SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
-against- DONALD J. TRUMP,
STATEMENT OF FACTS IND-71543-23
Defendant.
INTRODUCTION
1. The defendant DONALD J. TRUMP repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.
2. From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects. In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York. The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme.
[They didn't do a good job of keeping "damaging information from the voting public," I know that's right HOO DOGGIE! That is going to have ZERO jury appeal. With all that "the voting public" knew about Trump besides this, he having affairs with Karen McDougal (Woman 1 in the indictment) and Stormy Daniels would have had NO effect on the outcome of the election. BUT! WAIT! STILL, if they can prove that that was Trump's intent on paying off the women, then they have proved their case. I am dying to know how strong their proof is on that. What if the proof is lacking on that intent and the defense posits "keep damaging information from Melania Trump"? Think of that as a motive as you may but remember that the prosecution has the burden of proving the election motive beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. I think it HIGHLY plausible that a jury would find hiding two marital infidelities reasonable doubt. No, below, I think their proof on intent is strong.]
…
4. After the election, the Defendant reimbursed Lawyer A for the illegal payment through a series of monthly checks, first from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust (the “Defendant’s Trust”)—a Trust created under the laws of New York which held the Trump Organization entity assets after the Defendant was elected President—and then from the Defendant’s bank account. Each check was processed by the Trump Organization, and each check was disguised as a payment for legal services rendered in a given month of 2017 pursuant to a retainer agreement. The payment records, kept and maintained by the Trump Organization, were false New York business records. In truth, there was no retainer agreement, and Lawyer A was not being paid for legal services rendered in 2017.
[This is what I did not understand in Bragg's presser. The theory of prosecution is not "we enter a time machine", it is that the payments in 2017 were always intended to be made for the "catch and kill" actions in 2015 and pre-election 2016.]
...
THE SCHEME
I. The Catch and Kill Scheme to Suppress Negative Information
7. During and in furtherance of his candidacy for President, the Defendant and others agreed to identify and suppress negative stories about him.
…
C. Suppressing Woman 1’s Account
12. About five months before the presidential election, in or about June 2016, the editor-in-chief of the National Enquirer and AMI’s Chief Content Officer (the “AMI Editor-in- Chief”) contacted Lawyer A about a woman (“Woman 1”) who alleged she had a sexual relationship with the Defendant while he was married. The AMI Editor-in-Chief updated Lawyer A regularly about the matter over text message and by telephone. The Defendant did not want this information to become public because he was concerned about the effect it could have on his candidacy. Thereafter, the Defendant, the AMI CEO, and Lawyer A had a series of discussions about who should pay off Woman 1 to secure her silence.
[What did the voting public know and when did they know it? My memory of June 2016 is fuzzy but my memory is that Hillary Clinton was about as far ahead in the polls as she ever was then so this does seem to me early enough that Trump's intent then would have been not to torpedo his candidacy. After the Access Hollywood tape (October) the prosecution would have a hard time convincing me that Trumpie's intent was to protect his marriage.]
13. AMI ultimately paid $150,000 to Woman 1 in exchange for her agreement not to speak out about the alleged sexual relationship, as well as for two magazine cover features of Woman 1 and a series of articles that would be published under her byline. AMI falsely characterized this payment in AMI’s books and records, including in its general ledger. The AMI CEO agreed to the deal after discussing it with both the Defendant and Lawyer A, and on the understanding from Lawyer A that the Defendant or the Trump Organization would reimburse AMI.
14. In a conversation captured in an audio recording in approximately September 2016 concerning Woman 1’s account, the Defendant and Lawyer A discussed how to obtain the rights to Woman 1’s account from AMI and how to reimburse AMI for its payment. Lawyer A told the Defendant he would open up a company for the transfer of Woman 1’s account and other information, and stated that he had spoken to the Chief Financial Officer for the Trump Organization (the “TO CFO”) about “how to set the whole thing up.” The Defendant asked, “So what do we got to pay for this? One fifty?” and suggested paying by cash. When Lawyer A disagreed, the Defendant then mentioned payment by check. After the conversation, Lawyer A created a shell company called Resolution Consultants, LLC on or about September 30, 2016.
[Yeah, I see now. That proffer of proof has convinced me that they have a quality and quantum of evidence on which a reasonable jury would likely, and legally, convict. It's still small potatoes but it is real potatoes. ]
