Since Jed published this, the prosecution said the predicate crime is the NY election law.
Jed explains what I've been trying to tell people: It would make sense for the predicate crime to be the election finance violation, but that is not what they say they are going to do. Also that is not election interference.
If you're confused it's because the prosecution hasn't offered a clear theory.
@Teri_Kanefield So is the "crime" the payments to Michael Cohen in 2017, which speaks to your point that the election was over by then? The 2016 payment by Stormy Daniels is not a focus of this case, but the 2017 payments to Cohen are the actions that are alleged to be a felony?
From Jed's article, it seems the payment to Stormy Daniels was for an NDA, and not illegal.
What do you think of this explanation of Trump's crime?
"And while there’s nothing illegal about catch-and-kill per se, when these payments become unreported campaign contributions, it crosses over from shady to illegal. And then when you tried to hide those through falsifying your records, it becomes a felony.
Kuo seems to be saying that the crime is unreported campaign contributions, but that isn't what the prosecution says they are using as their predicate crime.
They are using New York election law.
This would make sense if Bragg and his team announced that the predicate crimes are campaign finance violations. There would still be issues, but that's not what they say they are doing.
Add comment