So many things wrong with that article.
IANAL. Just approaching it logically, there seem to be a lot of flaws.
First, it seems to be based largely on Mark Pomerantz’s book. Pomerantz seems to have a beef with Bragg. Anything he writes or says about this case should be taken with a truckload of salt.
Second, the primary concern seems to be whether the term “crime” refers to a state crime or federal crime. That concern would seem to be a red herring. It is of course possible to commit a state crime while trying to cover up a federal crime or vice-versa. Since the statute just refers to “crime” then the simplest (and best) interpretation is that it refers to a crime at any level. If the legislature had wanted to specify a particular jurisdiction, they had ample opportunity to do so.
Third, the article questions whether any such federal crime occurred, to base the felony distinction for the business fraud charges upon. This is the wrong question, since it is essentially unknowable. What matters is the defendent’s actions and intentions. The fact is that the defendent treated it as a crime to be covered up. From Cohen’s public testimony in 2017-18, T**** knew it was a violation of campaign finance laws because Cohen as an attorney told him so. Much like with obstruction of justice, the confirmed presence of an underlying crime is unnecessary; the cover up is the crime. In fact, the felony aspect of the NY business fraud statute reads very much like obstruction itself. The law has to give leeway to the prosecution about the underlying crime because obstruction is so effective at obscuring the nature of the crime itself.
Finally, everyone who’s worked for a large US corporation has probably taken the seemingly unending financial compliance trainings that cover this behavior. As a corporate officer, T**** is held to the standard of having to know the laws that govern corporate financial compliance and reporting. He is presumed to know them and has had to sign documents confirming that knowledge and responsibility. He cannot legally claim to be unaware of them - he specifically asked to be held to them when he formed his company.
ETA: Oh, and the statute of limitations! If an exception should ever be made, this is the case! T**** was president by the time this came to light and was literally untouchable by the State of New York. That 4 years of guaranteed freedom from prosecution might as well not exist when it comes to SoL.
