Chancellor Kent Syverud | Syracuse University
Chancellor Kent Syverud | Syracuse University
Legal Analysis of the Trump Hush Money Case
By Gregory Germain, Professor of Law
District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleges that, shortly before the 2016 presidential election between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton, Trump made several arrangements to prevent the public disclosure of allegations against him that might negatively affect his election. Trump disguised the hush money payments by having Cohen make the payments, and then reimbursing him using business entries that called the payments “attorney fees.”
Regarding the charges against Trump, Professor Germain states, "The underlying case is somewhat like the criminal charges brought against former presidential candidate John Edwards...Nevertheless, the jury found Edwards not guilty of violating the campaign finance laws, and the government decided not to further pursue the remaining charges that the jury was unable to decide."
In analyzing the legal aspects of the case, Professor Germain points out, "There are several layers that I believe District Attorney Bragg must show to convict Trump of committing a felony under Penal Law § 175.10." He further explains the complexities the District Attorney must address in proving Trump's guilt.
Judge Merchan’s summary of the case for the jury is also scrutinized by Professor Germain, who questions the clarity of when it is a crime to “unlawfully influence” an election and the lack of explanation on who was defrauded and what the independent crime is.
As for the potential penalty if Trump is convicted, Professor Germain notes, "He would be subject to a fine of up to $5,000 under NY Pen § 80.1...It is difficult to see how these minor penalties would justify such an expensive investigation and prosecution."
In conclusion, Professor Germain expresses concerns about the political motivations behind the case, stating, "I believe that the use of our legal system for political purposes will backfire with the electorate...Bragg has a lot to live up to. This old case, with all of its legal difficulties, should not have been brought."
Alerts Sign-up