The New York Times giveth and the New York Times taketh away.
In contrast with the ludicrous Peter Baker article in today’s Times, the Paper has by far the best analysis and support for the Bragg indictment I have read. The op-ed, We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong, by Karen Friedman Agnifilo and Norman Eisen,* explains in plain language the basis for the Indictment, and debunks the main criticisms we’ve seen on cable et al. The piece notes:
* creating phony documents to cover up campaign finance violations is routinely prosecuted by the NY DA.
*This is the 30th false records case prosecuted by Bragg since he took office in January 2022.
*The acts were perpetrated to help Trump win in 2016 and therefore were attempts to violate both state and federal election law.
* There is ample NY precedent for convictions “when the crimes covered up were campaign finance violations, resulting in false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity.”
* Contrary to some analysts, there is no NY requirement that to show “intent to defraud” the DA must show the scheme involved cheating or depriving another party of property.
* There is broad agreement in many states that “state authorities can enforce state law in cases relating to federal candidates.” The law’s “intent to commit a crime” requirement can be either a state or federal crime.
* The piece does not even mention tax law violations, another crime that may be applicable under the statute.
Responding to the charge that the indictment is “political,” the authors write:
If anything, the more political choice would have been not to indict when there is so much scrutiny.
Read the whole thing!
*Ms. Agnifilo is a former Manhattan chief assistant district attorney. Mr. Eisen is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.