Connect with us

Published

on

After deliberating for a little more than a day, a Manhattan jury on Thursday found Donald Trump guilty of falsifying 34 business records to aid or conceal “another crime,” an intent that turns what would otherwise be misdemeanors into felonies. If you assumed that the jury’s conclusions would be driven by political animus, this first-ever criminal conviction of a former president is the result you probably expected in a jurisdiction where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 9 to 1. But in legal terms, the quick verdict is hard to fathom.

That’s not because there were so many counts to consider, each related to a specific invoice, check, or ledger entry allegedly aimed at disguising a hush-money reimbursement as payment for legal services. Once jurors accepted the prosecution’s theory of the case, it was pretty much inevitable that they would find Trump guilty on all 34 counts. But that theory was complicated, confusing, and in some versions highly implausible, if not nonsensical. Given the puzzles posed by the charges, you would expect conscientious jurors to spend more than an afternoon, a morning, and part of another afternoon teasing them out.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump stemmed from the $130,000 that Michael Cohen, then Trump’s lawyer and fixer, paid porn star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election to keep her from talking about her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Trump. When Trump reimbursed Cohen in 2017, prosecutors said, he tried to cover up the arrangement with Daniels by pretending that he was paying Cohen, whom he had designated as his personal attorney, for legal work.

Cohen testified that Trump instructed him to pay off Daniels and approved the plan to mischaracterize the reimbursement. Cohen was the only witness who directly confirmed those two points, and the defense team argued that jurors should not trust a convicted felon, disbarred lawyer, and admitted liar with a powerful grudge against his former boss. But even without Cohen’s testimony, there was strong circumstantial evidence that Trump approved the payoff and went along with the reimbursement scheme.

The real problem for the prosecution was proving that Trump falsified business records with “an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”the element that was necessary to treat the misleading documents as felonies. Prosecutors said the other crime was a violation of Section 17-152, an obscure, little-used provision of the New York Election Law. Section 17-152 makes it a misdemeanor for “two or more persons” to “conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” But prosecutors never settled on any particular explanation of “unlawful means,” and Juan Merchan, the judge presiding over the trial, told the jurors they could find Trump guilty even they could not agree on one.

According to one theory, Cohen made an excessive campaign contribution, thereby violating the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), when he fronted the money to pay Daniels. Cohenpleaded guiltyto that offense in 2018 as part of an agreement that also resolved several other, unrelated federal charges against him.While jurors heard about that guilty plea during the trial, CNNnotes, Merchan instructed them that they should consider it only “to assess Cohen’s credibility and give context to the events that followed, but not in determining the defendant’s guilt.”

It is unclear whether Trump violated FECA by soliciting Cohen’s “contribution,” a question that hinges on thefuzzy distinctionbetween personal and campaign expenditures. Given the uncertainty on that point, it isplausiblethat Trump did not think the Daniels payment was illegal, which helps explain why he was never prosecuted under FECA: Toobtain a conviction, federal prosecutors would have had to prove that he “knowingly and willfully” violated the statute.

The New York prosecutors said Cohen and Trump conspired to promote his election through “unlawful means.” Under New York law, a criminal conspiracy requires “a specific intent to commit a crime.” Trump’s understanding of FECA was relevant in assessing whether he had such an intent, meaning he recognized the nondisclosure agreement with Daniels as “unlawful means.” Trump’s understanding of FECA therefore also was relevant in assessing whether he falsified business records with the intent of covering up “another crime.”

That theory assumed three things: 1) that Trump recognized the Daniels payment as a FECA violation; 2) that he knew about Section 17-152, a moribund, rarely invoked law; and 3) that he anticipated how New York prosecutors might construe Section 17-152 in light of FECA. The first assumption is questionable, the second is unlikely, and the third is highly implausible. Yet you would have to believe all three things to conclude that Trump approved a plan to misrepresent his reimbursement of Cohen as payment for legal services with the intent of covering up a FECA-dependent violation of Section 17-152.

According to a second theory, Trump facilitated a violation of New York tax law by allowing Cohen to falsely report his reimbursement as income. Although that violation is described as “criminal tax fraud,” Merchan said it did not matter that Cohen’s alleged misrepresentation resulted in a highertax bill. The judge noted that it is illegal to submit “materially false or fraudulent information in connection with any return,” regardless of whether that information benefits the taxpayer.

Putting aside that counterintuitive definition of tax fraud, this theory required believing that Trump, when he reimbursed Cohen, not only contemplated what would happen when Cohen filed his returns the following year but also thought that “unlawful means” somehow would influence an election that had already happened. The logic here was hard to follow.

Likewise with the third theory of “unlawful means.” Prosecutors suggested that Trump’s falsification of business records was designed to aid or conceal the falsification of otherbusiness records. CNNreportedthat the latter records could involve, among other things, the corporate bank account that Cohen created to pay Daniels, Cohen’s transfer of the money to Daniels’ lawyer, or the Trump Organization’s 1099-MISC forms for the payments to Cohen.

Since the 1099 forms were issuedafterthe election, it is hard to see how they could have been aimed at ensuring Trump’s victory. And although the other records predated the election, this theory involves a weird sort of bootstrapping.

Prosecutors said the records related to Cohen’s dummy corporation, for example, were falsified because they misrepresented the nature and purpose of that entity, which by itself is a misdemeanor. That misdemeanor was the “unlawful means” by which Trump allegedly sought to promote his election, another misdemeanor. And because Trump allegedly tried to conceal the latter misdemeanor by falsifying the records related to Cohen’s reimbursement, those records are 34 felonies instead of 34 misdemeanors.

The theory that Trump falsified business records to conceal the falsification of business records was “so circular as to produce vertigo in the jury room,” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said. If so, the jurors seem to have quickly recovered from their queasiness. They accepted either this dubious theory, one of the others, or possibly some combination of them. Since unanimity was not required, it is possible that some jurors bought the FECA theory, some preferred the double falsification theory, and some concluded that the case was clinched by a tax fraud with no pecuniary benefit.

To disguise the difficulties with its dueling theories, the prosecution averredthat Trump committed “election fraud” when he directed Cohen to pay Daniels for her silence, thereby concealing information that voters might have deemed relevant in choosing between him and Hillary Clinton. “This was a planned, coordinated, long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Tump get elected through illegal expenditures, to silence people who had something bad to say about his behavior,” lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelotoldthe jury in his opening statement. “It was election fraud, pure and simple.”

During his summation, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass called the nondisclosure agreement with Daniels “a subversion of democracy.” Hesaid it was an “effort to hoodwink the American voter.” He told “a sweeping story about a fraud on the American people,” as The New York Timesput it. “He argue[d] that the American people in 2016 had the right to determine whether they cared that Trump had slept with a porn star or not, and that the conspiracy prevented them from doing so.”

Did the American people have such a right? If so, Trump would have violated it even he had merely asked Daniels to keep quiet, perhaps by appealing to her sympathy for his wife. If Daniels had agreed, the result would have been the same. As the prosecution told it, that still would amount to “election fraud,” even though there is clearly nothing illegal about it.

The jurors evidently bought this cover story. During deliberations, they revisited the testimony of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, a Trump buddy whom prosecutors implicated in that “long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election.” Pecker’s arrangement with Trump, which he described as mutually beneficial, was not the basis for any of the charges against Trump. But his testimony reinforced Bragg’s legally dubious claim that Trump engaged in “election interference” when he sought to avoid bad press.

Pecker said he agreed to help Trump in several ways. He would run positive stories about Trump and negative stories about his opponents. He also would keep an eye out for potentially damaging stories about Trump and alert Cohen to them. The latter promise resulted in two agreements that the Enquirer negotiated with Dino Sajudin, a former Trump Tower doorman who falsely claimed that Trump had fathered a child with a woman hired to clean the building, and former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal, who described a year-long affair with Trump. After paying $30,000 to Sajudin and $150,000 to McDougal for exclusive rights to their stories, the Enquirer sat on them.

Again, Trump was not charged in connection with any of this, and much of what Pecker did was constitutionally protected, albeit journalistically unethical. The fact that the jury nevertheless wanted to be read excerpts from Pecker’s testimony suggests they accepted the prosecution’s commodious understanding of “election fraud,” which did not necessarily require any actual lawbreaking, let alone any attempt to interfere with the casting, counting, or reporting of votes.

In short, there was a glaringmismatch between the charges against Trump and what prosecutors described as the essence of his crime, which isnot a crime at all. Since they could not charge him with “election fraud” merely because he tried to hide embarrassing information, they instead built a convoluted case that relied on interacting statutes and questionable assumptions about Trump’s knowledge and intent.

That approach suggests several possible grounds for appeal. It is not clear, for example, whether a violation of federal campaign finance regulations counts as “another crime” under the state law dealing with falsification of business records. Even if it does, it is not clear whether Section 17-152 applies in the context of a federal election, where federal law generally pre-empts state law. There are also questions about what is required to prove that Trump had “an intent to defraud” when he signed the checks to Cohen.

Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., after lengthy consideration of possible state charges based on the Daniels payment, decided they were too legally iffy to pursue. Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor in Vance’s office who worked on the Trump investigation,concludedthat “such a case was too risky under New York law.” In a 2023book, Pomerantznotedthat “no appellate court in New York had ever upheld (or rejected) this interpretation of the law.”

Last week,New York Times columnist David French worried about the consequences of a conviction that is overturned on appeal. “Imagine a scenario in which Trump is convicted at the trial, Biden condemns him as a felon and the Biden campaign runs ads mocking him as a convict,” he wrote. “If Biden wins a narrow victory but then an appeals court tosses out the conviction, this case could well undermine faith in our democracy and the rule of law.” In his desperation to prevent Trump from reoccupying the White House, Bragg has already accomplished that.

Continue Reading

Sports

Edmonton takes control over Stars: Game 3 grades, takeaways

Published

on

By

Edmonton takes control over Stars: Game 3 grades, takeaways

While fans in Edmonton and Dallas are always singing about how they have friends in low places, only one of them has the high ground in the Western Conference finals. And that’s the Oilers after their 6-1 win Sunday in Game 3 to take a 2-1 series lead.

With the series tied heading into Sunday, the objective for Game 3 was to gain a firm grasp of the conference finals, and the Oilers did just that by having five players with multipoint performances. As for the Stars, losing Game 3 left them trailing a series for the second time this postseason, with the only other such occurrence coming after Game 1 against the Colorado Avalanche in the first round.

Now that the Oilers are in control of the series, what does it mean for them going forward? What must the Stars do differently ahead of Game 4 for them to return home tied rather than a game away from elimination? Ryan S. Clark and Greg Wyshynski examine those questions while delving into what lies ahead for two teams that not only faced each other in the conference finals last season but between them have been involved in every conference final since 2020.

Edmonton Oilers
Grade: A

Much could change between now and whenever the playoffs end. But for now, the argument could be made that this was the most important playoff game the Oilers have had this postseason.

The Oilers have had numerous strong performances, such as Game 3 against the Los Angeles Kings in the first round or their final two games against the Vegas Golden Knights in the conference semifinals. But what made the Oilers’ performance in Game 3 against Dallas arguably their most important was that they found a balance between being difficult in the defensive zone while not relying on a shutout to accomplish that objective.

The Stars finished with 37 shots, 13 high-danger chances in 5-on-5 play and scored only once. Connor McDavid has repeatedly stressed that the Oilers can play defense, and that has been made clear over their past five games. But Sunday proved they didn’t need Stuart Skinner or their defensive structure to blank an opponent to win. — Ryan S. Clark

Dallas Stars
Grade: C+

The final score doesn’t reflect the majority of this game, which Dallas coach Pete DeBoer can mine for positives among the many (many) negatives and some mitigating circumstances. Having Roope Hintz warm up but not be able to go because of the foot injury he suffered from a Darnell Nurse slash in Game 2? That’s deflating. Having the on-ice officials miss a delay of game call on Brett Kulak in the first period only to have Evan Bouchard open the scoring 10 seconds later? Also deflating.

So it’s to the Stars’ credit that they got to their game at 5-on-5 in Game 3 better than they have in any game of the series, at least before Edmonton ran up the score in the third. The results weren’t there and a loss is a loss — and a loss by this margin is difficult to stomach — but their second period and the performances from some of their slumbering depth players give the Stars at least a glimmer.

However, there’s no question Edmonton has this thing in well in-hand and the Stars have to find a way to solve Skinner, which is not something I thought I’d be writing at this stage of the postseason. — Greg Wyshynski


Three Stars of Game 3

Two goals and an assist for his seventh career multigoal playoff game. Hyman’s second goal was the Oilers’ fourth off the rush, the most in one game by any team this postseason. Hyman also was plus-5 Sunday.

Bouchard scored his sixth goal of the postseason and these two were on the ice for the first two Edmonton goals. At 5-on-5 this postseason, the Oilers are outscoring their opponents 7-1, and 5-0 in this series, when Bouchard and Kulak are on the ice.

play

0:48

Connor McDavid restores Oilers’ 2-goal lead

Connor McDavid finds the back of the net to restore the Oilers’ two-goal lead vs. the Stars.

3. Connor McDavid
C, Oilers

For all the talk about the lack of goals from the best hockey player in the world (which was odd because he had 20 points in 13 games and was a plus-7 entering Game 3 despite having only three goals), McDavid punched out a pair of tucks for his sixth career multigoal playoff game. Also, seeing McDavid with the puck barreling toward the net on a 3-on-1 is nightmare fuel for opponents. — Arda Öcal


Players to watch in Game 4

Zach Hyman
LW, Oilers

To go from 16 goals last postseason to just three goals entering Game 3 of the conference finals is one way to assess Hyman. Another is to realize that he’s been the most physical player on a team that is among the tallest and heaviest in the NHL.

Hyman came into Game 3 leading the NHL with 99 hits. He remained physical Sunday by leading the way with six hits in a game that saw the Oilers continue their punishing style with 47. But to then see Hyman score two goals and finish with three points in addition to that physicality? It once again adds to the narrative that the Oilers might not only have more dimensions than last year’s team, they could be better than the team that finished Stanley Cup runner-up in 2024. — Clark

play

0:53

Zach Hyman’s 2nd goal puts Oilers up 4

Zach Hyman taps home his second goal of the game to put the Oilers up 5-1 vs. the Stars.

This is the first two-game losing streak for the Dallas goaltender in the playoffs. A lot of what happened in Game 3 wasn’t necessarily on him — a Connor McDavid beauty and a Zach Hyman breakaway were among the Edmonton tallies — but outside of the third period of Game 1, he’s not been a difference-maker in this series. Oettinger came into the game leading the playoffs with 5.58 goals saved above expected, according to Stathletes. The Stars have been able to depend on him as a slump-breaker. But this is his third game with a save percentage south of .900 in the series. As the Stars try to build on some positives from this game, they need Otter to provide the foundation for it — and in the process, silence those “U.S. backup!” chants from the Oilers fans. — Wyshynski


Big questions for Game 4

Are the Oilers about to do to the Stars what they did to the Golden Knights?

Simply put, the Oilers are where hope goes to die. Teams in a championship window that have yet to win a title are always being judged on their evolution. What the Oilers did to the Stars a year ago in the conference finals by winning the last three games showed that they could close out a series after trailing. This postseason Edmonton has shown a calculated and methodical coldness when it comes to putting away opponents.

The Golden Knights won Game 3 on a last-second goal to create the belief they may have found an opening. They didn’t score again for the rest of the playoffs after being in the top five of goals per game throughout the regular season. Breaking out for six goals to open the series seemed to be a sign the Stars may have found an opening. Since then? They’ve scored only once in the last six periods while facing questions about what’s happened to another team that went from being in the top five in goals per game in the regular season. — Clark

Can Dallas make Edmonton uncomfortable at all?

Our colleague Mark Messier made this point between periods of Game 3: The Stars have yet to do anything to get McDavid or Leon Draisaitl off their games. That extends to the rest of the Oilers. Outside of an anomalous run of three power-play goals in the third period of Game 1, there have been precious few instances of the Stars carrying play for long stretches or putting a scare into Edmonton at 5-on-5.

They had that for a bit in Game 3 with a dominant second period: plus-14 in shot attempts, plus-11 in scoring chances and a 10-1 advantage in high-danger shot attempts. But they were digging out of a 2-0 hole, only managed to get one goal of their own on the board and then McDavid stuck a dagger in them with 19 seconds left in the second.

The Stars need a lead. They need zone time. They need to get their rush game going: Skinner had a .897 save percentage on shots off the rush entering the game. Edmonton is playing with a champion’s confidence. Dallas has to find a way to inject a little doubt into its opponent or this series is going to end quickly. — Wyshynski

Continue Reading

Sports

U.S. wins 1st worlds in 92 years, honors Gaudreau

Published

on

By

U.S. wins 1st worlds in 92 years, honors Gaudreau

STOCKHOLM — Buffalo Sabres star forward Tage Thompson scored the winner 2:02 into overtime, and Team USA outlasted Switzerland 1-0 in the final of the ice hockey world championship at Avicii Arena on Sunday.

It is the first on-ice trophy for USA Hockey in this tournament in 92 years, after the Americans brought it home back in 1933. And it was an emotional one. As Team USA posed for its championship photo at center ice, players held up a No. 13 jersey of Johnny Gaudreau, the former NHL and USA Hockey star forward who died tragically last August when he and his brother, Matthew, were hit by an allegedly drunken and enraged driver as they cycled at night in New Jersey.

Thompson, who had 44 goals and 72 points with the Sabres this season, is hoping to polish off his resume for a spot on the U.S. roster for the 2026 Olympics, and he’s off to a great start. A Team USA reserve for the 4 Nations Face-Off in February who did not suit up, Thompson made the most of his time playing with a host of young NHL forwards who either did not make, or have been eliminated from, the Stanley Cup playoffs.

Thompson’s shot, off passes from Utah Hockey Club forward Logan Cooley and Nashville Predators defenseman Brady Skjei, flew past the blocker of Swiss goaltender Leonardo Genoni, ending a dramatic but tight title game. Team USA outshot Switzerland 40-25.

Boston Bruins goaltender Jeremy Swayman capped off the shutout in the final, finishing with 25 saves a year after his NHL teammate, David Pastrnak led the Czech Republic to this same title.

“We did it, the wait is over,” Swayman said in a post to USA Hockey fans on the organization’s social media platforms. “Thanks for sticking along with us. It’s going to be a great summer.”

The Americans were also formally awarded the title in 1960 when they won the Olympic tournament and the worlds did not take place. But they hadn’t won it on the ice in more than nine decades.

The Swiss played without injured star center Nico Hischier, the captain of the New Jersey Devils. After the loss, Genoni was named the tournament’s MVP.

Earlier Sunday, Sweden defeated Denmark 6-2 in the bronze medal game. Calgary Flames center Mikael Backlund and Minnesota Wild forward Marcus Johansson scored two goals each for the hosts, marking the second-straight third-place finish for Sweden. The fourth-place result was the best-ever finish for Denmark.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Sports

Oilers ‘reset,’ handle Stars for 2-1 series lead

Published

on

By

Oilers 'reset,' handle Stars for 2-1 series lead

EDMONTON, Alberta — Zach Hyman had two goals and an assist, Connor McDavid also had a two-goal outing and the Edmonton Oilers took a 2-1 lead in their Western Conference final series with a 6-1 victory over the Dallas Stars on Sunday.

Evan Bouchard, with a goal and an assist, and John Klingberg also scored for the Oilers. Ryan Nugent-Hopkins added three assists.

Stuart Skinner made 33 saves in the Edmonton net to improve to 4-4 in the postseason this year, his first victory in the playoffs that wasn’t a shutout.

“We had a bit of a dip, they had a bit of push,” Nugent-Hopkins said of the Stars’ play in the second period, lauding Skinner for keeping the team in it. “He stepped up big time for us, and made some big saves. You need your goalies to do that.”

The Oilers have won two straight since their third-period collapse in Game 1 in Dallas, and improved to 10-3 in the postseason since dropping the first two games of their first-round series vs. the Los Angeles Kings.

Jason Robertson scored for the Stars, who are hoping to avoid being knocked out in the third round by the Oilers for a second consecutive season.

“They were definitely the better team in the second period,” Skinner said of the Stars. “And we kind of knew that going into the third. So, we just had to reset.”

Jake Oettinger stopped 18 shots in Dallas’ net, falling to 5-10 in his career in West final contests.

Game 4 will be in Edmonton on Tuesday.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending