No. of Recommendations: 9
So far, you're the only legal person I've read in support of (or at least attempting to defend) the indictment.
There's others out there. And the fact that the Times is willing to lend editorial space to a conservative critic of the indictment isn't an indication that the NYT editorial board thinks this is a bad idea - just that they're a bit more "fair and balanced" than some other news organizations are.
Let me be perfectly clear - I think it is inarguable that Trump committed a misdemeanor violation of the NY penal code six years ago. That does not mean I support the indictment, and I actually think it was a risky idea unless: i) Bragg's got some actual tax crimes up his sleeve that he can make stick; ii) he's got some real good prior case law on the scope of federal pre-emption of election regulation; or iii) he can document that Trump was continuously out of New York State for at least four years.
Taking the latter first, the "tolling" for criminals being out of state doesn't appear to just apply to felonies. So even if the felony charges fall apart, if Trump was out of state for four years (rather than just a single year), then Bragg can get a conviction on the lesser included misdemeanor offense. Not great for a prosecutor, but it makes the decision to charge more defensible.
On the middle point, there's no doubt that states can adopt election laws that make it a crime to do certain things even in federal elections. Like, say, illegally voting in a federal election, or bribing someone to vote for a federal candidate, or stealing ballots for a federal election. If you have a special election to replace a Senator (so the only office on the ballot is a federal office), all the state election laws don't suddenly go out the window because the election is just for a federal office. The question is whether that extends to campaign finance, or just TPM restrictions.
And on the first point, Bragg alluded to - but did not elaborate on - a theory of the case that these record falsifications were to advance a tax crime. If Trump, or the Trump Organization, deducted these payments as a business expense - or if there are records that they planned to do so, even if they ultimately did not - then he might be on more solid ground.
But I'm not entirely defending these indictments. I'm sympathetic to the Three Felonies a Day argument, and I think the campaign finance theories have weaknesses. But I don't think is that these indictments are opening up Pandora's Box the way you've been arguing in this thread - there's more there there than critics are acknowledging, which really limits the circumstances in which the GOP could try to do the same thing back to a national Democrat.
