We finally know the case against Trump, and it's strong

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

For weeks, Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, has come under heavy fire for pursuing a case against Donald Trump. Potential charges were described as being developed under a novel legal theory. And criticism has come not only from Trump and his allies, as expected, but also from many who are usually no friends of the former president but who feared it would be a weak case.

With the release of the indictment and accompanying statement of facts, we can now say that there's nothing novel or weak about this case. The charge of creating false financial records is constantly brought by Bragg and other New York DAs. In particular, the creation of phony documentation to cover up campaign finance violations has been repeatedly prosecuted in New York. That is exactly what Trump stands accused of.

The judge and jury will make the ultimate determination, but they will be far from the first to consider this question, and the answer has usually been a guilty verdict.

First, a note about the Manhattan DA's office that will prosecute this case: It is hardly a typical local cog in the judicial system. In fact, it is unique. Its jurisdiction is the financial capital of the world. That means the office routinely prosecutes complex white-collar cases with crime scenes that involve the likes of the BNP Paribas international banking scandal. Big cases involving powerful, high-profile individuals have been handled by the office for decades. That was proved most recently by the office's conviction of the Trump Organization and the guilty plea of one of its top executives, Allen Weisselberg, on charges relating to an intricate yearslong tax fraud scheme.

The books and records counts laid out in the charging papers against Trump are the bread and butter of the DA's office. Trump, who pleaded not guilty to all charges on Tuesday, is the 30th defendant to be indicted on false records charges by Bragg since he took office just over a year ago, with the DA bringing 151 counts under the statute so far. Indeed, the Trump Organization conviction and the Weisselberg plea included business falsification felonies.

Moreover, the statement of facts alleges that deals, including one for Daniels and another for Karen McDougal that involved The National Enquirer, which had longstanding ties to Trump, were for the purpose of helping him win the presidency. If that is proved, then the deals would be "attempts to violate state and federal election laws," as Bragg said in a statement, such as on their amount and disclosure. In this theory, the false records in the indictment covered up the campaign finance violation.

While the particulars of Trump's case are unique, his behavior is not. Candidates and others have often attempted to skirt the disclosure and dollar limit requirements of campaign finance regulations and falsified records to hide it. Contrary to the protestations of Trump and his allies, New York prosecutors regularly charge felony violations of the books and records statute — and win convictions — when the crimes covered up were campaign finance violations, resulting in false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity.

For example, the Rockland County DA convicted the executive Richard Brega for falsifying business records by misrepresenting the source of funds that he funneled into a campaign. The Oneida County DA charged a county political party chair, John Dote, with pilfering campaign funds and failing to properly account for them, resulting in conviction for felony falsification of business records (and second-degree grand larceny). The Brooklyn DA convicted Assemblyman Clarence Norman for soliciting illegal campaign contributions and for felony falsification of business records. And on and on, in New York and federally.

There have also been several analogous prosecutions for falsifying records to cover up campaign finance violations in New York and elsewhere that did not result in conviction. That in itself is not unusual, as judges and juries sometimes disagree with a prosecution. And it is, in fact, a good thing — a sign of a criminal justice system that tries to operate with fairness.

What these cases demonstrate is that Bragg is not navigating uncharted waters. They also support a corollary point in favor of this prosecution. Some legal analysts have pointed to an intent to defraud issue with the charges. The statute says that "a person is guilty of falsifying business records when, "with intent to defraud," the individual commits certain acts.

New York appellate courts have held in a long series of cases that intent to defraud includes circumstances in which a defendant acts "for the purpose of frustrating the state's power" to "faithfully carry out its own law." To the extent Trump was covering up campaign contributions that violated New York law, that seems to be exactly what he did.

It's also worth noting that Trump was a federal candidate, whereas the other New York cases involved state ones. But court after court across the country has recognized that state authorities can enforce state law in cases relating to federal candidates. Those courts have allowed state cases concerning federal campaign contributions under widely varied circumstances, including for fraudulently diverting funds from political action committees founded to support federal presidential campaigns, violating state law limits on corporate contributions to federal campaigns and transgressing state laws concerning donations to PACs that funded federal campaigns. Some of the examples involve criminal enforcement by state authorities, some civil, but the point is the same: They can act.

So Bragg's bringing a state case concerning a federal campaign is hardly novel. In an abundance of caution, he not only alleges violations of state campaign finance law but also alleges federal violations. We believe that is permitted, given that the fraudulent books and records and other relevant statutes refer simply to covering up "another crime" or using "unlawful means" and do not specify whether they need be federal or state.

This approach is wise because to throw out the case, a judge would have to rule that Trump is covered by neither state nor federal campaign finance law. We think it is unlikely that the courts will embrace that Catch-22.

Whatever happens next, one thing is clear: Trump cannot persuasively argue he is being singled out for some unprecedented theory of prosecution. He is being treated as any other New Yorker would be with similar evidence against him.