Connect with us

Published

on

A year after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg announced 34 felony charges against Donald Trump, the former president’s trial is about to begin. Yet people are still arguing about how to describe the case. This debate is not merely rhetorical. It reflects the disconnect between the counts that Trump faces, all of which allege falsification of business records, and the essence of his crime as Bragg sees it, which is hiding negative information from voters.

“Although it has long been referred to as the ‘hush money’ case,” says CNN legal analyst Norman Eisen, “that is wrong. We should call it an ‘election interference’ trial going forward.”

The reason people call it a “hush money case,” of course, is that it would not exist but for the $130,000 that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen paid porn star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election to keep her from talking about her alleged affair with Trump. But Eisen, who served as co-counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment, joins Bragg in arguing that the significance of the case transcends those tawdry details.

“We allege falsification of business records to the end of keeping information away from the electorate,” Bragg said in a January interview with NY1. “It’s an election interference case.” That sounds important, and it calls to mind the federal charges based on Trump’s audacious attempts to remain in office after he lost the 2020 presidential election. But this characterization, which Bragg started emphasizing after Special Counsel Jack Smith unveiled the federal indictment last August, is hard to take seriously.

“As this office has done time and time again, we today uphold our solemn responsibility to ensure that everyone stands equal before the law,” Bragg said when he announced the New York indictment in April 2023. “No amount of money and no amount of power changes that enduring principle.” Underlining that point, Bragg added: “These are felony crimes in New York. No matter who you are. We cannot normalize serious criminal conduct.”

Bragg was on firm ground in arguing that felonies are felonies. But why was this “serious criminal conduct”? Bragg’s explanation was underwhelming: “True and accurate business records are important everywhere, to be sure. They are all the more important in Manhattan, the financial center of the world.”

In addition to that eye-glazing gloss, Bragg presented the seed of his “election interference” argument. “We allege Donald Trump and his associates repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters,” he said.

Mary McCord, executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Center, echoes that take in a recent New York Times discussion of the case. “The falsification of business records seems rock-solid based on the documentary evidence,” she says. “The question for the jurors will be Trump’s knowledge and intent.” McCord thinks “it’s a very winnable case for the D.A.” because prosecutors “will give the jurors plenty of evidence” that Trump’s motive in falsifying business records was “to prevent information damaging to candidate Trump from becoming public just weeks before the 2016 election.”

If you read the indictmentand the accompanying statement of facts, you will notice a glaring chronological problem with that account: The criminal conduct that Bragg alleges all happened after the 2016 election. Since Trump was already president, ensuring that outcome could not have been his motive.

Beginning in February 2017, the indictment says, Trump reimbursed Cohen for the hush money with a series of checks, which he disguised as payment for legal services. The indictment counts each of those checks, along with each of the corresponding invoices and ledger entries, as a distinct violation of a state law that makes falsification of business records “with intent to defraud” a misdemeanor.

Since all of this happenedafter Trump was elected, it is clearly not true that the allegedly phony records “conceal[ed] damaging information…from American voters” in 2016 or that the “falsification of business records” was aimed at “keeping information away from the electorate,” thereby helping Trump defeat Hillary Clinton. Eisen concedes this temporal difficulty:

Election interference skepticscontend the charges here are fordocument falsification by the Trump organization in 2017,afterthe 2016 election concluded, to hide what happened the year before from being revealed. How can we call this an election interference trial,they ask, if the election was already over when the 34 alleged document falsification crimes occurred?

Those skeptics, Eisen says, overlook the fact that “the payment to Daniels was itself allegedly illegal under federal and state law” and “was plainly intended to influence the 2016 election.” Although Cohen “was limited by law to $2,700 in contributions to the campaign,” Eisen writes, “hetransferred $130,000 to benefit the campaign, allegedly atTrump’s direction. That is why Cohen pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance violations (in addition to other offenses), for which he was incarcerated. And no one can seriously dispute that the reason he and Trump allegedly hatched the scheme was to deprive voters of information that could have changed the outcome of an extremely close election.”

Eisen glosses over the difficulty of distinguishing between personal and campaign expenditures in this context, which is crucial in proving a violation of federal campaign finance regulations. That difficulty helps explain why the Justice Department never prosecuted Trump for allegedly directing Cohen to make an excessive campaign contribution. Contrary to what Eisen says, there is a serious dispute about whether Trump “knowingly and willfully” violated federal election law.

In any case, it is too late to prosecute that alleged crime. And even if it weren’t, Bragg would have no authority to enforce federal law.

Falsification of business records can be treated as a felony only if the defendant’s “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” Bragg has mentioned a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act as one possible candidate for “another crime.” But it is plausible that Trump did not think paying off Daniels was illegal. If so, it is hard to see how his falsification of business records could have been aimed at concealing “another crime,” even assuming that phrase includes violations of federal law, which also is not clear.

The legality of the hush payment is uncertain because it turns on whether Trump was trying to promote his election or trying to avoid personal embarrassment and spare his wife’s feelings. The same ambiguity poses a challenge for Bragg in trying to convict Trump of felonies rather than misdemeanors: Did he falsify business records to cover up another crime or simply to keep his wife in the dark?

As Braggsees it, Trump “corrupt[ed] a presidential election” by hiding information that voters might have deemed relevant in choosing between him and Clinton. But there is nothing inherently illegal about that: If Trump had persuaded Daniels to keep her mouth shut simply by asking nicely, the result would have been the same. Bragg’s “election interference” narrative, insofar as it makes legal sense at all, requires showing that Trump not only tried to prevent a scandal but committed one or more crimes toward that end.

“People want the hush money case to be the big case that can take down Trump because it may be the onlyone that goes to trialbefore the election,” UCLA election law expert Richard Hasen, one of the “skeptics” to whom Eisen alludes, writes in the Los Angeles Times. But “the charges are so minor I don’t expect they will shake up the presidential race.”

Hasen rejects Bragg’s “election interference” framing. “Failing to report a campaign payment is a small potatoes campaign-finance crime,” he says. “Willfully not reporting expenes to cover up an affair isn’t ‘interfering’ with an election along the lines of trying to get a secretary of state to falsify vote totals, or trying to get a state legislature to falsely declare there was fraud in the state and submit alternative slates of electors. We can draw a fairly bright line between attempting to change vote totals to flip a presidential election and failing to disclose embarrassing information on a government form.”

Although “I certainly understand the impulse of Trump opponents to label this case as one of election interference,” Hasen adds, “any voters who look beneath the surface are sure to be underwhelmed. Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in the real election interference cases.”

Continue Reading

Sports

Nats seek ‘fresh approach,’ fire Martinez, Rizzo

Published

on

By

Nats seek 'fresh approach,' fire Martinez, Rizzo

The last-place Washington Nationals fired president of baseball operations Mike Rizzo and manager Davey Martinez, the team announced Sunday.

Rizzo, 64, and Martinez, 60, won a World Series with the Nationals in 2019, but the team has floundered in recent years. This season, the Nationals are 37-53 and stuck at the bottom of the National League East after getting swept by the Boston Red Sox this weekend at home. Washington hasn’t finished higher than fourth in the division since winning the World Series.

“On behalf of our family and the Washington Nationals organization, I first and foremost want to thank Mike and Davey for their contributions to our franchise and our city,” principal owner Mark Lerner said in a statement. “Our family is eternally grateful for their years of dedication to the organization, including their roles in bringing a World Series trophy to Washington, D.C.

“While we are appreciative of their past successes, the on-field performance has not been where we or our fans expect it to be. This is a pivotal time for our club, and we believe a fresh approach and new energy is the best course of action for our team moving forward.”

Mike DeBartolo, the club’s senior vice president and assistant general manager, was named interim GM on Sunday night. DeBartolo will oversee all aspects of baseball operations, including the MLB draft. An announcement will be made on the interim manager Monday, a day before the club begins a series against the St. Louis Cardinals.

Rizzo has been the top decision-maker in Washington since 2013, and Martinez has been on board since 2018. Under Rizzo’s leadership, the team made the postseason four times: in 2014, 2016, 2017 and 2019. The latter season was Martinez’s lone playoff appearance.

“When our family assumed control of the team, nearly 20 years ago, Mike was the first hire we made,” Lerner said. “Over two decades, he was with us as we went from a fledging team in a new city to World Series champion. Mike helped make us who we are as an organization, and we’re so thankful to him for his hard work and dedication — not just on the field and in the front office, but in the community as well.”

The Nationals are in the midst of a rebuild that has moved slower than expected, though the team didn’t augment its young core much during the winter. Led by All-Stars James Wood and MacKenzie Gore, Washington has the second-youngest group of hitters in MLB and the sixth-youngest pitching staff.

The team lost 11 straight games in a forgettable stretch last month. And during a 2-10 run in June, Washington averaged just 2.5 runs. Since June 1, the Nationals have scored one run or been shut out seven times. In Sunday’s 6-4 loss to Boston, they left 15 runners on base.

There was industry speculation over the winter that the Nationals would spend money on free agents for the first time in several years, but that never materialized. Instead, the team made minor moves, signing free agents Josh Bell and Michael Soroka, trading for first baseman Nathaniel Lowe and re-signing closer Kyle Finnegan. Now, the hope is a new management team, both on and off the field, can help change the franchise’s fortunes.

Continue Reading

Sports

Kershaw gets special ASG invite; no Soto, Betts

Published

on

By

Kershaw gets special ASG invite; no Soto, Betts

The rosters for the 2025 MLB All-Star Game will feature 19 first-timers — and one legend — as the pitchers and reserves were announced Sunday for the July 15 contest at Truist Park in Atlanta.

Los Angeles Dodgers left-hander Clayton Kershaw, a three-time Cy Young Award winner who made his first All-Star team in 2011, was named to his 11th National League roster as a special commissioner’s selection.

Kershaw, who became only the fourth left-hander to amass 3,000 career strikeouts, is 4-0 with a 3.43 ERA in nine starts after beginning the season on the injured list. He joins Albert Pujols and Miguel Cabrera as a legend choice, after the pair of sluggers were selected in 2022.

Kershaw said he didn’t want to discuss the selection Sunday.

Among the first-time All-Stars announced Sunday: Dodgers teammate Yoshinobu Yamamoto; Washington Nationals outfielder James Wood and left-hander MacKenzie Gore; Houston Astros ace Hunter Brown and shortstop Jeremy Pena; and Chicago Cubs 34-year-old left-hander Matthew Boyd.

“It’ll just be cool being around some of the best players in the game,” Wood said.

First-time All-Stars previously elected to start by the fans include Seattle Mariners catcher Cal Raleigh, Athletics shortstop Jacob Wilson, Baltimore Orioles designated hitter Ryan O’Hearn and Cubs center fielder Pete Crow-Armstrong.

Overall, the 19 first-time All-Stars is a drop from the 32 first-time selections on the initial rosters in 2024.

Kershaw would be the sentimental choice to start for the National League, although Pittsburgh Pirates ace Paul Skenes, who leads NL pitchers in ERA and WAR, might be in line to start his second straight contest. Philadelphia Phillies right-hander Zack Wheeler, a three-time All-Star, is 9-3 with a 2.17 ERA after Sunday’s complete-game victory and also would be a strong candidate to start.

“I think it would be stupid to say no to that. It’s a pretty cool opportunity,” Skenes said about the possibility of being asked to start by Dodgers manager Dave Roberts. “I didn’t make plans over the All-Star break or anything. So, yeah, I’m super stoked.”

Kershaw has made one All-Star start in his career, in 2022 at Dodger Stadium.

Among standout players not selected were New York Mets outfielder Juan Soto, who signed a $765 million contract as a free agent in the offseason, and Dodgers shortstop Mookie Betts, who had made eight consecutive All-Star rosters since 2016.

Soto got off to a slow start but was the National League Player of the Month in June and entered Sunday ranked sixth in the NL in WAR among position players while ranking second in OBP, eighth in OPS and third in runs scored.

The players vote for the reserves at each position and selected Wood, Corbin Carroll of the Arizona Diamondbacks and Fernando Tatis Jr. of the San Diego Padres as the backup outfielders. Kyle Stowers also made it as a backup outfielder as the representative for the Miami Marlins.

Unless Soto later is added as an injury replacement, he’ll miss his first All-Star Game since his first full season in 2019.

The Dodgers lead all teams with five representatives: Kershaw, Yamamoto and starters Shohei Ohtani, Freddie Freeman and Will Smith. The AL-leading Detroit Tigers (57-34) and Mariners have four each.

Tigers ace Tarik Skubal will join AL starters Riley Greene, Gleyber Torres and Javier Baez, while Raleigh, the AL’s starting catcher, will be joined by Seattle teammates Bryan Woo, Andres Munoz and Julio Rodriguez.

Earning his fifth career selection but first since 2021 is Texas Rangers righty Jacob deGrom, who is finally healthy after making only nine starts in his first two seasons with the Rangers and is 9-2 with a 2.13 ERA. He has never started an All-Star Game, although Skubal or Brown would be the favorite to start for the AL.

The hometown Braves will have three All-Stars in Acuna, pitcher Chris Sale (his ninth selection, tied with Freeman for the second most behind Kershaw) and first baseman Matt Olson. The San Francisco Giants had three pitchers selected: Logan Webb, Robbie Ray and reliever Randy Rodriguez.

The slumping New York Yankees ended up with three All-Stars: Aaron Judge, Jazz Chisholm Jr. and Max Fried. The Mets also earned three All-Star selections: Francisco Lindor, Pete Alonso and Edwin Diaz.

“Red carpet, that’s my thing,” Chisholm said. “I do have a ‘fit in mind.”

Rosters are expanded from 26 to 32 for the All-Star Game. They include starters elected by fans, 17 players (five starting pitchers, three relievers and a backup for each position) chosen in a player vote and six players (four pitchers and two position players) selected by league officials. Every club must be represented.

Acuna, Wood and Raleigh are the three All-Stars who have so far committed to participating in the Home Run Derby.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Sports

Bellinger rescues Yankees to avoid Subway sweep

Published

on

By

Bellinger rescues Yankees to avoid Subway sweep

NEW YORK — The New York Yankees were seemingly in deep trouble Sunday when Juan Soto cracked a pitch to left field in the seventh inning.

The New York Mets, down two runs, were cooking up a rally with no outs. Francisco Lindor stood at first base, Pete Alonso loomed on deck, and Brandon Nimmo was in the hole. This was the heart of the Mets’ potent lineup. Given the Yankees’ recent woes, fumbling their two-run lead and suffering a Subway Series sweep at the hands of their neighbors — and a seventh straight loss — seemed almost fated.

Then Cody Bellinger charged Soto’s sinking 105 mph line drive, made a shoestring catch and fired a strike to first base for an improbable double play to secure a skid-snapping 6-4 win — and perhaps rescue the Yankees from another dreadful outcome.

“Considering the context of this week and everything,” Yankees manager Aaron Boone said, “that’s probably our play of the year so far.”

Soto’s line drive off Mark Leiter Jr. had a 10% catch probability, according to Statcast, but Bellinger, a plus defender at multiple positions who started at first base Saturday, was just able to snatch it before it touched the grass. Certain that he caught it clean, he made an 89.9 mph toss that reached first baseman Paul Goldschmidt on a line, over Lindor, who didn’t slide into the bag.

“I saw it in the air and had a really good beat on it,” said Bellinger, who went 2-for-3 with a double and a walk at the plate.

The Mets challenged the catch, but the call stood.

“That was incredible,” said Yankees right fielder Aaron Judge, who swatted his 33rd home run of the season in the fifth inning. “I’ve never seen something like that on the field.”

For the past week, a stretch Boone described as “terrible” for his ballclub, poor defense has been an issue for the Yankees. Physical errors. Mental lapses. Near disasters. The sloppiness helped sink a depleted pitching staff, more than offsetting the offense’s strong production.

That combination produced the team’s second six-game losing streak in three weeks and a three-game deficit in the American League East standings behind the first-place Toronto Blue Jays.

The surging Blue Jays won again Sunday to extend their winning streak to seven games and keep their division lead at three games, but Bellinger’s glove and arm ensured it didn’t grow to four.

“That was an unbelievable play,” Goldschmidt said. “Amazing catch and absolute cannon to me at first. To make that play was a game-changing play and potentially game-winning play for us today. And we needed it.”

Continue Reading

Trending