(03-31-2023, 09:58 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(03-31-2023, 09:47 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Care to post the contents of that entirely unbiased article? You know... for those of us who don't want to pay to have others tell us how to think.

I think this is the most relevant part of it.  I underlined one key point:  

While the specific charges in the Manhattan case against the former president remain unknown, Mr. Bragg’s case centers on a $130,000 hush-money payment to Ms. Daniels.

Mr. Trump’s longtime fixer, Michael D. Cohen, made the payment in the final days of the 2016 campaign. Mr. Trump later reimbursed him, signing monthly checks while serving as president.
Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors appear to have zeroed in on the way Mr. Trump and his family business, the Trump Organization, handled the reimbursement to Mr. Cohen. In internal documents, Trump Organization employees falsely recorded the repayments as legal expenses, and the company invented a bogus retainer agreement with Mr. Cohen to justify them.
Mr. Cohen, who broke with Mr. Trump in 2018 and later testified before Congress as well as the grand jury that indicted Mr. Trump, has said that the former president knew about the phony legal expenses and retainer agreement.
In New York, it can be a crime to falsify business records, and Mr. Bragg’s office is likely to build the case around that charge, according to people with knowledge of the matter and outside legal experts.
But to charge falsifying business records as a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an effort to commit or conceal a second crime.
That second crime could be a violation of election law. Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors might argue that the payment to Ms. Daniels represented an illicit contribution to Mr. Trump’s campaign: The money silenced Ms. Daniels, aiding his candidacy at a crucial time.

Personally, in my opinion, if the above is accurate, it still seems like a stretch to move this up from a misdemeanor to a felony.  It reminds me of the way law enforcement goes after known gangsters.   

The misdemeanor charge is probably a slam dunk.  Trump's lawyers might argue that others who are not running for office make these types of payments to protect their reputations frequently.  They might even demonstrate that Trump made this type of payment to other people at other times before he became a candidate for office.  It makes sense that the law would raise the stakes when someone becomes a candidate for public office rather than a reality TV star.  But it might come down to a judgement call for 12 jurors.  How comfortable are the 12 jurors with raising the stakes that way? Depends how the judge sets up the arguments and instructions to the jury.

---