In this case, that second offense could be a violation of New York State election laws. While gag money is not inherently illegal, prosecutors could argue that the $130,000 payment actually became an inappropriate donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign. , theorized that because the money silenced Ms. Daniels, it was beneficial to his candidacy.
Combining criminal charges with violations of state election laws would be a new legal theory for any criminal case, let alone one against a former president, increasing the likelihood a judge or appellate court can dismiss or reduce the felony to a minimum. misdemeanor.
This is not the first Manhattan grand jury to hear evidence about Mr. Trump. Before leaving office at the end of 2021, Mr. Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., directed prosecutors to begin presenting evidence before a grand jury earlier. That potential case focuses on the former president’s business practices, particularly whether he fraudulently inflated his net worth by billions of dollars to secure favorable terms. loans and other benefits.
But Mr. Bragg, shortly after taking office last year, was concerned about the strength of that case and halted the presentation, prompting the resignation of two senior prosecutors leading the investigation.
However, the part of the investigation related to Mr. Trump’s net worth is still ongoing, people with knowledge of the matter said.
Defendants rarely choose to testify before a grand jury, and it is highly unlikely that Mr. Trump will do so. As a potential defendant, he would have to waive immunity, meaning his testimony could be used against him if he was charged. Although he may have an attorney present on the grand jury to advise him, that attorney will be barred from speaking to jurors, and there will be very little restriction on questions. questions that prosecutors can ask the former president.
In recent years, Mr. Trump was cautious when answering questions under oath, with legal intrigues swirling around him. When the New York attorney general deposed him last year in a civil case, Mr. Trump declined to provide any information, taking advantage of the Fifth Amendment’s right to refuse to answer more questions. 400 times over the course of four hours. If he testified about the hush money before this grand jury, he wouldn’t have that option.
Maggie Haberman And Sean Piccoli contribution report.
