in

Trump Is Indicted, Becoming First Ex-President to Face Criminal Charges

A Manhattan grand jury indicted Donald J. Trump on Thursday for his role in paying hush money to a porn star, according to people with knowledge of the matter, a historic development that will shake up the 2024 presidential race and forever mark him as the nation’s first former president to face criminal charges.

On Thursday evening, after news of the charges had been widely reported, the district attorney’s office confirmed that Mr. Trump had been indicted and that prosecutors had contacted Mr. Trump’s attorney to coordinate his surrender to authorities in Manhattan.

Mr. Trump is likely to turn himself in on Tuesday, at which point the former president will be photographed and fingerprinted in the bowels of a New York State courthouse, with Secret Service agents in tow. He will then be arraigned, at which point the specific charges will be unsealed. Mr. Trump faces more than two dozen counts, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Trump has for decades avoided criminal charges despite persistent scrutiny and repeated investigations, creating an aura of legal invincibility that the indictment now threatens to puncture.

But unlike the investigations that arose from his time in the White House — which examined his strong-arm tactics on the international stage, his attempts to overturn the election and his summoning of a mob to the steps of the U.S. Capitol — this case is built around a tawdry episode that predates Mr. Trump’s presidency. The reality star turned presidential candidate who shocked the political establishment by winning the White House now faces a reckoning for a hush-money payment that buried a sex scandal in the final days of the 2016 campaign.

In a statement, Mr. Trump lashed out at the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, a Democrat, and portrayed the case as the continuation of a politically motivated witch hunt against him.

“This is political persecution and election interference at the highest level in history,” Mr. Trump said in the statement, calling Mr. Bragg “a disgrace” and casting himself as “a completely innocent person.”

The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, has been the target of Mr. Trump’s venomous attacks. Anna Watts for The New York Times

Mr. Trump, who has consistently denied all wrongdoing, has already called on his followers to protest his arrest, in language reminiscent of his social media posts in the weeks before the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by his supporters. He has also denied any affair with the porn star, Stormy Daniels, who had been looking to sell her story of a tryst with Mr. Trump during the 2016 campaign.

“President Trump did not commit any crime,” Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Susan R. Necheles and Joseph Tacopina, said in a statement. “We will vigorously fight this political prosecution in court.”

The first sign that an indictment was imminent on Thursday came just before 2 in the afternoon, when the three lead prosecutors on the Trump investigation walked into the Lower Manhattan building where the grand jury was sitting. One of them carried a copy of the penal law, which was most likely used to read the criminal statutes to the grand jurors before they voted.

The team prosecuting Mr. Trump was led by Matthew Colangelo, center, and Susan Hoffinger, center left, as well as Chris Conroy.Dave Sanders for The New York Times

Nearly three hours later, the prosecutors walked into the court clerk’s office through a back door to begin the official process of filing the indictment, arriving about two minutes before the office closed for the day.

For weeks, the atmosphere outside the district attorney’s office had resembled a circus, with television trucks and protesters surrounding the building. But the fervor had cooled by Thursday, and the outskirts of the office were emptier than they had been in weeks.

Mr. Bragg is the first prosecutor to indict Mr. Trump, but he might not be the last. Mr. Trump’s actions surrounding his electoral defeat are now the focus of a separate federal investigation, and a Georgia prosecutor is in the final stages of an investigation into Mr. Trump’s attempts to reverse the election results in that state.

But the Manhattan indictment, the product of a nearly five-year investigation, kicks off a volatile new phase in Mr. Trump’s post-presidential life as he makes a third run for the White House. And it will throw the race for the Republican nomination — which he is leading in most polls — into uncharted territory.

Under normal circumstances, an indictment would deal a fatal blow to a presidential candidacy. But Mr. Trump is not a normal candidate. He has already said that he would not abandon the race if he were charged, and the case might even help him in the short term as he paints himself as a political martyr.

The indictment also raises the prospect of an explosive backlash from Mr. Trump, who often uses his legal woes to stoke the rage of die-hard supporters. Already, the former president has used bigoted language to attack Mr. Bragg, the first Black man to lead the district attorney’s office, calling him a “racist,” an “animal” and a “radical left prosecutor.”

Mary Kelley, a supporter of Mr. Trump, on the bridge outside of Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., on Thursday.Josh Ritchie for The New York Times

In the past, Mr. Trump has lashed out when feeling cornered, encouraging the violent attack on the Capitol as he contested the results of the 2020 presidential election. That assault on the seat of government demonstrated that Mr. Trump’s most zealous followers were willing to resort to violence on his behalf as he sought to overturn the election results.

While the specific charges in the Manhattan case against the former president remain unknown, Mr. Bragg’s case centers on a $130,000 hush-money payment to Ms. Daniels.

Mr. Trump’s longtime fixer, Michael D. Cohen, made the payment in the final days of the 2016 campaign. Mr. Trump later reimbursed him, signing monthly checks while serving as president.

Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors appear to have zeroed in on the way Mr. Trump and his family business, the Trump Organization, handled the reimbursement to Mr. Cohen. In internal documents, Trump Organization employees falsely recorded the repayments as legal expenses, and the company invented a bogus retainer agreement with Mr. Cohen to justify them.

Mr. Cohen, who broke with Mr. Trump in 2018 and later testified before Congress as well as the grand jury that indicted Mr. Trump, has said that the former president knew about the phony legal expenses and retainer agreement.

In New York, it can be a crime to falsify business records, and Mr. Bragg’s office is likely to build the case around that charge, according to people with knowledge of the matter and outside legal experts.

But to charge falsifying business records as a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an effort to commit or conceal a second crime.

That second crime could be a violation of election law. Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors might argue that the payment to Ms. Daniels represented an illicit contribution to Mr. Trump’s campaign: The money silenced Ms. Daniels, aiding his candidacy at a crucial time.

“Campaign finance violations may seem like small potatoes next to possible charges for his attempt to overthrow the 2020 election, but they also go to the heart of the integrity of the electoral process,” said Jerry H. Goldfeder, a special counsel at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP and a recognized expert in New York state election law.

If Mr. Trump were ultimately convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of four years, though prison time would not be mandatory.

Yet a conviction is not a sure thing, and Mr. Bragg’s case might apply a legal theory that has yet to be evaluated by judges. A New York Times review of relevant cases and interviews with election law experts strongly suggest that New York State prosecutors have never before filed an election law case involving a federal campaign.

An untested case against any defendant, let alone a former president of the United States, carries the risk that a court could throw out or limit the charges.

Mr. Trump will not be the first person charged over the hush-money payment. In 2018, Mr. Cohen was federally prosecuted for the payment and pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations.

Michael D. Cohen, right, Mr. Trump’s former fixer, will be a crucial witness against him. Jefferson Siegel for The New York Times

Mr. Cohen is likely to become Mr. Bragg’s star witness at trial. While his past crimes will make him a target for Mr. Trump’s lawyers — who can be expected to attack the former fixer’s credibility at every turn — prosecutors will be likely to counter that Mr. Cohen lied on behalf of Mr. Trump, and that his story has been consistent for years.

In a statement, Mr. Cohen said he took “solace in validating the adage that no one is above the law; not even a former president.”

His lawyer, Lanny J. Davis, said that “Michael Cohen made the brave decision to speak truth to power and accept the consequences,” and that “he has done so ever since.”

Mr. Cohen will not be the prosecution’s only witness: David Pecker, a longtime ally of Mr. Trump and the former publisher of The National Enquirer, testified before the grand jury twice this year. He is likely to be able to corroborate important aspects of Mr. Cohen’s story, including that Mr. Trump wanted to bury embarrassing stories to protect his presidential campaign, not just his family, as his lawyers contend.

Soon after Mr. Trump began his campaign in 2015, he hosted Mr. Pecker for a meeting at Trump Tower, during which the publisher agreed to look out for stories that might damage Mr. Trump’s candidacy.

One such story arose in the summer of 2016, when Karen McDougal, Playboy’s playmate of the year in 1998, said that she had had an affair with Mr. Trump. She reached a $150,000 agreement with the tabloid, which bought the rights to her story to suppress it, a practice known as “catch and kill.”

When Ms. Daniels tried to secure a similar arrangement, Mr. Pecker didn’t take the deal. But he and the tabloid’s former top editor helped broker Mr. Cohen’s payment to Ms. Daniels.

Despite the potential legal obstacles, and questions about Mr. Cohen’s credibility, if the case does go to trial, the salacious details could sink Mr. Trump. While white-collar prosecutions are often dry and procedural, this one will likely have some built-in jury appeal: a defendant charged with a seedy crime in a city where he is loathed by many.

Any trial is months away. It will take time for Mr. Trump’s lawyers to argue that the case should be thrown out. That timeline raises the extraordinary possibility of a trial unfolding in the thick of the 2024 presidential campaign.

The case would come before a jury more than five years after Mr. Cohen’s federal guilty plea prompted the district attorney’s office to open an investigation into Mr. Trump’s role in the hush-money saga. The inquiry began under Mr. Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., who did not seek re-election.

Over the years, the investigation expanded to include whether Mr. Trump had lied about his net worth on annual financial statements. Although Mr. Vance’s prosecutors were marching toward an indictment of Mr. Trump for inflating his net worth, soon after Mr. Bragg took office, he developed concerns about proving the case.

But he continued to scrutinize Mr. Trump. And in January, a few months after his prosecutors began revisiting the potential hush-money case, Mr. Bragg impaneled the grand jury that has now indicted Mr. Trump.

Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.


Source: Elections - nytimes.com


Tagcloud:

Republicans Erupt in Outrage Over Trump Indictment, Defending the Defendant

Will Wisconsin decide who wins in 2024? Politics Weekly America podcast