penal system.
While typically a felony under New York state law, falsifying company records becomes a felony if done with “intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and assist and abet the commission of it.” hide”.
All of the charges in the indictment specifically relate to payments former Trump attorney Michael Cohen made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in exchange for her silence over an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier.
The charges center on how fees paid to Cohen by then-President Trump were classified — or misclassified — in official business records. They target checks given to Cohen, monthly invoices submitted by Cohen, or ledger entries for Trump’s trust.
What questions do the charges raise?
The main question the indictment raises is for what alleged secondary crime the falsification of corporate records was committed – either by perpetration or by concealment. This is where the so-called “statement of fact,” a legal document filed by prosecutors with supporting details of the prosecutor’s case, and statements by Bragg, come into play.
To date, Trump has not been charged with any other crimes, but in the statement of facts, prosecutors alleged that Trump had “violated election laws” and falsified data as part “of a plan with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by providing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit [Trump’s] electoral prospects.” Prosecutors described that plan as a “catch and kill” operation.
At his press conference on Tuesday, Bragg went on to say that the election laws in question include a “New York State election law that makes it a crime to conspire to unlawfully promote a candidacy,” as well as exceeding the ” federal campaign contribution limit”. ”.
Bragg also said Trump mischaracterized payments to Cohen for “tax purposes,” without providing further details.
It has remained unclear whether prosecutors would focus primarily on a single alleged secondary crime while arguing the case before a jury.
Prosecutors also described two other hush money payments as part of the alleged “plan,” one to a former doorman at Trump Tower who claimed to have details about the former president fathering a child out of wedlock, the second to former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who also claimed to have an affair with Trump.
While no charges are specifically related to the other two payments, prosecutors said they demonstrate that the payment to Daniels was not isolated, but part of a broader effort by Trump and his allies to influence the election outcome.
How strong is the case?
Legal analysts were quick to note that New York State’s indictments typically contain fewer details than in other jurisdictions, with Bragg saying on Tuesday that the indictment document lacks more information about Trump’s alleged violations of election law — or any other secondary crimes in question. – because “the law does not require it”.
Bragg further emphasized that New York prosecutors only need to show that the falsification of company records was done with the intent to commit or conceal another crime. They are under no obligation to prosecute that secondary crime.
Still, Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation noted that Trump was already under scrutiny for federal campaign finance violations related to the payment to Daniels, for which Cohen was subsequently convicted. Federal prosecutors did not press charges against Trump at the time, which he said could weaken Bragg’s case if it rests primarily on those alleged violations.
“It seems to me like a prosecutor trying to turn a federal offense – which has been investigated by the federal authorities who put a stop to it – into a state indictment to escalate our relatively minor offenses into felonies,” he said. Malcolm said. .
He also noted that the charges against Trump depended specifically on the Daniels payment, despite the two other hush money payments described by prosecutors, meaning the 34 charges will likely “rise and fall together” on the legal team’s ability to Trump to cast doubt on the former’s knowledge of the president about the details of that individual payment.
‘Nothing new or weak’
Writing in a New York Times opinion pieceKaren Friedman Agnifilo, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan, and Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, hit back at claims that the case is built on shaky ground.
“With the release of the indictment and accompanying statement of facts, we can now say there is nothing new or weak about this case,” they wrote on Wednesday. prosecuted in New York.”
While previous New York falsification charges related to violations of state finance laws, they wrote, “Court after court across the country has recognized that state authorities can enforce state law in matters related to federal candidates.”
“Some examples relate to criminal law enforcement by government agencies, some to civil law enforcement, but the point is the same: [State prosecutors] can act,” they wrote.
Meanwhile, former prosecutor Baron added that prosecutors’ so far vague statements about some pieces of evidence don’t necessarily reflect the fragility of the case.
“I think people are complaining about ‘you’re not telling us what the whole thing is going to be,'” he said. “Good [the indictment] is not intended for that. It is simply to inform the defendant of what he is accused of.”
“The proof of the pudding will be when you go to court – will your evidence stand?” he said.