Clifford, Stephanie (1979- )

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Prepares to Surrender in New York as Police Brace for Protests

      by

      Donald J. Trump prepared on Friday to surrender to prosecutors in Manhattan next week as the New York police braced for protests and sharply partisan responses from Democrats and Republicans ushered in a tumultuous time for a deeply polarized nation.A day after a grand jury indicted Mr. Trump and made him the first former president to face criminal charges, metal barricades were up around the criminal courthouse on Centre Street in Lower Manhattan. Mr. Trump is expected to enter the often grimy and ill-lit building with his Secret Service protection to answer charges before a state judge on Tuesday.Dozens of reporters and camera crews camped out across the street on Friday, while 20 court officers stood at the courthouse entrances, monitoring activity on the street.Mr. Trump intends to travel to New York on Monday and stay the night at Trump Tower, people familiar with his preparations said. He has no plans to hold a news conference or address the public while he is in New York, the people said.Mr. Trump remained largely quiet on Friday at Mar-a-Lago, his resort in Florida, where he spent the day talking on the telephone with advisers. One of his lawyers, Joe Tacopina, said in a television interview that the former president would not take a plea deal and was prepared to go to trial, a typically defiant stance that is likely to endear him to his supporters, who see the prosecution as a politically motivated vendetta by Democrats.Late on Friday afternoon, Mr. Trump burst out on Truth Social, the social media platform he founded, writing in all capital letters that Democrats were “INDICTING A TOTALLY INNOCENT MAN IN AN ACT OF OBSTRUCTION AND BLATANT ELECTION INTERFERENCE.” He concluded that it was all happening “WHILE OUR COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL!”The former president is expected to be arraigned in Manhattan criminal court on charges related to payments made just before the 2016 presidential election to buy the silence of a porn star who said she had an extramarital affair with him. The former president, who has denied the affair, has been charged with more than two dozen counts in a sealed indictment, according to two people familiar with the matter, although the exact charges remain unknown.Conservative Republicans continued to criticize the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, whose office rebuked House Republicans for attempting to interfere in the case.The case, which could drag on for months and whose outcome is far from clear, is likely to test the country’s institutions and the rule of law. It will also have deep repercussions for the 2024 campaign for the White House, a race in which Mr. Trump remains the Republican front-runner.Mr. Trump has sought to capitalize on the criminal charges to energize his core supporters. On Thursday, he called Mr. Bragg “a disgrace” and denounced the indictment as “political persecution and election interference at the highest level in history.”His message was repeated across the conservative media sphere on Friday by Republican politicians and pundits.Mr. Trump was roundly defended on Fox News, including by hosts who had reviled him in private. Although the host Tucker Carson said of Mr. Trump in early 2021, “I hate him passionately,” according to a text released as part of a defamation suit against Fox, on Thursday Mr. Carlson called the indictment “one in a long line of unprecedented steps that permanent Washington has taken to stop Donald Trump from holding office in a democracy.” He also said: “Probably not the best time to give up your AR-15.”Supporters of Mr. Trump gathered outside his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., on Thursday after the indictment was reported.Josh Ritchie for The New York TimesEven many of Mr. Trump’s potential rivals for the Republican presidential nomination snapped into line behind him in the hours after news of the indictment broke, looking more like allies than competitors. All passed on the opportunity to criticize the former president — and some rushed to his defense — in a sign of just how reluctant 2024 contenders are to directly confront him and antagonize his many millions of supporters in the party.Mike Pence — the former vice president whose life was put at risk when Jan. 6 rioters sought him out after Mr. Trump blamed him for allowing Congress to ratify the results of the 2020 election — denounced the indictment for what he called “a campaign finance issue” as an “outrage” and a “political prosecution.”Speaking at the National Review Institute in Washington, Mr. Pence said that Mr. Bragg’s prosecution “should be offensive to every American left, right and center,” and that he believed that “the American people will see this for what it is.”Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, a potential presidential candidate who has clashed with Mr. Trump, also rushed to his defense, posting on Twitter that the indictment was “un-American” and amounted to “the weaponization of the legal system.”.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.A few in the G.O.P. remained silent, among them Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, and Senator John Thune, the second-ranking Senate Republican. Gov. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, who is also flirting with a presidential run, appeared to be keeping mum, as well. So too was Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor and one-time Trump ally who is considering a 2024 run for president and who recently vowed that he would never again support the former president.The indictment in Manhattan concerns hush money payments made in the final days of the 2016 campaign to Stormy Daniels, a pornographic film star who had threatened to go public with her claim that she had a short affair with Mr. Trump a decade earlier.Ms. Daniels was paid $130,000 not to speak publicly about her claims, and the payments were channeled through Mr. Trump’s fixer and personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, who has said Mr. Trump approved the scheme.The Manhattan case is likely to hinge on the way Mr. Trump and his company, the Trump Organization, handled reimbursing Mr. Cohen. Internal Trump Organization records falsely classified the reimbursements as legal expenses, helping conceal the purpose of the payments, according to Mr. Cohen. Mr. Trump’s lawyers deny this.In New York, falsifying business records can be a felony if it is done to cover up another crime, and in this case prosecutors are expected to argue that the underlying crime was a violation of campaign finance law. The exact charges, however, will not be unsealed until Tuesday when Mr. Trump is brought before Justice Juan M. Merchan, a New York County jurist with 16 years on the bench, who has been assigned to handle the case.Justice Merchan also oversaw the criminal tax fraud trial of Mr. Trump’s family real estate firm late last year.On Friday, Mr. Trump took aim at Justice Merchan on Truth Social, claiming that the judge hated him and that he had “railroaded” Allen H. Weisselberg, a former executive of the Trump Organization who has pleaded guilty to tax fraud charges.The indictment in Manhattan concerns hush money payments made in the final days of 2016 to Stormy Daniels, a pornographic film star.Todd Heisler/The New York TimesMr. Trump is also under investigation in Georgia, where prosecutors in Fulton County are expected to make a decision soon on whether to seek an indictment against him and his allies over their efforts to interfere in the 2020 presidential election.Mr. Trump famously made a call to the state secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, urging him to “find 11,780 votes,” which would have given him a victory in the state.A special grand jury has heard evidence in the Georgia case and produced a final report, though its recommendations on charges remain under seal.In Washington, a Justice Department special counsel is leading two separate investigations, into Mr. Trump’s broader actions to cling to power after his 2020 electoral defeat and into his hoarding of documents marked as classified after leaving office.If the other criminal investigations result in charges, there is no guarantee that the New York case will be the first to go to trial.“The fact that New York is first to indict does not mean it will be the first to try,” said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor. “A federal indictment will be swifter if it comes.”Mr. Gillers noted that New York is more receptive to pretrial appeals than federal courts, meaning there will be many opportunities for Mr. Trump’s lawyers to delay a trial in the state by filing motions seeking, for instance, a change of venue or to remove a judge.The Manhattan district attorney’s office is also under pressure from House Republicans, who have used their investigative power to demand the district attorney turn over documents and testimony related to the Trump investigation, an extraordinary attempt by members of Congress to intervene in a criminal inquiry.Mr. Bragg’s office fired back in a letter on Friday, accusing three Republican committee chairmen who demanded documents — Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio on the Judiciary Committee, James R. Comer of Kentucky on the Oversight Committee and Bryan Steil of Wisconsin on the Administration Committee — of aiding a campaign to denigrate the district attorney’s office.The letter noted that before being indicted, Mr. Trump had used his social media platform to insult Mr. Bragg and threaten “death and destruction” if he were charged.“You could use the stature of your office to denounce these attacks and urge respect for the fairness of our justice system and for the work of the impartial grand jury,” wrote Leslie Dubeck, the general counsel for the district attorney’s office.“Instead, you and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump’s efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges,” Ms. Dubeck wrote.Reporting was contributed by Maggie Haberman, Ben Protess, William K. Rashbaum, Neil Vigdor, Ben Shpigel, Richard Fausset, Danny Hakim and Chelsia Rose Marcius in New York and by Luke Broadwater, Jonathan Swan and Charlie Savage in Washington. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Dept. Did Not Indict Trump on Hush Money Charges

      by

      One aspect of the Manhattan district attorney’s indictment of former President Trump that has drawn considerable attention is why a local prosecutor brought charges linked to possible violations of federal campaign laws — and why the Justice Department has not.It is known Mr. Trump was under scrutiny by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York some years ago as part of an investigation that also looked at his longtime fixer, Michael D. Cohen. Mr. Cohen eventually went to prison, but Mr. Trump was not charged at the time, or after he left office.The prosecutors and the Justice Department have never said publicly why Mr. Trump was not charged, but some of the reasons appear to concern how the prosecutors viewed Mr. Cohen, who is expected to be involved in the case brought by the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg.In 2018, the Southern District prosecutors brought charges against Mr. Cohen for paying $130,000 in hush money to the porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. During that investigation, the federal prosecutors concluded that Mr. Trump had directed Mr. Cohen to pay off Ms. Daniels to keep her quiet about a sexual liaison she said she had with Mr. Trump. He has denied her assertion. The Southern District prosecutors accused Mr. Cohen of violating federal campaign finance laws, arguing that the payments to ensure the silence of Ms. Daniels, which were later reimbursed by Mr. Trump, amounted to an illegal donation to the Trump campaign. But the Southern District declined, at the time, to file charges against Mr. Trump.The federal prosecutors, and later Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, determined that prosecuting him would have violated a Nixon-era directive from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that was interpreted as preventing the indictment of a sitting president.That protection disappeared the moment Mr. Trump left office.Mr. Trump’s defenders have seized on the fact that no federal charges have been brought against the former president in connection with the hush money payment to portray the actions of Mr. Bragg as motivated by partisanship.The federal prosecutors in Manhattan appear to have briefly considered reviving the inquiry into Mr. Trump in January 2021, just before President Biden was sworn in, but decided against doing so, according to the recent book “Untouchable,” by Elie Honig, a former Southern District prosecutor. (The decision was made in New York, and senior department staff members in Washington played no role in the decision, current and former officials said.)Nicholas Biase, a spokesman for the Southern District, declined to comment.The decision not to indict appeared to be rooted in lingering concerns about Mr. Cohen’s credibility and cooperation as a government witness.The Southern District prosecutors had informed Mr. Cohen that he had to provide a comprehensive accounting of his conduct as a condition of a cooperation deal, but he declined to be debriefed on other uncharged criminal conduct, if any, in his past, the prosecutors said in a 2018 court filing.That ran afoul of a longstanding policy followed by the Southern District regarding cooperation agreements, according to current and former Justice Department officials: A potential cooperating witness must divulge the entire range of their criminal conduct over their lifetime to get a deal.It is a rule “that not every U.S. attorney’s office uses” but has become an essential requirement to bringing cases in the Southern District, one of the country’s busiest and most scrutinized legal venues, said Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor and University of Alabama law professor, in a post on Substack.Such an accounting must “encompass their entire criminal history, as well as any and all information they possess about crimes committed by both themselves and others,” the Southern District prosecutors wrote in the 2018 court filing that seemed to lament Mr. Cohen’s recalcitrance. The prosecutors said they had found Mr. Cohen to be “forthright and credible.”“Had Cohen actually cooperated, it could have been fruitful,” the prosecutors wrote. But because he did not, the prosecutors said, the “inability to fully vet his criminal history and reliability impact his utility as a witness.”By July 2019, in another court filing, Southern District prosecutors signaled they were unlikely to file additional charges in the hush-money investigation, reporting they had “effectively concluded” their inquiry into efforts to buy the silence of Ms. Daniels and another woman who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump.They did not include any explanation. But in private, federal prosecutors cited concerns that Mr. Trump’s lack of basic knowledge of campaign finance laws would make it hard to prove intent, according to three people familiar with the situation. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The First Trump Indictment Is Here, and It Matters

      by

      Even some people eager to see Donald Trump held accountable for his depthless corruption have been uneasy about his indictment in New York. “A charge like this — a porn star payoff seven years ago, somehow tied to the election, but not really — it doesn’t seem like the right way to go,” said Van Jones, a former Obama official, last week on CNN. Of the long list of Trump’s alleged violations, The Washington Post editorial board wrote, “the likely charges on which a grand jury in New York state voted to indict him are perhaps the least compelling.”As I write this, we don’t know exactly what those charges are or the degree to which, as many have speculated, they rely on an untested legal theory. But it is a mistake to treat this indictment — which, according to The New York Times, includes more than two dozen counts — as tangential to Trump’s other misdeeds. Contrary to what Jones said, the conduct at issue in this case is directly tied to the 2016 election and the question of whether Trump cheated to win it.Most of the legal trouble that Trump has faced since entering politics has stemmed from his willingness to skirt the law and, at times, betray the country in his drive to get and keep power. Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation didn’t prove that he engaged in a criminal conspiracy, but it did show that his campaign both “welcomed” and received Russian help in his first bid for president. Trump’s first impeachment, in 2019, was about his attempt to extort President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine into manufacturing dirt on Joe Biden, the rival he most feared.Trump is under criminal investigation in Georgia and Washington, D.C., for his attempts to subvert the outcome in the 2020 race. Each time he failed to face consequences for breaching rules meant to safeguard America’s electoral system, he escalated his behavior, to the point of attempting a coup. Escaping conviction in his second impeachment, for trying to overthrow the democratic system he was sworn to protect, he now treats Jan. 6 as something heroic, honoring rioters at his most recent campaign rally.Compared with these offenses, the hush money payments to Trump’s paramours might seem like a minor issue, but it’s part of a pattern of anti-democratic behavior. As The Wall Street Journal reported, in addition to hearing about the payoff to the porn film star Stormy Daniels, the grand jury in New York heard extensive questioning about the payoff to a Playboy model, Karen McDougal. Both women were going to tell their stories before the 2016 election. Unlawful means were used to silence them, which is why Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer, went to prison.As Cohen told a judge while pleading guilty to campaign finance crimes, tax evasion and bank fraud in 2018, his payments to Daniels and McDougal were made “for the principal purpose of influencing the election.” David Pecker, the former C.E.O. of American Media, onetime parent company of the National Enquirer, said in a non-prosecution agreement with the Southern District of New York that he’d paid $150,000 to McDougal to “suppress the model’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election.”It’s impossible to know what impact these stories would have had if the electorate had been allowed to hear them. Certainly, the “Access Hollywood” video, in which Trump boasted of sexual assault, demonstrated that plenty of conservative voters were willing to look past his licentiousness. I’d guess that a vast majority of Trump voters would have been similarly unmoved by news of his affairs. But given the freakishly thin margins that gave Trump his victory — about 80,000 votes in three states — the stories wouldn’t have had to change that many minds to alter the outcome.After the anticlimactic end of the Mueller investigation, a taboo developed against questioning the legitimacy of the Trump presidency. After all, the reasoning went, even if he lost the popular vote, he’d won fair and square under the rules of our system, and there was nothing provably criminal in the way he and his campaign solicited Russian help. Besides, Republicans are masters of projection, and even as they’ve rejected the validity of Biden’s election, they’ve relished hurling charges of election denialism at Democrats. At this point, there’s little political upside for Democrats in re-litigating the nightmarish 2016 contest. Nevertheless, it should matter whether Trump broke the law in the service of securing his minority victory. Especially given all the evidence that he continued to defy the law in order to hold on to it.I devoutly hope that Trump will face consequences for trying to steal the 2020 election in Georgia and summoning a mob to stop his vice president from certifying his defeat. But in a way, it’s fitting that this indictment is first. Certainly, it would be a mistake for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to proceed if his case isn’t solid. But there’s some justice in the fact that before Trump can be tried for crimes committed to remain in the presidency, he’s set to be tried for crimes committed to put him there.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Acusación a Donald Trump: cronología de los sucesos clave

      by

      El exmandatario se convertirá en el primer presidente o expresidente de Estados Unidos en enfrentar cargos penales.La investigación de la fiscalía de distrito de Manhattan sobre pagos efectuados por Donald Trump a una estrella porno a cambio de su silencio, que derivó en la acusación formal del expresidente, tardó casi cinco años.A continuación, describimos algunos momentos clave:21 de agosto de 2018Michael Cohen afirma que realizó pagos por órdenes del presidente para comprar el silencio de una actriz y comienza la investigaciónCohen, quien fuera abogado personal y solucionador de problemas de Trump, se declaró culpable de delitos federales y admitió ante un tribunal que Trump le había ordenado pagar a dos mujeres por su silencio. Los pagos se realizaron durante la campaña de 2016 para evitar que las mujeres hicieran declaraciones públicas sobre relaciones que ellas afirman que tuvieron con Trump.Poco después de la admisión de Cohen, la fiscalía de distrito de Manhattan abrió una investigación con el propósito de evaluar si esos pagos se habían efectuado en contravención de las leyes del estado de Nueva York. La fiscalía pronto suspendió las investigaciones a solicitud de algunos fiscales federales que todavía realizaban indagaciones sobre la misma conducta.Agosto de 2019La fiscalía de distrito ordena la comparecencia de la Organización TrumpDespués de que los fiscales federales anunciaron que habían llegado a la “conclusión efectiva” de su investigación, Cyrus Vance Jr., quien era fiscal de distrito de Manhattan en ese momento, retomó sus actividades indagatorias. A finales del mes, algunos fiscales de su oficina emitieron citaciones para ordenar la comparecencia de la Organización Trump y la firma contable de Trump, además de exigir las declaraciones de impuestos personales y empresariales de Trump correspondientes a los últimos ocho años.19 de septiembre de 2019Los abogados de Trump presentan una demanda para proteger sus declaraciones de impuestosLa demanda, interpuesta ante el Tribunal de Distrito de Estados Unidos en Manhattan, argumentaba que no era posible llevar a cabo una investigación penal de un presidente en funciones. Esta acción causó una gran demora.9 de julio de 2020Vance obtiene su primera victoria clave ante la Corte Suprema de EE. UU.Luego de que los jueces de apelaciones dictaron fallo en contra de Trump, la demanda se turnó a la Corte Suprema, donde los magistrados resolvieron que la presidencia no protegía a Trump de investigaciones del ámbito penal y, por lo tanto, no tenía el derecho absoluto de impedir la divulgación de sus declaraciones de impuestos.El fallo dejó a Trump con la oportunidad de formular distintas inconformidades a la citación de Vance.Otoño de 2020La investigación se intensificaAlgunos fiscales entrevistaron a empleados del principal banco y la aseguradora que prestan servicios a Trump y emitieron otras citaciones más.La fiscalía de distrito también indicó en otro escrito judicial que tenía motivos para investigar al presidente por fraude fiscal.La investigación que llevó a la acusación de Donald Trump ha abarcado casi cinco años. Stefani Reynolds para The New York Times22 de febrero de 2021La Corte Suprema le niega a Trump su último recurso para evitar que se den a conocer sus declaraciones de impuestosLa breve orden sin firmar fue una derrota decisiva para Trump y un punto de inflexión en la investigación de Vance.Apenas unas horas más tarde, se entregaron ocho años de informes financieros en la oficina de Vance.1.° de marzo de 2021La investigación se enfoca en un ejecutivo de alto rangoEn la primavera, los fiscales al mando de Vance concentraron su investigación en Allen Weisselberg, quien fungió por un largo periodo como director financiero de la Organización Trump, con la esperanza de ejercer presión sobre él para que cooperara con sus averiguaciones.A los fiscales les interesaba en particular saber si la Organización Trump le había otorgado prestaciones valiosas a Weisselberg como una especie de compensación no sujeta a impuestos.1.° de julio de 2021Se acusa a la Organización Trump de organizar un esquema de evasión de impuestos durante 15 añosCuando Weisselberg se negó a testificar en contra de su jefe, los fiscales anunciaron cargos en su contra y en contra de la empresa de Trump, pues su investigación reveló que la empresa había ayudado a sus ejecutivos a evadir impuestos ofreciéndoles como remuneración prestaciones como automóviles y apartamentos gratuitos que se les ocultaron a las autoridades.1.° de enero de 2022Asume un nuevo fiscal de distrito al frente de la oficina de ManhattanA la salida de Vance del cargo, su sucesor, Alvin Bragg, se encargó del caso. Ambos son demócratas.Bragg, quien se desempeñó como fiscal federal en el pasado, siguió empleando los servicios de dos de los líderes de la investigación: Mark Pomerantz, experimentado ex fiscal federal y abogado defensor en casos de delitos financieros, y Carey Dunne, el abogado general de Vance.23 de febrero de 2022Dos fiscales renuncian y ponen en duda el futuro de la investigaciónDespués de que Bragg expresó reservas acerca del caso, Pomerantz y Dunne suspendieron la presentación de evidencia sobre Trump ante un gran jurado. Un mes más tarde, presentaron su renuncia, lo que provocó protestas públicas por la decisión de Bragg de no proseguir con una acusación formal.En su carta de renuncia, que más adelante obtuvo The New York Times, Pomerantz señaló que Trump era culpable de varios delitos graves.18 de agosto de 2022Continúa la investigación de BraggTras guardar silencio casi total durante varias semanas de críticas, el fiscal de distrito habló por primera vez en público acerca de la investigación de Trump conducida por su oficina. Su mensaje, en esencia, fue que las averiguaciones continuarían.18 de agosto de 2022Weisselberg se declara culpable y accede a declarar en contra de la Organización TrumpAunque el director financiero se negó a entregar a Trump, accedió a testificar en el juicio de octubre en contra de la empresa en la que trabajó durante casi medio siglo.Finales del verano de 2022Los fiscales retoman el tema del pago a cambio del silencio de la actrizTranscurridos varios meses, los fiscales de Bragg retomaron el tema central original de la prolongada investigación: un pago para silenciar a Stormy Daniels, la estrella porno, quien dijo haber tenido relaciones sexuales con Trump.24 de diciembre de 2022Se declara culpable a la Organización Trump, en una victoria importante para el fiscal de distritoLos fiscales al mando de Bragg lograron que se declarara culpable a la empresa familiar de Trump, tras convencer al jurado de que esta era culpable de fraude fiscal y otros delitos.Enero de 2023El fiscal de distrito selecciona un nuevo gran juradoEl gran jurado se reunió durante los siguientes tres meses y escuchó testimonios de al menos nueve testigos sobre el pago a una actriz a cambio de su silencio.Mitad del invierno de 2023Los fiscales insinúan que es probable que se presente una acusación formal y ofrecen a Trump testificar frente al gran juradoEste tipo de ofertas por lo regular indican que pronto habrá una acusación formal; sería inusual notificar a un posible acusado si no se tiene la intención de presentar cargos en su contra.18 de marzo de 2023Trump predice su arresto y convoca a protestasSin ningún conocimiento directo, el expresidente afirma en una publicación en su cuenta de Truth Social que lo arrestarán en tres días e intenta convocar a sus partidarios. Se desdijo pronto de su predicción y no fue arrestado en ese momento.JuevesUn gran jurado decide presentar una acusación formal contra TrumpLos cargos, que todavía no se dan a conocer, serán los primeros presentados en contra de un presidente estadounidense.Jonah E. Bromwich cubre justicia penal en Nueva York, con énfasis en la fiscalía de distrito de Manhattan, las cortes penales estatales en Manhattan y las cárceles de la Ciudad de Nueva York. @jonesieman More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump también debe responder ante la justicia

      by

      Por primera vez en la historia de Estados Unidos, un gran jurado ha acusado formalmente a un expresidente del país. Donald Trump estuvo durante años, como candidato, en la presidencia y tras su salida de ella, ignorando las normas y los precedentes democráticos y legales, intentando plegar al Departamento de Justicia y al poder judicial a sus caprichos y comportándose como si él no estuviese sujeto a las reglas.Como demuestra su acusación, sí lo está.El reiterado desprecio por la ley suele conducir a una acusación penal, y esa es la consecuencia a la que se enfrenta hoy Trump. Los fiscales federales y estatales hicieron bien en dejar de lado las preocupaciones por las consecuencias políticas, o la reverencia por la presidencia, e iniciar exhaustivas investigaciones penales sobre la conducta de Trump en al menos cuatro casos. La investigación del fiscal de distrito de Manhattan es la primera que conduce a una acusación formal.Trump transformó por completo la relación entre la presidencia y el Estado de derecho, y a menudo afirmaba que el presidente está por encima de la ley. De modo que es adecuado que sus actos como presidente y como candidato sean ahora ponderados oficialmente por jueces y jurados, con la posibilidad de que se enfrente a sanciones penales. Trump dañó gravemente las instituciones políticas y legales de Estados Unidos, y volvió a amenazarlas con llamados a protestas generales cuando fuera acusado. Sin embargo, esas instituciones han demostrado ser lo bastante fuertes para exigirle responsabilidades por ese daño.Un sano respeto por el sistema legal también requiere que los estadounidenses dejen de lado sus opiniones políticas a la hora de formarse un juicio sobre estos casos. Aunque Trump pidió habitualmente que el FBI investigara a sus enemigos, que fueran imputados o enfrentaran la pena de muerte, su indiferencia hacia las garantías procesales para los demás no debería negarle los beneficios del sistema, incluidos un juicio imparcial y la presunción de inocencia. Al mismo tiempo, ningún jurado debería extenderle ningún privilegio como expresidente. Debería seguir los mismos procedimientos que cualquier otro ciudadano.La acusación es aún confidencial, y es posible que no se conozcan los cargos contra Trump hasta dentro de unos días. Pero Alvin Bragg, el fiscal de distrito, ha estado investigando un caso de posible fraude e infracciones por parte de Trump en la financiación de su campaña, al ocultar los pagos que le hizo a la estrella del cine porno Stormy Daniels antes de las elecciones de 2016. Sus actos —utilizar dinero para silenciar a los críticos y ocultar información políticamente perjudicial— estuvieron mal. La pregunta que se le planteará al jurado es si esa conducta alcanza el umbral suficiente para ser susceptible de una condena por delito grave.Si son esas las acusaciones, la condena dependerá de demostrar que Trump participó en la falsificación de registros mercantiles mientras se infringía la ley sobre financiación de campañas, una estrategia jurídica un tanto novedosa. La falsificación de registros puede ser imputable como delito menor en Nueva York; para que sea un delito más grave, se debe probar que lo hizo junto con un segundo delito, en este caso, una posible vulneración de la ley en la financiación de la campaña. El expresidente, que aspira a un segundo mandato en 2024, ha negado las acusaciones y ha dicho que la causa presentada contra él por Bragg, demócrata, obedece a motivaciones políticas.Si bien algunos expertos jurídicos han cuestionado la teoría en que se apoya el caso de Bragg, no hay ninguna base para acusarlo de motivaciones políticas, una afirmación que Trump ha hecho durante muchos años, cada vez que se investigaba su conducta. Del mismo modo que a los miembros del jurado se les instruye para que ignoren las pruebas indebidamente introducidas en un juicio, también deberán ignorar todas las insinuaciones sin fundamento de los partidarios y los defensores de Trump en estos casos, y juzgarlas estrictamente por sus méritos.Tres de las otras investigaciones que podrían dar lugar a acusaciones son más graves, porque conllevan acusar a Trump, no solo de haber vulnerado la ley, sino también de haber abusado de su cargo presidencial.Las imputaciones contra él en Georgia están entre las más vergonzosas. Fani Willis, fiscal de distrito del condado de Fulton, está considerando presentar cargos penales contra varias personas, incluido Trump, por intentar anular los resultados de las elecciones presidenciales de 2020 en ese estado, que ganó el presidente Biden por 11.779 votos. Trump presionó repetidas veces al secretario de Estado de Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, para que “buscara” votos adicionales que pudieran cambiar el resultado de las elecciones en el estado, parte de un plan para socavar la voluntad de los votantes.Un gran jurado especial formado por Willis recomendó en febrero que se presentaran cargos en el caso; todavía se desconoce qué personas o acusaciones se incluirán en las recomendaciones del gran jurado o a quién podría intentar acusar Willis, si es que procede.Una investigación del Departamento de Justicia federal dirigida por un fiscal especial, Jack Smith, también podría dar lugar a acusaciones formales contra Trump. Smith está investigando los intentos del expresidente de impedir el traspaso pacífico del poder el 6 de enero de 2021, cuando Trump incitó a una turba armada que atacó el Capitolio de Estados Unidos, amenazando a los legisladores allí reunidos para certificar los resultados de las elecciones presidenciales. Un informe del Senado realizado por los dos partidos concluyó que siete muertes estaban relacionadas con el ataque.El equipo de Smith también está investigando al expresidente por su indebido manejo de los documentos clasificados que fueron retirados de la Casa Blanca y llevados a Mar-a-Lago, su residencia privada en Florida. En el caso se han recuperado unos 300 documentos clasificados. Los fiscales también están estudiando si Trump, sus abogados o miembros de su personal trataron de confundir a los funcionarios del Estado que pidieron la devolución de los documentos.Además de los cargos penales, Trump se enfrenta a varias demandas civiles. La fiscal general de Nueva York, Letitia James, ha demandado al expresidente por inflar de forma “flagrante” y fraudulenta el valor de sus activos inmobiliarios. Tres de los hijos adultos de Trump también figuran en la demanda. Un grupo de policías del Capitolio y legisladores demócratas han demandado al presidente, aduciendo que sus actos del 6 de enero incitaron a la turba que les provocó daños físicos y emocionales. E. Jean Carroll, una escritora que acusó a Trump de haberla violado, ha demandado al expresidente por difamación. Trump niega las acusaciones.Sin duda, procesar al expresidente ahondará las divisiones políticas existentes que tanto daño han hecho al país en los últimos años. Trump ya ha avivado esa división, al tachar a los fiscales que están detrás de las investigaciones —varios de ellos personas negras— de “racistas”. Afirmó en un mensaje publicado en las redes sociales que sería detenido, y se dirigió así a sus simpatizantes: “¡PROTESTEMOS, RECUPEREMOS NUESTRA NACIÓN!”. Con ese lenguaje, estaba repitiendo el grito de guerra que precedió a los disturbios en el Capitolio. Las autoridades de la ciudad de Nueva York, que no se arriesgan a que se repitan los actos de los partidarios de Trump, se han estado preparando para la posible agitación.Esas acusaciones del expresidente están claramente dirigidas a socavar las denuncias contra él, protegerse de las consecuencias de su mala conducta y utilizar los casos para su beneficio político. Los dos fiscales de distrito en estas causas son demócratas electos, pero su raza y sus afinidades políticas no tienen ninguna relevancia para los procesos judiciales. (Smith no está afiliado a ninguno de los dos partidos). No obstante, el presidente de la Cámara de Representantes, Kevin McCarthy, demostró de inmediato la intención de su partido de politizar la imputación al calificar a Bragg de “fiscal radical” que persigue “la venganza política” contra Trump. McCarthy no tiene la jurisdicción sobre el fiscal de distrito de Manhattan ni le corresponde interferir en un proceso penal y, sin embargo, se ha comprometido a que la Cámara de Representantes determine si la fiscalía de Bragg está recibiendo fondos federales.La decisión de procesar a un expresidente es una tarea solemne, sobre todo teniendo en cuenta las profundas fisuras nacionales que Trump exacerbará, inevitablemente, a medida que se acerque la campaña de 2024. Pero el costo de no buscar la justicia contra un dirigente que puede haber cometido esos delitos sería aún más alto.El Comité Editorial es un grupo de periodistas de opinión cuyas perspectivas están sustentadas en experiencia, investigación, debate y ciertos valores arraigados por mucho tiempo. Es una entidad independiente de la sala de redacción. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

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

      by

      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 TimesMr. 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 TimesNearly 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 TimesIn 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 TimesMr. 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 More

    • 63 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump enfrenta cargos penales

      by

      Trump será el primer expresidente estadounidense en enfrentar cargos criminales. El caso, cuyos detalles se desconocen, está centrado en un pago realizado a una actriz pornográfica a cambio de su silencio.Donald Trump fue imputado en Manhattan este jueves por su rol en el pago de un soborno a cambio de silencio a una actriz pornográfica, según cinco personas con conocimiento del asunto. Esta es una decisión histórica que moverá los cimientos de la contienda presidencial de 2024 y que por siempre marcará a Trump como el primer expresidente de la nación en enfrentar cargos criminales.El jueves por la noche, después de que se difundiera la noticia de los cargos, la oficina del fiscal de distrito confirmó que Trump había sido acusado y que los fiscales se habían puesto en contacto con el abogado de Trump para coordinar su entrega. Dos personas con conocimiento del caso dijeron que se esperaba que Trump se entregara y enfrentara la lectura de cargos a principios de la próxima semana, momento en el que se revelarán los cargos específicos.Por décadas, Trump ha logrado evadir las acusaciones penales a pesar de un constante escrutinio y repetidas investigaciones, lo que creó cierta aura de invencibilidad legal que esta acusación formal ahora amenaza con romper.Sus acciones vinculadas a su derrota electoral de 2020 son el enfoque de otra investigación federal, y una fiscal de Georgia está en las etapas finales de una investigación a los intentos de Trump por revertir el resultado de las elecciones en ese estado.Pero a diferencia de las investigaciones que surgieron durante su periodo en la Casa Blanca, este caso se basa en un sórdido episodio que precede a la presidencia de Trump. La estrella de telerrealidad convertido en candidato presidencial, que conmocionó a la clase política al ganar la Casa Blanca, enfrenta las consecuencias del pago de un soborno monetario a cambio de silencio para acallar un escándalo sexual en los últimos días de su campaña presidencial de 2016.Este jueves, los tres fiscales principales en la investigación a Trump entraron al recinto donde estaba el gran jurado, en los minutos previos a la reunión programada del panel, a las 02:00 p. m. Uno llevaba una copia del derecho penal —con visibles notas adhesivas Post-it— la cual probablemente fue usada para leerles los estatutos penales al gran jurado antes de su votación. Aproximadamente tres horas después, los fiscales entraron a la secretaría del tribunal por una puerta trasera, para comenzar el proceso de la presentación de la acusación formal.Durante semanas, la atmósfera alrededor de la fiscalía parecía la de un circo. Pero el fervor se había calmado en los últimos días, y este jueves, las inmediaciones del recinto estuvieron más vacías.Trump ha negado una y otra vez haber cometido algún delito y ha atacado a Bragg, demócrata, al cual ha acusado de liderar una persecución con fines políticos. También ha negado haber tenido un amorío con la actriz pornográfica, Stormy Daniels, quien había estado tratando de vender su historia de una cita con Trump durante la campaña presidencial.Estos son otros datos que necesitas saber:Trump siempre se ha referido a la investigación como una conspiración mayor promovida por sus oponentes políticos. Aunque insultó a Bragg, optó por culpar a su sucesor en el Despacho Oval. “Creo que esta caza de brujas será contraproducente para Joe Biden”, dijo.El testigo principal de la fiscalía es Michael D. Cohen, antiguo colaborador de Trump que pagó los 130.000 dólares para que Daniels guardara silencio. Cohen ha declarado que Trump le dio la orden de sobornar a Daniels, y que Trump y su empresa familiar, la Organización Trump, ayudaron a ocultar toda la situación. Los registros internos de la compañía identificaron de manera falsa los reembolsos como gastos legales, lo que ayudó a ocultar el verdadero propósito de los pagos.Aunque todavía no se conocen los cargos específicos, los abogados de Bragg se han centrado en ese soborno y en los falsos registros creados por la compañía de Trump. No hay garantías de que se produzca un fallo condenatorio: el intento de combinar un cargo relacionado con los registros falsos con una violación de las leyes electorales en relación con el pago a Daniels estaría basado en una teoría legal que no ha sido evaluada por ningún juez, lo que incrementa la posibilidad de que un tribunal pueda desestimar o limitar los cargos.La acusación formal, producto de una investigación de casi cinco años, inaugura una fase nueva y volátil en la vida de Trump después de la presidencia, en un momento en el que intenta por tercera vez ocupar la Casa Blanca. Además, podría hacer que la contienda por la candidatura republicana —la cual lidera en la mayoría de las encuestas— incursione en un territorio desconocido.Bragg es el primer fiscal que acusa formalmente a Trump. Es probable que se convierta en una figura nacional, y tendrá que lidiar con una agresiva atención política.Maggie Haberman More

    • 63 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump, Now Under Indictment

      by

      Readers speculate about the impact and wisdom of bringing the hush money charges.To the Editor:Re “Trump Indicted” (nytimes.com, March 30):Our country is struggling to determine if Donald Trump’s hush money payments to Stormy Daniels warrant his indictment. Some consider this action as inconsequential compared with his actions in Georgia in an effort to overturn the election or with his coup plot on Jan. 6.To them the hush money payment and concealment were just a continuation of his immoral personal and business practices before his election and of minimal significance.It was, however, in fact a brazen attempt to influence the results of the election. His actions in Georgia and his attempted coup were brazen attempts to ensure his re-election. They all reveal a basic principle of Trump actions: One can cheat if necessary to attain or retain power.Each action was an equally serious attack on the core principles of our democracy. Each one must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Only this will ensure that he does not try them again.Sidney Weissman Highland Park, Ill.To the Editor:Folks, be careful what you wish for. Yes, the evidence is compelling that Donald Trump paid hush money to silence Stormy Daniels.But let’s be pragmatic. The worst transgression that Mr. Trump committed was against his wife, who bears the deep and endless scars of humiliation. And if the D.A. decides to test the uncharted waters by linking the Stormy Daniels payoff to election violations, he not only enrages Mr. Trump’s base but also sets himself up for failure.Why then provoke Mr. Trump’s legion with a spark to cause mayhem when more damaging charges against Mr. Trump are under review?Howard QuinnBronxTo the Editor:Without in any way minimizing or discounting the politics surrounding an indictment, what I find really galling is that an indictment of Donald Trump, whether in New York or Georgia, will provide him with yet another opportunity to raise funds from his benighted constituency.Lawrence WeismanWestport, Conn.To the Editor:Most major, non-right-wing media in this country, publicly and privately, have been asking themselves for years about Donald Trump: How does he get away with this stuff? Seeing a man with no experience in government and no clearly demonstrated ability to lead the government and the public beyond his core supporters, we wondered: When will the shoe drop?With the indictment in the Stormy Daniels case, and potential indictments in Georgia and in other investigations, people who are not in love with him will have to stop and think: Should this guy really be president again?When Mr. Trump first ran in 2016, most of the public knew him only as a figure on television and by his pumped-up P.R. reputation as a successful business executive. That image was fixed.An indictment, with even more coming, could shock people out of complacent attitudes and force urgent reassessment. Stay tuned.Doug TerryOlney, Md.The writer is a former radio and television reporter and a current documentary producer.To the Editor:Most know the parable of the emperor who parades around naked, asserting that he is wearing the most beautiful garments in the world. His faithful subjects, afraid of being deemed disloyal fools, dismiss the reality they see and praise the emperor’s apparel.In today’s world, a former president struts about claiming to be clothed in innocence. His followers, fearful of his wrath, ignore their own eyes, affirming his innocence.In the old fable, it was a child who perceived the stark reality and proclaimed the obvious, that the emperor had no clothes. In the present-day story, it will be up to a jury to see through the ex-president’s preening about in his fake cloak of innocence and to declare the naked truth: “Guilty!”Stephen F. GladstoneShaker Heights, OhioTo the Editor:I cannot help but be surprised at the consistently sexist ways in which the national media not only nonchalantly reduces Stephanie Gregory Clifford to her professional pornographic name, Stormy Daniels, but also refers to her simply as a “porn star,” a “porn actress,” an “adult film star,” etc.Ms. Clifford’s appearance in two well-recognized films by Judd Apatow (“The 40-Year-Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up”), her roles as a successful producer and director in the adult film industry, as well as her relative success as an American businesswoman are hardly ever mentioned.Her role as a young successful American businesswoman (even if we don’t approve of the industry in which she works), and the professionalism and grace with which Stephanie Gregory Clifford has dealt with the legal troubles of a former American president, deserve their proper recognition and definitely more validation by the national media.Alejandro LugoPark Forest, Ill.The writer has taught anthropology and gender studies at several universities in the last three decades and is a co-editor of “Gender Matters: Rereading Michelle Z. Rosaldo.”To the Editor:I feel as if I am forever forced to watch a Trump soap opera called “Days of His Lies.”William Dodd BrownChicago More