TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @The_Nomad_News
@The_Nomad_News - News Nomad 🗞
🚨MUST WATCH: Vivek explains in layman’s terms how prosecutor Alvin Bragg has cobbled together a felony charge against Trump. It doesn’t add up. @VivekGRamaswamy https://t.co/3AWDxAkpMi
Video Transcript AI Summary
Former President Donald Trump is facing charges in a New York courtroom, but it remains unclear what exact crime he is being accused of. The prosecution claims that Trump falsified business records by recording legal expenses as legal expenses, which they argue is a felony. However, this theory fails on multiple levels. Even if it were a crime, it would only be a misdemeanor and falls outside the statute of limitations. Furthermore, the prosecution's argument that these payments should have been recorded as campaign contributions is flawed, as using campaign funds for personal expenses is also illegal. The entire case appears to be a politicized prosecution based on false premises.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is what exactly is the crime that Donald Trump is being charged with here? It's a legitimate question to ask. What exactly is the crime that has a former president of the United States sitting in a courtroom from 9 AM to 6 PM or 9 AM to 5 PM every day or 4 PM, what exactly is the crime at issue? Nobody seems to have a good answer to that question. They've said a lot of things that he did, a lot of paperwork here and there, hush money payments.
People understand the atmosphere, the vibe of something that happened that seems sinister and wrong. But, again, a clear statement of what exactly is the crime. There's a lack of a good answer to that question. And after the period of the trial that I attended where Michael Cohen testified, that answer is now less clear than it ever was. So what you saw for hours, I was in the courtroom while they did this, was Michael Cohen going through invoice after invoice that he submitted for Donald Trump in the name of legal services.
And Michael Cohen on the stand, the guy who has perjured himself lied over and over and actually said so yesterday, the countless number of times that he had lied before, says that, you know what? That was his falsifying of a business record. That was his alleged violation of not actually submitting a legal receipt as something that was something other than a legal receipt submitted as a legal receipt. So I think Michael Cohen for several hours during the time that I was there established that he had submitted false receipts, but what exactly was the crime that Donald Trump committed? Nobody has yet answered that question.
Now I'll tell you what their prosecution's theory of the case is. Prosecution's theory of the case is that Donald Trump participated in falsifying those business records based on how those were recorded. Those legal invoices that came in were recorded as legal expenses. And supposedly, that's an allegation involving falsification of a business record. Well, let's take a look at that for a second.
If you're running a business and a lawyer sends you an invoice citing legal expenses, and for all you know, that is to settle an NDA or a nondisclosure agreement that that lawyer made on your behalf that involves foreclosing a legal liability. The alleged crime here of Donald Trump falsifying a legal record, a business record. Not Michael Cohen, who's writing up false invoices that he claims he thinks are false invoices, but Donald Trump and his business recording a legal invoice as a legal expense. That's the heart of what they're challenging here. Well, what else are you supposed to do when an attorney sends you a legal invoice for something relates to a legal matter involving an NDA and the enforcement of NDA and avoidance of liability under that NDA, recording that as a legal expense, that is what they would say is falsifying a business record.
That fails on its own terms. But let's go a layer deeper into this. This is where going into the details of the law actually matter. That alleged crime, even if it was committed, which for the reason we discussed, if you get a legal expense, you're running a business, a lawyer, an outside lawyer sends you an invoice. It says it's for legal services.
You know it relates to dealing with a legal matter, and you record it as a legal expense in your business ledger, to call that a crime itself should frighten every business owner, not just in New York, but any other jurisdiction in the United States where they're gonna adopt this kind of politics in prosecution. Even if you accept that ridiculous theory that that itself was a crime, look at the New York law. Under New York law, that supposed crime is only a misdemeanor. It's not a felony. Donald Trump is being charged with a felony.
I'll get to that in a second. But that crime of falsifying that business record, failing to record that nonlegal expense, but recording it as a legal expense, That is only a crime up to the level of being a misdemeanor. You can't go to prison over it. Right? It's not a felony.
It's the kind of thing that involves, you know, to say say you accidentally run through a yellow right, but actually learn turn red. Let's say you're speeding on the highway. These are things that are classified as misdemeanors, not as felonies. Furthermore, that misdemeanor has what's called a statute of limitations applied to it. What's a statute of limitations?
It's a basic concept in the law that says, after a certain amount of time, we don't want people thinking about certain transgressions and have it way over their life. The prosecution or the government has a certain amount of time to charge a crime. That's what's called the statute of limitations. And the statute of limitations for this particular alleged crime or misdemeanor is 5 years. Trump's actions here that are alleged are far beyond that 5 years.
So in order to be able to actually charge this crime and bring it within the statute of limitations, and to further be able to charge it as a felony, something that could send you to prison, not just something that would have you have a small fine for misdemeanor, they had to charge a different underlying crime. That's what the New York law requires. It says that unless this falsifying business record was in furtherance of a separate felony, you could only charge that as a misdemeanor. And by the way, you only have 5 years to do it. There's no way they could have brought this case.
And even if they brought this case within that 5 years, they couldn't have charged it as a felony, but they're charging as a felony long after that 5 year window. So that 5 year window then expands if you're charging it as a felony. Here's a funny little wrinkle that other people haven't commented on. Even the felony charge has a statute of limitations that would have otherwise expired, but for certain exemptions that the prosecution has asked for because of COVID that should further extend that statute of limitations even for the felony. So that's a side wrinkle I'm not even gonna go into in-depth.
But using every little potential exception or trick in the book, what they're saying is that this allegation of falsifying business records recording a legal expense as a legal expense in a business ledger, that that supposed crime is no longer just a misdemeanor, but is a felony, and it can be charged outside the statute of limitations because it is in furtherance of another crime, another felony. That's the heart of this case in New York. What is that felony, you might ask? Here's what it is. They're claiming that this is a violation of federal campaign finance laws.
So this is interesting. Alvin Bragg, the DA in Manhattan, is a local DA. He operates and enforces supposedly state laws. Side note, look at New York City where I actually was yesterday in the courthouse, recording it right here this morning before leaving town. It's interesting how that you could go left and right in New York City to see crimes being committed on any given day.
I used to live in New York a decade ago. It's not the same city as today, and yet the concern of local prosecutors in New York is not to actually stop the violent crime being committed across the city and across the state, but instead to go after fictitious crimes that are politicized in nature. It's funny how that works. But his pursuit of going after it says he could go after local crimes enforcing the state law. Why would Alvin Bragg bring a case involving federal law?
He can't. But the contorted legal theory is he can bring that federal law in if it's tied to the falsification of a business record, which is in New York law. He couldn't charge the falsification of a business record under New York law unless he tied in that federal crime. So they're really walking on a tight rope here to say that he gets to charge the New York misdemeanor under New York state law as a felony outside the statute of limitations because he charges a separate underlying federal crime. But he couldn't have otherwise charged that federal crime were it not for the auspices of doing it under a state law that itself has expired.
So that's a funny little dance right there. But now let's go into even further detail. His whole theory of the case is that not only did Donald Trump falsify business record, which is a misdemeanor, but that it becomes a felony that the New York prosecutor is able to charge under state law because it was in furtherance of a federal crime of a campaign finance violation. What is that campaign finance violation, you might ask? Here's the whole theory of the case.
The entire case comes down to this one question. Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor here at the New York prosecution, claims that this was a constructive campaign contribution. What was the this? This was the payments made to my Michael Cohen, which they say were reimbursements for Stormy Daniels' hush money payment. An NDA that Stormy Daniels signed to say that she could not talk publicly about her alleged the affair that she alleged with Donald Trump.
Donald Trump has denied the affair, but that she alleges it, but nonetheless, that they signed an NDA with her to make sure that she couldn't speak about it publicly. There's nothing illegal about an NDA. But what they're saying is the use of those payments to Michael Cohen, which they alleged were misrecorded by the Trump Organization, were actually campaign contributions that were paid for by personal money but should have been paid for by campaign funds or should have been recorded as a campaign contribution. That's the heart of this entire case of what makes this a supposed felony is that these alleged payments to Michael Cohen, which were alleged to be reimbursements for a Rory Stormy Daniels payment to enforce an NDA, that those should have been recorded as a campaign contribution rather than just the personal payment that they were actually made through. Let's examine that for a second.
The idea the idea that a personal hush money payment should have been made and recorded as a campaign contribution, should have been made out of campaign funds, is actually a laughable idea. Let's have the same shoe on the other foot. They're gonna get the best litmus test for whether a prosecution is politicized. Here's what it is. If the defendant would have done the exact opposite, the exact opposite thing of what the prosecution wanted, The exact opposite thing of what the prosecution says.
Prosecutor says this is a crime. What you did was a crime. Suppose the defendant did the exact opposite thing of what the prosecution is alleging. If the prosecution could have still brought that case and would have still brought that case, that proves that it's a politicized prosecution. Right?
Because if you do a, they're gonna prosecute you. They say a is a crime. Well, let's say you do the exact opposite of a, the thing that they claim in this case that you should have otherwise done, And then they would still come after you for it. That means they were gonna get you either way. That's a politicized prosecution.
This is a classic textbook case. This will be taught in law schools for the next century. It certainly should be as an example of what is a politicized prosecution, because let's examine this claim. The New York prosecution rests on the idea. The entire case rests on the idea that Donald Trump failed to record a personal hush money payment as a campaign contribution because part of the point of making that contribution was to influence the perception of voters.
Being having Stormy Daniels stay quiet was supposedly to improve the perception of voters. Even if you accept those facts, which are being contested in court, even if you accept those facts, if Donald Trump had used campaign funds to make a personal hush money payment, they would no doubt be prosecuting him for that. And the irony is they'd have an even stronger case for doing it. There's good examples of this. You don't have to surmise.
Take politicians who for years you have congressman. You have Sarah Palin caught up in something like this where she was alleged to have used campaign funds for personal expense. Let's say it's the clothing you buy. Suppose you wanna dress up in a nice suit and tie, but you feel like you wouldn't have bought that nice suit and tie of that quality, spending $5,000 or whatever it would be for a nice suit, you wouldn't spend that money as a politician who hasn't achieved 1,000,000 and is not yet a millionaire, but wants to go into public service. Say that, you know what?
I'm gonna use campaign funds to do something that affects the perception of voters, that voters have of me. If I show up in a ratty gym t shirt and shorts, I don't think voters are gonna vote for me, even if that's what I normally wear. So I'm going to incur an expense that is designed with the goal of influencing the voters' perception of me. So let's say a Republican politician decides, you know what? I wasn't gonna spend that personal money on a suit for my personal life, but the only reason I'm gonna buy that $5,000 suit is because I want to influence voters' perceptions of me.
That's a reasonable basis for many politicians to believe they're going to actually have voter perceptions affected by how they dress. Now multiple congressmen back in 2009 used this argument to use campaign money to buy personal attire. Sarah Palin got caught up in what became a similar scandal. But what the Federal Election Commission viewing federal law says is political candidates cannot use campaign funds to make a personal clothing payment, a personal sartorial choice, even if it is explicitly designed to influence the perception of voters. Interesting how that works.
So the prosecution's entire theory of the case here is that Donald Trump is making a personal hush money payment. There's all kinds of personal reasons, very much a personal issue of whether or not somebody's making a false allegation of an affair they had with you or an allegation of any kind that they had an affair with you. But you're entering an NDA as a married person, as somebody who has all kinds of personal and business reputation to maintain, to sign an NDA with them. But to say that no. No.
No. No. Because that could influence voters' perception of you that you had to use campaign funds to do it. Had he used the campaign funds to make that payment, they would be going after him for misusing campaign funds to advance a personal goal. The exact same thing they did to congressmen and other candidates who have used campaign funds to buy personal clothing.
Let's go through any other example. Say it's to get a haircut. I wouldn't have gotten a haircut. Certainly not an expensive fancy one. You could pay $300 for a haircut.
Well, you only might get that haircut as a politician if you really care about the way you present yourself on a debate stage in the media to voters, to influence voters perceptions of you. If you had a politician who was using campaign funds to make personal haircut payments, there is no doubt that federal prosecutors or the Federal Election Commission would be coming after you for that as opposed to saying that if you used those same campaign funds for getting a haircut, you wanted to look good for voters at a rally or at a debate, to then say that, oh, no. No. No. Because that was designed to influence voters' perceptions of you, somehow that was supposed to have been made using campaign funds.
That means there's literally no way to run for office. Because on one hand, if you use campaign funds to make a personal payment, they're gonna come after you for that. And then if you make a personal payment, but it was designed with somehow influencing the perceptions of voters of you, that you were gonna get dinged because it should have been a campaign expense. They're gonna get you either way, but the question is, do they like you as the actual defendant? Do they like your politics?
Do they like what you represent? That's what this case is actually about. Imagine if Donald Trump who rides around in planes that land in hangars. It says, Trump on the plane. Part of his brand is success, landing at rallies that have been held at hangars.
Suppose his he bought that personal airplane and owned it because he says, my ownership of an airplane is gonna affect voters' perceptions of me. Had he used campaign funds to do that, that would be a scandal on the front page of the New York Times, likely federal action against him for that. Yet the entire prosecution's theory of the case is, oh, if you're using funds to influence voters perceptions of you, you are committing a crime unless you use campaign funds to do it. It is an impossible bind. It is a Hobson's choice.
You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's really what's going on here. So back to the heart of this case, the original question I asked, what exactly is the crime that Donald Trump committed? They say it was falsifying a business record in furtherance of influencing an election with an illegal campaign contribution. It fails on every metric of that test.
First of all, recording a legal expense as a legal expense was the alleged falsification of a business record. That itself fails on its own terms. Even if that was a crime, it was only a misdemeanor that fell outside the statute of limitations. And the only way they were able to upcharge it as a felony was by tying it to a federal crime that local prosecutors otherwise could not have charged. But that federal crime involves using personal money to make a personal payment.
And had he used campaign funds to do it as the prosecution alleges that he was obligated to, he actually would be in violation of laws based on precedents set by federal regulators and federal prosecutors in the past. That's where we are right now with this case. It was clearer to me than ever after watching Michael Cohen testify that the entire legal premise for the case rests on these falsehoods.