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.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he:
Makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
Alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
Omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which he knows to be imposed upon him by law or by the nature of his position; or
Prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise.
Falsifying business records in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
To be clear, im not saying he didn’t do it, im saying the prosecution didn’t cover one aspect during the trial (that trump knew he was covering up a crime.)
The first degree requires an intent to conceal the prior crime - they have to show trumps intention was to conceal the campaign finance stuff; otherwise it’s just a misdemeanor.
If Trump didn’t know the campaign finance stuff was a crime, then why would he conceal it?
Trumps lawyers are arguing, it was to spare his wife. (Something else all see as bullshit,)
So, mens rea gets slightly misunderstood a lot, especially with more white-collar stuff. Generally, you don’t have to know that you were violating the law, just that were doing the action that happens to be against the law, at least for the basic fraud laws in question here.
The election interference part is murkier, and really all you have to do to avoid charges under the traditional federal interpretation of the federal statute is to claim ignorance; it’s one of the weird exceptions and has basically rendered federal criminal prosecutions for campaign finance violations as a charming hypothetical, except when committed by campaign managers with law degrees. There is a revised standard that says you don’t have to know the law inside and out, just that generally this sort of thing is not allowed, but that is untested.
There is NY election law that could be held to a lower, more traditional standard, and while itself a misdemeanor, it could be enough to trigger the felony standard. Overall, it is probably the weakest part of the prosecution’s case, but the prosecution would say that falsifying the records to make sure that Trump got elected is enough.
The issue here is that NY statute requires an intention to defraud, and for the first degree felony, an intention to conceal a crime (either one you’re about to do, will do, or have done,).
intentionally concealing a prior crime kind of requires an awareness that thing being concealed was a prior crime.
An argument that trump was unaware the prior thing was a crime could knock it down to a misdemeanor. (Or get a hung jury.)
I’m so glad you came in here to explain how I’m wrong.
Oh. Might want to take a gander at the actual statutes. They make it very clear intent is actually a necessary part.
Second degree
And First degree
To be clear, im not saying he didn’t do it, im saying the prosecution didn’t cover one aspect during the trial (that trump knew he was covering up a crime.)
“Intent to defraud” doesn’t mean you have to know it’s illegal.
The first degree requires an intent to conceal the prior crime - they have to show trumps intention was to conceal the campaign finance stuff; otherwise it’s just a misdemeanor.
If Trump didn’t know the campaign finance stuff was a crime, then why would he conceal it?
Trumps lawyers are arguing, it was to spare his wife. (Something else all see as bullshit,)
So, mens rea gets slightly misunderstood a lot, especially with more white-collar stuff. Generally, you don’t have to know that you were violating the law, just that were doing the action that happens to be against the law, at least for the basic fraud laws in question here.
The election interference part is murkier, and really all you have to do to avoid charges under the traditional federal interpretation of the federal statute is to claim ignorance; it’s one of the weird exceptions and has basically rendered federal criminal prosecutions for campaign finance violations as a charming hypothetical, except when committed by campaign managers with law degrees. There is a revised standard that says you don’t have to know the law inside and out, just that generally this sort of thing is not allowed, but that is untested.
There is NY election law that could be held to a lower, more traditional standard, and while itself a misdemeanor, it could be enough to trigger the felony standard. Overall, it is probably the weakest part of the prosecution’s case, but the prosecution would say that falsifying the records to make sure that Trump got elected is enough.
The issue here is that NY statute requires an intention to defraud, and for the first degree felony, an intention to conceal a crime (either one you’re about to do, will do, or have done,).
intentionally concealing a prior crime kind of requires an awareness that thing being concealed was a prior crime.
An argument that trump was unaware the prior thing was a crime could knock it down to a misdemeanor. (Or get a hung jury.)