Bragg vs. Weisselberg: A Tax Case for the Exclusion of a Prescribed Property Under Mr. Bragg’s Influence
Mr. Bragg’s tax case grew out of a broader investigation into the former president and whether he fraudulently inflated the value of his properties to obtain favorable deals from lenders and insurers. Mr. Weisselberg had been with the company for decades and knew Mr. Trump’s father very well. Mr. Weisselberg was indicted for special perks when he resisted the pressure campaign.
Susan R. Necheles said that they expected to show that Weisselberg was doing his best for himself and not the company at trial. The defense is expected to argue that the company lost money because of the scheme, because it did not pay payroll taxes on the perks.
The lawyers might also argue that Mr. Weisselberg agreed to testify under duress, noting that he could have faced years in prison. He will serve five months in jail with the understanding that he will spend 100 days there with good behavior.
The judge overseeing the case could impose up to 15 years in prison if he lied on the witness stand, according to his lawyer.
Mr. Trump, who was not accused of participating in the benefits scheme, has chalked up the case to a “witch hunt” against him, echoing the refrain he uses to leverage legal woes into a rallying cry for his political base.
Cohen, the Trump Organization, and Stormy Daniels: Prosecutors are heating up on the investigation of the alleged hush money scheme
Cohen said the cell phones are “new to the district attorney,” despite being obtained by federal investigators after his home was searched by the FBI in 2018.
Cohen said that the payments were made in coordination with and at the direction of Trump, and prosecutors said in court that he acted in concert with and at the direction of Trump.
He also responded to the release of a video of a deposition Trump gave in August to the New York Attorney General’s office, in which he invoked his Fifth Amendment rights more than 400 times and declined to answer questions, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.
Cohen suggested that Donald be told to plead the Fifth at least 400 times so that he could not be deposed and hurt himself further.
Cohen’s disclosure on Wednesday is the latest in a series of signs that Manhattan prosecutors’ efforts to investigate the Daniels incident are heating up.
CNN has reported that former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker was set to meet with prosecutors this week as part of the probe. The district attorney’s office also reached out to Davidson, who represented Daniels in the hush money deal, in recent weeks.
The Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen after he paid Daniels, according to federal prosecutors. The company’s executives authorized payments to him totaling $420,000 to cover his original payment and tax liabilities, and reward him with a bonus, according to federal prosecutors. Prosecutors alleged the company falsely recorded those payments as legal expenses in their corporate books.
Prosecutors working under the previous DA, Cy Vance, had explored bringing charges related to the hush money scheme but some attorneys on the team were not convinced that a charge involving a federal election law violation would survive legal challenges, people familiar with the investigation told CNN.
The theory of an ex-president and a candidate being charged criminally was put to rest by Trump’s prediction that he could be arrested this week. America is headed for an even more politically divisive affair that will test his influence over the GOP.
The property developer, ex-reality TV star and former commander in chief faces multiple investigations after seeking to overturn the 2020 election and over his handling of classified documents after leaving office. His most immediate exposure may be a case over an alleged hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.
Mr. Bragg, however, has had to pick up the slack, since federal prosecutors have not pursued such charges, for reasons that were clear under the corrupt influence of William Barr. It’s unclear why a criminal investigation of Mr. Trump hasn’t been pursued under the current administration.
But the ex-president launched a characteristic effort to discredit attempts to call him to account, trying to intimidate prosecutors, mobilize his grassroots supporters and pressure top GOP officials to rally to his side. The ex-president made a call to his loyalists to protest, which struck an ominous tone since he showed on January 6,2021 that he was willing to inciting violence to further his interests.
Trump lawyer Alina Habba told CNN’s Paula Reid Sunday there would be serious consequences if Trump were to be indicted for a mere misdemeanor – one possible outcome of the Manhattan probe. I think it’s going to cause a lot of trouble, Paula. I mean, it’s just a very scary time in our country,” Habba said. But she also said that “no one wants anyone to get hurt” and Trump supporters should be “peaceful.”
— An indictment would potentially upend the 2024 Republican presidential primary, with Trump browbeating opponents to support his claims of innocence and portraying any failure to do so as siding with what he sees as a partisan investigation for political gain. Neither Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a potential Republican, nor former South Carolina Gov. Haley has commented on a situation that presents them with a dicey dilemma. But both would have a strong interest in preventing the 2024 primary campaign from revolving exclusively around Trump portraying himself as a political martyr.
Republican House leadership has been attacking Bragg since the case of Trump was made public.
Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Sunday called it “the weakest case out there.” The California Republican, who has instructed GOP-led committees to investigate whether the Manhattan DA used federal funds to probe the hush money payment, said at a news conference that he had already spoken to Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan – who is investigating “the weaponization” of the government against political opponents – about looking into that question.
The case of Donald Trump, the ex-president, and the role of presidents in the national debate. The Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, J.D., on “State of the Union”
The speaker also said that Trump didn’t want that and that he should not protest over what might happen. McCarthy doesn’t want any violence or harm to anyone else if this happens.
Several of his Republican critics lined up next to him after Trump posted on social media. Mike Huckabee, a potential challenger to Trump for the nomination in four years, told ABC News that a campaign would feel like a prosecution. I just feel like it is not what the American people want to see.
The Bragg investigation was making a lot of people sympathize with the former president, according to New Hampshire Republican Gov. Chris Sununu. He said that none of them were fans of Trump, but they all felt that he was being attacked.
— Any indictment against Trump would be rooted in the principle that no one, not even an ex-president, is above the law. The case is unique, the ex-president’s reputation could be an important factor in any decision to indict him, given some legal experts’ opinion that a conviction might be difficult. His lawyers could say that someone who wasn’t as well known or politically active would have been treated differently.
— There is also the issue of whether the political division and trauma of putting Trump on trial would be in the wider national interest — at least in a fairly constrained case that seems to hold fewer lasting constitutional implications than those connected to the January 6 investigations. History may not look kindly on any failed prosecution.
Even though the Daniels case has been going on for more than six years, the uncertainty of the case for anyone outside the small bubble of the investigation raises questions for the public. Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union” on Sunday that “nobody in our nation is or should be above the law.” He hopes that they have a strong case, because this is unprecedented. And there are certainly risks involved here.”
Kelly’s comment emphasized how Trump, nearly eight years after he burst onto the scene with an upstart presidential campaign, is again shattering convention about the role of presidents and ex-presidents in national life. He may be about to move to the center again in the most contentious ways of the national debate.
Is the Manhattan Criminal Case an Example of Selective Prosecution? Absolutely Not, Mr. Trump’s Political Inspiral Revisited
But does that mean the Manhattan criminal case is an example of selective prosecution — in other words, going after a political enemy for a crime that no one else would be charged with? Not by a long shot. To begin with, Mr. Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen, who was instrumental in the scheme, has already pleaded guilty to a federal crime emanating from this conduct and served time for it and other crimes. Federal prosecutors told the court that Mr. Cohen “acted in coordination with and at the direction of” Mr. Trump (identified as “Individual 1”). When a lower level conspirator has been brought to justice it’s very important that the principal of the crime are brought to justice.
The district attorney has charged people with making false business filings when they are not in fact doing so. A common use of such a charge is when a defendant commits fraud, such as insurance or tax fraud, and in the course of that scheme creates a false business record to cover up the crime and avoid detection. A new study co-authored by one of us shows that there are precedents for charging a teacher for submitting a fake vaccination card, as well as an auto repair store owner who failed to file proper tax forms.