With ‘not guilty,’ Trump enters period of potential legal peril
U.S. politics officially entered uncharted territory on Tuesday as former President Donald Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records as part of his alleged involvement in hush money payments to two women prior to the 2016 election.
Mr. Trump’s arraignment in a New York courtroom provided the first public glimpse of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case – the first-ever criminal charges filed against a former U.S. president. It also opened a potentially perilous period of legal vulnerability for a developer/reality star who rose, surprisingly, to heights of political power, lost his position, and is now trying to return to the White House with a third presidential campaign.
Why We Wrote This
The first-ever criminal charges filed against a former U.S. president opened a chapter of legal vulnerability for Donald Trump. Three other indictments could follow.
Besides the Manhattan charges, Mr. Trump is facing a possible indictment in Georgia on allegations of election interference, and is under investigation by federal special counsel Jack Smith for his alleged role in sparking the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, as well as the possible illegal retention of classified documents following his 2020 loss.
“Is it the downfall of our system that we had a president who engaged in such activity that as an ex-president he’s facing four possible indictments?” says Barbara Perry at the University of Virginia. “Or is it a sign that our constitutional system is working?”
U.S. politics officially entered uncharted territory on Tuesday as former President Donald Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records as part of his alleged involvement in hush money payments to two women prior to the 2016 election.
Mr. Trump’s arraignment in a New York courtroom provided the first public glimpse of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case – the first-ever criminal charges filed against a former U.S. president. It also opened a potentially perilous period of legal vulnerability for a developer/reality star who rose, surprisingly, to heights of political power, lost his position, and is now trying to return to the White House with a third presidential campaign.
Besides the Manhattan charges, Mr. Trump is facing a possible indictment in Georgia on allegations of election interference, and is under investigation by federal special counsel Jack Smith for his alleged role in sparking the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, as well as the possible illegal retention of classified documents and other presidential records following his 2020 loss.
Why We Wrote This
The first-ever criminal charges filed against a former U.S. president opened a chapter of legal vulnerability for Donald Trump. Three other indictments could follow.
“It’s both stark and challenging to think we’ve arrived at this point. Is it the downfall of our system that we had a president who engaged in such activity that as an ex-president he’s facing four possible indictments? Or is it a sign that our constitutional system is working?” says Barbara Perry, director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center.
Courtroom proceedings
Mr. Trump’s departure from his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida to New York, and subsequent motorcade to Tuesday afternoon’s arrest and arraignment, was livestreamed on cable news networks and drew both anti- and pro-Trump protesters to the Manhattan Criminal Court building.
As opposed to this showlike atmosphere, the court proceeding itself was restrained and relatively brief. A somber Mr. Trump personally entered a not-guilty plea in front of acting State Supreme Court Justice Juan M. Merchan.
Prosecutors raised concerns about the effect that the former president’s “threatening” rhetoric might have on potential jurors and witnesses. On his social media accounts Mr. Trump has warned of possible violence that could follow his arrest, and briefly posted a photo of himself holding a baseball bat next to a photo of Mr. Bragg.
Justice Merchan declined to impose a gag order on the case. But he warned all parties to show restraint in their language. He also told Mr. Trump that he could be removed if he became disruptive.
Mr. Trump sighed and said “I know,” according to reports from members of the media inside the courtroom.
Outlines of the case
The Statement of Facts in the case of the People of New York State against Donald J. Trump, unsealed and released to the public following Tuesday’s court proceedings, outlines what prosecutors allege was a “catch and kill scheme to suppress negative information” about Mr. Trump in his 2016 presidential campaign.
The “scheme” began in 2015, prosecutors allege, with a $30,000 payoff to a doorman who said he had information about a child allegedly fathered by Mr. Trump out of wedlock. Then there was a $150,000 payoff to “Woman 1,” who alleged she had an affair with Mr. Trump. (“Woman 1” has been widely reported in the media to be former Playboy model Karen McDougal.)
The last payoff was $130,000 to “Woman 2,” former porn actor Stormy Daniels, just prior to the November 2016 vote.
The beginning stages of this scheme were facilitated by the cooperation of the editor-in-chief of the National Enquirer, according to prosecutors. The payment to Ms. Daniels was made by Mr. Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen. Mr. Cohen was then reimbursed by checks from Trump sources, including some signed by Mr. Trump himself. The Trump Organization falsely recorded these reimbursements as “legal retainer” payments, according to the Statement of Facts.
The actual indictment of Mr. Trump produced by Mr. Bragg’s office is more bare-bones. It lists 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Each count deals with a specific check, ledger entry, or other business record dealing with the chain of invoices and receipts involved in the alleged scheme to suppress negative information.
Mr. Bragg, at a press conference following the arraignment, noted that it is a felony in New York to falsify business records with the intent to conceal another crime.
In this case “the scheme violated New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means,” said Mr. Bragg.
Snap analysis of indictment
Why was each piece of paper or entry its own separate indictment count? Is that a way of increasing the count numbers and making the case seem more impressive than it is?
David Super, a professor of law and economics at Georgetown Law, explains that one question that comes up with falsification of records charges is whether they were inadvertent. With 34 false records, prosecutors may be planning to argue that the concealment was not a mistake – it was a pattern.
“If they can prove all of these facts, then each accusation will support each other accusation on the question of intent,” says Mr. Super.
The number of counts also stems from the fact that there were multiple transactions in the alleged scheme, and each transaction generated its own paper trail. Other than that, Mr. Super says the indictment looks about as he expected it would.
There are no counts that specifically charge an intent to promote a candidacy by illegal means, because prosecutors don’t need to prove the underlying crime that makes falsification of business records a felony, says the Georgetown professor.
In other words, it’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.
“New York is alleging here that business records in its jurisdiction were deliberately falsified, and that the act of doing that was for criminal purposes, which is all they need to allege,” he says.
What the Trump team says
In a news conference following the indictment, Mr. Trump’s lawyers denounced the indictment as a “political prosecution.”
“You don’t expect this to happen to somebody who was the president of the United States,” said Trump attorney Todd Blanche.
The Trump team said it had been prepared for what the indictment contained, and that it was nothing. Mr. Blanche described it as “boilerplate.”
“I was surprised there were no facts in there. Normally in an indictment you have alleged facts,” said Trump attorney Joe Tacopina.
Mr. Trump’s personal reaction was the same as anyone else’s would have been, according to his lawyers. He is frustrated and upset, they said.
“But I’ll tell you what: He’s motivated. And it’s not going to stop him and it’s not going to slow him down,” said Mr. Blanche.
Justice Merchan set the next hearing date for the case as Dec. 4. Mr. Trump’s lawyers are expected to file for a change of venue to Staten Island, arguing that Manhattan is too anti-Trump to impanel an impartial jury.
