Legal expert explains why Alvin Bragg has a good chance of convicting Trump
A new analysis is explaining how Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg may actually have a stronger case than Republican leaders and lawmakers think he does.
In a piece published by MSNBC News, Jessica Levinson —a law professor at the Loyola University— has broken the case down and highlighted details that could be potentially groundbreaking for Bragg's arguments.
She began with a brief overview of the case and the charges Bragg has brought against former President Donald Trump.
"Bragg charged Trump with thirty-four counts of falsifying business records," Levinson wrote. "The complaint centers on 11 payments Trump made to his former attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen. Trump allegedly repaid Cohen for Cohen’s hush money payments to adult film star, Stormy Daniels."
She added, "Cohen, through a shell corporation, paid Daniels right before the 2016 election to stay quiet about her allegations that she had had an affair with Trump. Trump reportedly listed these payments as legal expenses, although they were not."
Levinson went on to pose a number of questions about the case as she built her arguments to support Bragg's perspective.
"Is the case too old?" she asked, before answering her own question writing, "No. The hush money payments at the center of this case were made more than five years ago, and the statute of limitations in New York would typically be five years for this alleged crime. But there is an exception to the statute of limitations where a defendant has been 'continuously' out of state," Because Trump lived at the White House and left there for his Mar-A-Lago home in Florida, he would likely fit within this exception."
She also posed the question of whether or not Bragg can "rely on New York election law to support his felony charge?"
Answering her own question, Levinson wrote, "Maybe. But it doesn’t appear his case hinges on that. In the statement of facts for the case, Bragg’s office alleges that Trump violated 'election laws.'”
Levinson went on to highlight Bragg's remarks during his press conference when he elaborated about the scheme and the string of New York election laws Trump appears to have violated.
"In his press conference, Bragg specifically alleged, '[t]he scheme violated New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means,'" she wrote. Bragg’s obstacle here is to convince the judge that he can rely on a state election law in a case dealing with a candidate for federal office."
Couldn't the issues with the payments be a matter of flawed bookkeeping? According to Levinson, that's not the case.
"Isn’t this just about bookkeeping errors?" Levinson asked but made it clear that its not.
"No," she answered, adding, "This case is about a scheme to prevent the American public from hearing negative stories about a candidate for the highest office in the land. This is a story about using unlawful means to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public. This is not about mischaracterizing certain payments on a private business record.
She concluded, "In sum, Bragg will have to connect a number of dots in order to secure a conviction against the former President of the United States. But he has the tools to do so. It is way too early to say whether or not Trump will be convicted on these charges. It is just the right time, however, to conclude that a conviction appears legally and factually possible."
