TRUMP FINALLY FACES JUSTICE

The indictment of Donald Trump reveals that, despite all the hand-wringing from people still employed by cable news who are desperate to proclaim themselves still relevant - and in the process bring back that 25-30% of the audience who’s left the room since January 20, 2021 signaled that the Trump Show was over - District Attorney Alvin Bragg as produced a solid prosecution case.

While the Professional Hand Wringers on the Editorial Board of the Washington Pest were proclaiming that it was a “stretch” to turn misdemeanors into felonies, a strategy that was bound to fail (and in the process giving The Right their best argyments), Bragg’s troops assembled a solid, 34-count indictment - ALL FELONIES.

The attacks from both traitor Right and braindead Left were answered in a strategically crafted indictment.

The 34 felony counts are based on the theory that the falsification of business records constitute felonies because they were made to cover up other crimes.

What are the other crimes?

The statement of facts reference New York election laws and tax crimes, without spelling out the specifics.

In legal terms, the indictment is “bare-bones” and not a “speaking indictment”- it does not lay out a full narrative.

Setting out a full narrative might be helpful for public understanding of the case, but doing so would commit prosecutors to facts which could be attacked publicly, potentially setting up discrepancies with eventual testimony during the trial that might raise legal issues in the trial itself and on appeal.

Listing only the minimum facts that support the charges protects the substance of what critical witnesses like Michael Cohen and former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker have already told investigators in interviews, as well as in grand jury testimony.

Trump’s attorneys will eventually get details from the discovery process and may file what’s called a bill of particulars, a motion to get greater specificity about charges. But right now the lack of specificity deprives Trump defense attorney any specifics to attack from both factual and legal angles in public.

There’s been a lot of speculation that the “election laws” Bragg will claim were violated are federal campaign finance violations rather than New York state election laws. The use of federal law to “bootstrap” the case is open to attack from Trump’s attorneys that a state prosecutor like Bragg cannot bring federal charges, and that if he did federal law would preempt the case entirely. But the indictment only makes general references to “election laws.” This gives Bragg more flexibility in the prosecution’s choice of which laws to pair to the falsification of records charge.

The statement of facts also references “mischaracterization for tax purposes” of the business records. This raises the possibility that state tax violations could have been covered up in the same manner by which the business records were falsified. They have already found the Trump Organization guilty of so doing in the case this past fall. Using tax law and election law means that if one theory proves vulnerable to a motion to dismiss prior to trial, or post-conviction appeals, the other likely stands the test.

But the biggest surprise is that testimony by Michael Cohen is not the sole backbone of the case, followed by the reveal that the case is not solely focused on the payoff to Stormy Daniels.

Instead of Cohen, David Pecker is referenced repeatedly in the indictment over his role in killing the hush money payment story that was to have been published by the supermarket tabloid. Pecker thus corroborates Cohen. Thus, whatever points Trump’s defense team might score against Cohen as a cooperator who cannot be believed will be mitigated by similar testimony coming from Pecker.

Additionally, the emphasis on Pecker’s role in the crime demonstrates that the case is not only about a one-off payment to Stormy Daniels. Pecker’s role demonstrates the pattern and plan of Trump making payments to buy the silence of not only Daniels, but also Karen McDougal, and a doorman at Trump Towers, who supposedly had information about a child fathered by Trump out of wedlock.

Thus, the prosecution can demonstrate patterns of behavior by Trump. Such a presentation is compelling evidence to jurors, since people may that evidence proving a single instance of wrongdoing might not meet the high standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but evidence of a pattern of wrongdoing tends remove that doubt.

For a criminal like Donald Trump, who has operated in the same way in similar situations for the past 50 years, the evidence of patterns of behavior, confirmed by multiple witnesses, are likely what he worry about the most in this case.

And in the cases yet to come from Jack Smith and Fani Willis.

Trump’s history as a habitual criminal is about to finally catch up with him.

You can support That’s Another Fine Mess with a paid subscription for only $7/month or $70/year, saving $14. Your support is particularly helpful now, since the departure of my partner has changed the financial situation here at Le Chateau du Chat.

Comments are for paid subscribers.