Bill, from that op-ed:
In order to prove their case, the state must prove two things beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That Donald Trump, with an intent to defraud, made or caused to be made a false entry in a business record; and (2) that he did so with an intent to commit or conceal another crime. There is no doubt in my mind that #1 happened. The author hilariously describes hush money payments to a pron star as "NDA agreements" that should fall under the definition of "legal expenses." But that's Clintonian logic, because legal expenses typically describes lawyer fees, not legal bribes that lawyers pay on your behalf.
(No, I have no idea how hush money payments to a pron star should have been disclosed in order to pass legal scrutiny, but then again, in hindsight Trump really shouldn't have paid her at all.)
However, #2 is my big question here. Does the prosecution need to prove that the cover-up was intended to conceal another crime?
That to me is the "gray" area here, and by "gray" I mean perhaps the lightest shade of gray that is noticeable.
The "crime" here is supposedly illegal election interference, but I really don't buy that at all, because anything and everything could qualify as influencing an election.
Not only that, but this qualifies as a "crime," then literally every hush money payment in the history of American politics should be made illegal, not just hush money payments to an ugly ass pron star.
The only thing I'm not so sure about is whether #2 has to be proven, or whether the cover-up itself is sufficient to find Trump guilty.
Because Martha Stewart went to jail for less ...
Tenchusatsu |
