Prosecutors went through Bob Costello’s emails one by one, undercutting his credibility with each painstaking moment—a fate the defense had hoped for Michael Cohen.
There’s no such thing as an honest mistake with Trump (well honest anything for that matter).
Nonetheless, you can be found guilty of murder if you hire a hitman to kill someone, even if you didn’t know the wording of the statute of how murder is made illegal, and you weren’t involved with how the murder proceeded.
So the idea for the prosecution is to prove that Trump asked Cohen to do the dirty work to broker the hush payment, then find some way to cover it up to improve his chances for election.
That’s the main link that needs to be shown, and Rob Costello’s response that he was involved to help the Trump campaign was a free layup for the prosecution when they might have been on the backfoot at the end of Cohen’s cross-examination.
At closing arguments next Tuesday you will get a synopsis of how the prosecution argues Trump is tied into all this.
We’re discussing business fraud. Which (linked to another reply) absolutely requires intent to defraud. - and for the first degree version, an intent to conceal a prior crime.
You may want to read the indictment and statement of facts to show what the prosecution is trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. A portion of the statement of facts in the indictment is below:
The defendant DONALD J. TRUMP repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.
From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects. In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York. The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme.
One component of this scheme was that, at the Defendant’s request, a lawyer who then worked for the Trump Organization as Special Counsel to Defendant (“Lawyer A”), covertly paid $130,000 to an adult film actress shortly before the election to prevent her from publicizing a sexual encounter with the Defendant. Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution and
2 served time in prison. Further, false entries were made in New York business records to effectuate this payment, separate and apart from the New York business records used to conceal the payment.
After the election, the Defendant reimbursed Lawyer A for the illegal payment through a series of monthly checks, first from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust (the “Defendant’s Trust”)—a Trust created under the laws of New York which held the Trump Organization entity assets after the Defendant was elected President—and then from the Defendant’s bank account. Each check was processed by the Trump Organization, and each check was disguised as a payment for legal services rendered in a given month of 2017 pursuant to a retainer agreement. The payment records, kept and maintained by the Trump Organization, were false New York business records. In truth, there was no retainer agreement, and Lawyer A was not being paid for legal services rendered in 2017. The Defendant caused his entities’ business records to be falsified to disguise his and others’ criminal conduct.
Remember that it can be any crime that Trump was intending to have covered up through the falsified business records. So in this case it’s a campaign finance/election laws related to hiding damaging information from the public.
There’s no such thing as an honest mistake with Trump (well honest anything for that matter).
Nonetheless, you can be found guilty of murder if you hire a hitman to kill someone, even if you didn’t know the wording of the statute of how murder is made illegal, and you weren’t involved with how the murder proceeded.
So the idea for the prosecution is to prove that Trump asked Cohen to do the dirty work to broker the hush payment, then find some way to cover it up to improve his chances for election.
That’s the main link that needs to be shown, and Rob Costello’s response that he was involved to help the Trump campaign was a free layup for the prosecution when they might have been on the backfoot at the end of Cohen’s cross-examination.
At closing arguments next Tuesday you will get a synopsis of how the prosecution argues Trump is tied into all this.
We’re not discussing murder.
We’re discussing business fraud. Which (linked to another reply) absolutely requires intent to defraud. - and for the first degree version, an intent to conceal a prior crime.
It’s literally in the text of the law.
You may want to read the indictment and statement of facts to show what the prosecution is trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. A portion of the statement of facts in the indictment is below:
Remember that it can be any crime that Trump was intending to have covered up through the falsified business records. So in this case it’s a campaign finance/election laws related to hiding damaging information from the public.