So.. if they find him guilty, what will they find him guilty of?
No actual crime was specified.
Falsifying business records in the first degree, penal law 170.10.
I’m tired of this “no crime was specified” argument. It’s wrong and proves the speaker is ignorant of what they speak.
A conviction of 170.10 requires there to have been an intent to cover up another crime. THAT crime doesn’t have to be proven, only the defendant’s intent to cover a crime up. And Bragg did identify 4 possibilities of what that underlying crime could be, 3 of which survived Trump’s motion to dismiss.
Of course the whole thing is a BS charade, but that’s a factual/proof issue, not a charge issue.
Trump paid a lawyer who was representing him and recorded it as “legal expense”. Just exactly why is that any kind of a “crime”?
except that there was no crime for him to ‘intend’ to coverup.