Cohen, Michael D (1966- )

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Inside the Payoff to Stormy Daniels That May Lead to Trump’s Indictment

      by

      Manhattan prosecutors investigating a payout to Stormy Daniels may be poised to make Donald J. Trump the first former president ever to be criminally indicted.At the time, it all was more tawdry than momentous. A reality star invited a porn actress half his age to a hotel room after a round in a celebrity golf tournament. She arrived in a spangly gold dress and strappy heels. He promised to put her on television and then, she says, they slept together.Yet the chain of events flowing from the 2006 encounter that the adult film star, Stormy Daniels, has said she had with the television personality, Donald J. Trump, has led to the brink of a historic development: the first criminal indictment of a former American president.The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, has signaled he is preparing to seek felony charges against Mr. Trump; Mr. Bragg is expected to accuse him of concealing a $130,000 hush-money payment that Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s lawyer and fixer, made to Ms. Daniels on the eve of the 2016 presidential election.A conviction would be likely to hinge on prosecutors’ proving that Mr. Trump reimbursed Mr. Cohen and falsified business records when he did so, possibly to hide an election law violation.It would not be a simple case. Prosecutors are expected to use a legal theory that has not been assessed in New York courts, raising the possibility that a judge could throw out or limit the charges. The episode has been examined by both the Federal Election Commission and federal prosecutors in New York; neither took action against Mr. Trump.Mr. Trump has denied having sex with Ms. Daniels and said he did nothing wrong. The former president, who is seeking the Republican nomination for the White House, has made it clear that he will cast the indictment as a political “witch hunt” and use it to rally his supporters. On Saturday, he predicted he would be arrested on Tuesday and called for protests.The prosecutors’ chief witness would be Mr. Cohen, who pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance violations in August 2018, admitting he helped arrange the Daniels payment — and another to a former Playboy model — to aid Mr. Trump’s presidential bid at the behest of Mr. Trump.Any indictment of Mr. Trump brought by the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, would rely on a legal theory that has not been tested in New York courts, making its success far from assured.Benjamin Norman for The New York TimesAn indictment would mark another extraordinary episode in the Trump era: The former president — whose tenure closed with a riot at the Capitol, who tried to overturn a fair election and who is under investigation for failing to return classified material — may face his first criminal charge for paying off a porn star.A Lake Tahoe encounterMs. Daniels, born Stephanie Gregory and raised mostly in a ramshackle ranch house in Baton Rouge, La., was 27 in July 2006, when she met Mr. Trump, then 60, at the celebrity golf tournament in Nevada.As a child, she wrote in her 2018 memoir, “Full Disclosure,” she felt ashamed and motivated after overhearing a friend’s father refer to her as “white trash.” Attracted by the money she could make, Ms. Daniels started as an exotic dancer even before she finished high school, working at a local joint called Cinnamon’s. At 23, she began acting in pornographic movies and soon married the first of her four husbands: Bartholomew Clifford, who directed adult films under the name “Pat Myne.”When he met Ms. Daniels, Mr. Trump had largely transitioned from real estate mogul to reality star; he had traveled to the tournament without his third wife, Melania, who remained behind with their newborn son. Mr. Trump and Ms. Daniels crossed paths on the golf course and later in the gift room, where they were photographed together at a booth for her porn studio, Wicked Pictures. He invited her to dinner.As they chatted that night in Mr. Trump’s penthouse at Harrah’s Lake Tahoe — she has said he wore black silk pajamas and slippers — he told her that she should be on “The Apprentice,” an NBC reality show. She doubted he could make it happen. He assured her he could, she said.Afterward, he would phone her occasionally from a blocked number, calling her “Honeybunch.” They saw each other at least twice more in 2007, at a launch party for the short-lived Trump Vodka and at the Beverly Hills Hotel, where they watched “Shark Week.” But they did not sleep together again. And Mr. Trump never put her on “The Apprentice.” Still, he kept calling, she has said. Eventually, she stopped answering.Selling storiesStormy Daniels, an adult film star, was paid $130,000 by Mr. Trump’s fixer in exchange for her silence.Shannon Stapleton/ReutersSince 2000, Mr. Trump had staged long-shot presidential runs that more resembled publicity stunts than serious bids for office. He kicked off another in 2011, promoting conspiracy theories that then-President Barack Obama had been born outside the United States. As he did so, Ms. Daniels, still bitter, began working with an agent to see if she could sell the story of their liaison.They negotiated a $15,000 deal with Life & Style, a celebrity magazine, telling its reporter that Ms. Daniels believed Mr. Trump’s offer to make her a contestant had been a lie, according to a transcript later published online.“Just to impress you, to try to sleep with you?” the reporter asked. “Yeah,” Ms. Daniels responded. “And I guess it worked.”When the magazine contacted the Trump Organization for comment, Michael Cohen returned the call. A lawyer who had joined the company four years earlier, Mr. Cohen had become Mr. Trump’s fixer, diving headlong into resolving thorny problems for his boss and the Trump family. Mr. Cohen threatened to sue, the magazine killed the story, and Ms. Daniels did not get paid.Mr. Trump, for his part, dropped out of the race and continued hosting “The Apprentice.”That October, Ms. Daniels’s story about Mr. Trump surfaced briefly after her agent leaked it to a gossip blog called “The Dirty,” trying to gin up interest from a paying publication. A couple of media outlets followed up, but none offered payment. Ms. Daniels denied the story, and her agent had a lawyer in Beverly Hills, Calif., Keith Davidson, get the post taken down.As Mr. Obama prepared to leave office in 2015, Mr. Trump decided to run for president once more. That August, he sat in his office at Trump Tower with Mr. Cohen and David Pecker, the publisher of American Media Inc. and its flagship tabloid, The National Enquirer.Mr. Pecker, a longtime friend of Mr. Trump’s, had used The Enquirer to boost Mr. Trump’s past presidential runs. He promised to publish positive stories about Mr. Trump and negative ones about opponents, according to three people familiar with the meeting. Mr. Pecker also agreed to work with Mr. Cohen to find and suppress stories that might damage Mr. Trump’s new efforts, a practice known as “catch and kill.”The National Enquirer, a tabloid run by David Pecker, played a central role in efforts to “catch and kill” negative stories about Mr. Trump.Marion Curtis, via Associated PressIn spring 2016, Ms. Daniels attempted through her agent to sell her story again — this time for more than $200,000. But the publications she approached all passed, including The Enquirer.Around the same time, Karen McDougal, the former Playboy model, began exploring how to monetize her own tale of sleeping with Mr. Trump. Ms. McDougal, Playboy’s 1998 Playmate of the Year, has said she had an affair with Mr. Trump starting in 2006, when she was 35. They had spent time together in his Trump Tower apartment and at the same golf tournament where Ms. Daniels encountered him. But Ms. McDougal ended the relationship in 2007, she has said. Mr. Trump has denied the affair.In 2016, with her modeling career flagging, Ms. McDougal hired Mr. Davidson, the same lawyer who had helped Stormy Daniels remove the 2011 blog post.Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, said she also had an affair with Mr. Trump and was paid by The National Enquirer for her story, which was never published.Bennett Raglin/Getty Images for BacardiThe lawyer approached The Enquirer’s editor, Dylan Howard, about buying Ms. McDougal’s story, and Mr. Howard and Mr. Pecker both briefed Mr. Cohen, three people with knowledge of the discussions have said. In late June, Mr. Trump personally appealed to Mr. Pecker for help in keeping Ms. McDougal quiet, according to an account Mr. Pecker gave federal prosecutors.But the tabloid did nothing until Ms. McDougal was about to give an interview to ABC News. In early August, American Media agreed to pay Ms. McDougal $150,000 for the exclusive rights to her story about Mr. Trump, camouflaging the real purpose of the deal by guaranteeing she would appear on two magazine covers, among other things, five people familiar with the events have said.American Media would later admit, in a deal to avoid federal prosecution, that the principal purpose of the agreement was to suppress Ms. McDougal’s story, which the company had no intention of publishing.Stormy Daniels, meanwhile, still had not found any takers for her story. Her luck changed in early October.‘It could look awfully bad’Mr. Trump’s fixer, Michael D. Cohen, right, went to prison in part for campaign finance violations related to hush-money payments. He has turned against the former president and could testify against him.Jefferson Siegel for The New York TimesThe news hit the presidential race like a bomb. On Oct. 7, 2016, The Washington Post published what would become known as the “Access Hollywood” tape, in which Mr. Trump, unwittingly on a live microphone, was recorded describing in lewd terms how he groped women.The people surrounding Stormy Daniels immediately realized that Mr. Trump’s new vulnerability made her more of a threat — and thus gave her story value.Mr. Davidson, the Los Angeles lawyer, was also friendly with Ms. Daniels’s agent, Gina Rodriguez, and with The Enquirer’s editor, Mr. Howard. On the day after the “Access Hollywood” tape emerged, Mr. Davidson and Mr. Howard texted about the damage it had done to Mr. Trump’s campaign. Then Mr. Howard asked Ms. Daniels’s agent to send another pitch for his boss, Mr. Pecker.The Enquirer executives alerted Mr. Cohen; Mr. Cohen asked Mr. Pecker for help containing it.Mr. Howard haggled with Ms. Daniels’s agent, but when he presented Mr. Pecker with an offer to buy the story for $120,000, the publisher refused.“Perhaps I call Michael and advise him and he can take it from there,” Mr. Howard wrote.Dylan Howard, the editor of The National Enquirer, connected Mr. Cohen to a lawyer for Ms. Daniels to discuss a payment for the story of her tryst with Mr. Trump.Ilya S. Savenok/Getty Images for American MediaThat night, Mr. Cohen spoke by phone to Mr. Trump, Mr. Pecker and Mr. Howard, according to records obtained by federal authorities. Mr. Howard connected him to the lawyer, Mr. Davidson, who would negotiate the deal for Ms. Daniels.Three days after the “Access Hollywood” tape’s release, Mr. Cohen agreed to pay $130,000 in a deal that threatened severe financial penalties for Ms. Daniels if she ever spoke about her affair with Mr. Trump. The contract used pseudonyms: Peggy Peterson, or “P.P.,” for Ms. Daniels, and David Dennison, or “D.D.,” for Mr. Trump. Their identities were revealed only in a side letter.Ms. Daniels signed her copy on the trunk of a car near a porn set in Calabasas, Calif. Mr. Cohen signed on Mr. Trump’s behalf.But Mr. Cohen delayed paying. He has said he was trying to figure out where to get the money while Mr. Trump campaigned. According to Mr. Cohen, Mr. Trump had approved the payment and delegated to him and the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer the task of arranging it. They considered options for funneling the money through the company, Mr. Cohen said, but did not settle on a solution.Ms. Daniels began to believe that Mr. Trump was trying to stall until after the Nov. 8 election; if he lost, her story would lose its value. In mid October, after Mr. Cohen had blown two deadlines, Ms. Daniels’s lawyer canceled the deal, and the porn actress again began shopping the story. The next week, Mr. Howard texted Mr. Cohen that if Ms. Daniels went public, their work to cover up the sexual encounter might also become known.“It could look awfully bad for everyone,” Mr. Howard wrote.Mr. Cohen agreed to make the payment himself. He spoke briefly by phone with Mr. Trump, twice. Then he transferred about $130,000 from his home equity line of credit into the account of a Delaware shell company and wired it to Ms. Daniels’s lawyer.Mr. Davidson circulated a new hush-money agreement. Ms. Daniels signed and notarized it at a UPS store near a Walmart Supercenter in Forney, Texas, near her home.“I hope we are good,” Mr. Cohen texted Mr. Davidson afterward.“I assure you we are very good,” the lawyer replied.Ms. Daniels remained silent. A week and a half later, Mr. Trump won the election.Once he was in the White House, Mr. Trump handled one more piece of business related to Stormy Daniels. He signed checks to reimburse Mr. Cohen for paying her off.Jonah E. Bromwich More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      As a Possible Indictment Looms, Trump’s Team Plans to Attack

      by

      If the former president faces criminal charges, his campaign plans to begin a broad offensive against Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney and a Democrat, accusing him of political bias.As former President Donald J. Trump faces likely criminal charges, his campaign is preparing to wage a political war.With an indictment looming from the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, Mr. Trump’s campaign is laying the groundwork for a broad attack on Mr. Bragg, a Democrat. According to two of Mr. Trump’s political allies, the campaign will aim to portray any charges as part of a coordinated offensive by the Democratic Party against Mr. Trump, who is trying to become only the second former president to win a new term after leaving office.It is unclear what data points, if any, the Trump team plans to point to beyond Mr. Bragg’s party registration in order to make a case that the district attorney is part of a broader political conspiracy against the former president. It is also uncertain whether Mr. Trump will add lawyers to his legal defense team or bring on a communications adviser to play a more traditional role of responding to what will be a crush of media questions related to a potential indictment.Mr. Trump’s two allies said his campaign was adding staff members, particularly to focus on pushing out their message and their attacks on the prosecutors. In addition, the campaign has been putting together a database listing everyone — members of Congress, legal experts, media figures — who have cast doubts on the strength of the district attorney’s case, the allies said.Specifically, his campaign team plans on trying to connect Mr. Bragg’s investigation into Mr. Trump to President Biden, who is expected to seek re-election. The Justice Department has spent months investigating Mr. Trump in separate inquiries into his possession of hundreds of classified documents at his private club, Mar-a-Lago, and his efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election.Those efforts led to the most visible moment when Mr. Trump focused the anger of his supporters on the institutions of government, the lead-up to the violent riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.Underscoring the degree to which Mr. Trump’s campaign is again relying on outrage from his supporters, a campaign official maintained that the nation would not “tolerate” the prosecution and would see it as an effort to influence the 2024 election.“President Donald J. Trump is completely innocent, he did nothing wrong, and even the biggest, most radical left Democrats are making that clear,” said Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesman. He listed a series of other investigations that Mr. Trump has faced and referred to the Manhattan case as “the nuclear button,” calling it a “political donation” by Mr. Bragg “to Joe Biden.” And the Trump team plans to highlight a donation to a political action committee made by the philanthropist George Soros, a subject of frequent right-wing attacks, that was intended to help Mr. Bragg.A spokeswoman for the Manhattan district attorney’s office declined to comment.Mr. Trump’s allies say that tying Mr. Biden to what is taking place in Manhattan will be a key aspect of the campaign’s response. And the degree to which the Trump team plans to make a history-making indictment of a former president a central campaign message is likely to set a new political precedent.“A Trump indictment will immediately be added to his campaign platform and talking points, another first in presidential politics,” said Scott Reed, a veteran Republican strategist who has observed Mr. Trump and presidential campaigns for decades.While he was in office, Mr. Trump was shielded by a Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president..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.Already, Mr. Trump has spent the better part of two years attacking Mr. Bragg, who is Black, as “racist” and as continuing efforts to harm him, after two impeachment inquiries and a two-year special counsel investigation into whether he obstructed justice and whether his 2016 campaign conspired with Russians.But since declaring his third presidential campaign in November, Mr. Trump has made attacking the investigators an increasingly intense focus.Other political allies of Mr. Trump made clear that there would be efforts to highlight how his Republican rivals handle the news of any indictment, and whether they endorse it or defend him. Mr. Trump’s allies said his advisers believed the issue could tie some of his opponents in knots, particularly his closest prospective opponent in public polls, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.Mr. Trump has often subjected anyone who investigates him or holds him to scrutiny to slashing attacks. It remains to be seen whether the campaign’s approach will be more of the same, or will deploy new tactics, such as television ads.When Mr. Trump was in office and facing the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, some of his lawyers initially tried to follow the playbook established by aides to President Bill Clinton during his impeachment inquiry in the 1990s. In that case, separate, parallel operations were created so the work of the government could continue.But Mr. Trump, who often conflates legal and public relations issues, rejected that idea. So there was only briefly a designated spokesman handling press questions.People involved in Mr. Trump’s legal case have discussed bringing on a new lawyer to add to the existing team of Susan Necheles, a Manhattan criminal defense lawyer, and Joe Tacopina, a New York lawyer with a brawler’s attitude.Mr. Tacopina has been an aggressive defender of Mr. Trump on television. On Tuesday on MSNBC, Mr. Tacopina made several points attacking the credibility of the key witness, Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former lawyer and fixer. But other comments he made left some of Mr. Trump’s allies stunned by what he was articulating.Mr. Tacopina bluntly stated that there was a political benefit to Mr. Trump from an indictment.“If they bring this case, I believe this will catapult him into the White House,” Mr. Tacopina said of Mr. Trump on MSNBC. “I believe it, because this will show how they’re weaponizing the justice system.”Mr. Tacopina insisted that what Mr. Trump did — signing off on reimbursement payments to Mr. Cohen, who had made a $130,000 hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, the porn star who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump — was done at Mr. Cohen’s suggestion and “was not a crime.”At one point, as the interviewer, Ari Melber, was reading from a piece of paper, Mr. Tacopina tried to grab it unsuccessfully across the set. When Mr. Tacopina was pushed on why Mr. Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One in 2018 that he did not know about the payments, he insisted it was not a lie.“A lie to me is something material under oath in a procedure,” Mr. Tacopina told Mr. Melber.“Here’s why it’s not a lie,” Mr. Tacopina added. “Because it was a confidential settlement. So, if he acknowledged that, he would be violating the confidential settlement.”He went on: “So, is it the truth? Of course it’s not the truth. Was he supposed to tell the truth? He would be in violation of the agreement if he told the truth. So, by him doing that, by him doing that, he was abiding by not only his rights, but Stormy Daniels’s rights.”Jonah E. Bromwich More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Michael Cohen Testifies in Grand Jury as Trump Indictment Appears Near

      by

      Mr. Cohen, Donald Trump’s onetime fixer, is a key piece of the puzzle in a case centered around a 2016 hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.Michael D. Cohen, a crucial witness in the Manhattan district attorney’s criminal investigation into Donald J. Trump, testified in front of a grand jury on Monday, as prosecutors near a likely indictment of the former president.Mr. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer, testified for much of the afternoon and was expected to return on Wednesday to continue his testimony.When he walked into the building where the grand jury meets, Mr. Cohen remarked to reporters that he felt “fine” but “a little twisted, to be honest, inside” and that his goal was “to tell the truth.” On his way out, Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny J. Davis, called it a “long and productive afternoon” and said that Mr. Cohen “answered all questions.”His appearance is one of several recent signals that the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, is poised to seek an indictment of the former president for his role in paying hush money to a porn star in the days before the 2016 presidential election.Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors have already questioned at least seven other people before the grand jury this year, and Mr. Cohen is likely one of the final witnesses, according to people with knowledge of the matter. It would be rare for a prosecutor in a high-profile white-collar case to question nearly every relevant witness without intending to seek an indictment.Another signal that an indictment is likely came when Mr. Bragg’s office informed Mr. Trump’s lawyers that the former president could appear before the grand jury this week should he want to do so. Such offers almost always indicate an indictment is close, because in New York, potential defendants have the right to answer questions in the grand jury shortly before they are indicted.Mr. Trump declined the offer, people with knowledge of his decision said. And members of his legal team recently met privately with prosecutors to make their case against an indictment, one of his lawyers, Joseph Tacopina, said on “Good Morning America” on Monday. One of the lawyers at the meeting was Susan R. Necheles, who Mr. Tacopina said was “leading the charge” for Mr. Trump.The former president has blasted Mr. Bragg’s investigation, saying that the Democratic district attorney is conducting a politically motivated “witch hunt.” Last week, Mr. Trump issued a statement in which he denied having an affair with the porn star, Stormy Daniels, and said Mr. Bragg’s inquiry was an effort to “take down” the leading Republican candidate in the 2024 presidential election.If Mr. Bragg ultimately decides to ask the grand jurors to vote to indict Mr. Trump, the case could hinge on Mr. Cohen’s testimony.It was Mr. Cohen who made the $130,000 hush money payment to Ms. Daniels in late October 2016, stifling her story of an affair with Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump later reimbursed him, signing monthly checks while he was president, and Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal charges involving the hush money.Mr. Bragg’s case would likely center on how Mr. Trump and his family business, the Trump Organization, handled the reimbursement payments to Mr. Cohen.The company falsely recorded the payments in internal records as legal expenses, according to court papers in Mr. Cohen’s federal case. The Trump Organization’s records also cited a phony retainer agreement with Mr. Cohen, who was a lawyer but had no such agreement with the Trumps.In New York, it can be a crime to falsify business records, but to make it a felony, prosecutors would need show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an effort to commit or conceal a second crime.While it is unclear what that second crime might be in this case, it is possible that Mr. Bragg will cite a violation of state election law. Like the federal prosecutors who charged Mr. Cohen, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors could argue that the payment to Ms. Daniels was an illicit contribution to Mr. Trump’s campaign, given that the money silenced Ms. Daniels, which helped his candidacy.A conviction is not a sure thing. An attempt to combine the false records charge with the election violation would be based on a legal theory that has not been evaluated by judges, raising the possibility that a court could throw out or limit the charges. But if a case does go to trial, the circumstances of the hush money payment — a president essentially paying off a porn star — could appeal to a jury.At trial, Mr. Trump’s lawyers are likely to attack Mr. Cohen’s credibility, noting that he pleaded guilty not only to the hush money but also to accusations that he lied to Congress about a potential Trump hotel deal in Moscow.Prosecutors could respond that Mr. Cohen was lying for Mr. Trump, and that in recent years his story about the hush money has been consistent. Mr. Cohen, for example, has long said that Mr. Trump directed him to pay Ms. Daniels, an accusation that was supported by federal prosecutors in the case against Mr. Cohen.And when Mr. Cohen was asked during congressional testimony why Mr. Trump’s company spread out the reimbursements over many months, he explained, “That was in order to hide what the payment was,” adding that it was done “so that it would look like a retainer.”Asked whether Mr. Trump knew, Mr. Cohen replied, “Oh, he knew about everything, yes.” On Monday, Mr. Cohen said he was not testifying to exact “revenge” on Mr. Trump.“This is all about accountability,” he said. “He needs to be held accountable for his dirty deeds.”Sean Piccoli More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Michael Cohen to Testify at Grand Jury as Likely Trump Indictment Looms

      by

      Mr. Cohen, Donald J. Trump’s former fixer, is the key witness in a case built around a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.Michael D. Cohen, the former fixer who for years did Donald J. Trump’s dirty work, is expected to testify before a Manhattan grand jury next week, a sign that prosecutors are poised to indict the former president for his role in paying hush money to a porn star, according to people with knowledge of the matter.The Manhattan district attorney’s office has already questioned at least seven other people before the grand jury hearing evidence about the hush money deal, according to several other people with knowledge of the inquiry, potentially making Mr. Cohen the last witness.Once he has testified, nearly every crucial player in the hush money matter will have appeared before the grand jury — with the exception of the porn star herself, Stormy Daniels, who may not be called to testify.It would be highly unusual for a prosecutor in a high-profile white-collar case to go through a weekslong presentation of evidence — and question nearly every relevant witness — without intending to seek an indictment.Mr. Cohen’s testimony is the second strong indication that the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, will ask the grand jury to indict the former president, possibly as soon as this month. The first came when Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors informed Mr. Trump’s lawyers that if he wanted to testify before the grand jury, he could do so next week, people with knowledge of the matter said. Such offers almost always indicate an indictment is close.In New York, potential defendants have the right to answer questions in the grand jury shortly before they are indicted, but they rarely testify, and Mr. Trump is likely to decline the offer.A spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office declined to comment. Reached for comment, Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny J. Davis, said that “I’m only allowed to say that we’re cooperating with the investigation.” He added, “We appreciate the professionalism of Mr. Bragg’s team.”Mr. Bragg’s investigation concerns a $130,000 payment that Mr. Cohen made in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign to Ms. Daniels, who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump. After taking office, Mr. Trump reimbursed Mr. Cohen, who has long said that he was acting on his boss’s orders to silence Ms. Daniels.The prosecutors have zeroed in on whether Mr. Trump and his company falsified internal records to hide the reimbursement to Mr. Cohen — and Ms. Daniels’s story — from the voting public.Mr. Trump has consistently derided the investigation as a partisan “witch hunt” engineered by his political enemies and has called Mr. Bragg, a Democrat who is Black, “racist.”On Thursday, in a lengthy, unrestrained statement on Truth Social, Mr. Trump denied having an affair with Ms. Daniels and insulted her appearance while painting the investigation as part of a conspiracy to keep him from returning to the White House. He and his followers, he wrote, are “victims of this corrupt, depraved, and weaponized justice system.”Any case charging a former president would be unprecedented and, with Mr. Trump running for a third time, could roil the 2024 presidential primary campaign in ways that are hard to predict. Already, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors have come closer to indicting Mr. Trump than any of the others who have pursued him over the years.Yet an indictment is not assured. Mr. Bragg could delay or opt against seeking charges, and Mr. Cohen’s testimony could influence that decision.Even if Mr. Trump is indicted, convicting him or sending him to prison is no sure bet, and bringing charges would represent a significant gamble for Mr. Bragg. The case against the former president hinges on a risky legal theory involving two different bodies of law, and if Mr. Trump were ultimately convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of four years, though prison time would not be mandatory.Mr. Trump’s lawyers will also undoubtedly take aim at the prosecution’s star witness, Mr. Cohen, who in 2018 pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the hush money as well as accusations that he lied to Congress about a potential Trump hotel deal in Moscow. The defense lawyers could use his guilty pleas as ammunition to attack his credibility as a witness and argue that he has an ax to grind against Mr. Trump.But prosecutors might counter that Mr. Cohen was convicted of lying on behalf of Mr. Trump and that he is best positioned to explain the former president’s involvement in the hush money saga to jurors. Mr. Cohen’s testimony could illuminate that sequence of events, providing prosecutors the firsthand account they would need to make a case against Mr. Trump. Mr. Cohen has also provided documents to prosecutors, the people familiar with the matter said.An appearance on the stand would not be his first test in a high-pressure setting: In February 2019, Mr. Cohen testified for hours in a public hearing held by the House Oversight Committee, brushing back repeated attacks from Mr. Trump’s Republican allies as he described how Mr. Trump makes his desires known.“He speaks in a code,” Mr. Cohen said during the hearing. “And I understand the code because I’ve been around him for a decade.”Mr. Cohen’s payout to Ms. Daniels came in October 2016, after Ms. Daniels’s representatives contacted the National Enquirer to offer exclusive rights to her story about an affair with Mr. Trump. David Pecker and Dylan Howard, two of the tabloid’s leaders, helped broker a deal between Mr. Cohen and Ms. Daniels’s lawyer, Keith Davidson.The day before Mr. Cohen wired the $130,000, he spoke by phone twice with Mr. Trump, according to records in the federal case. They spoke again the day after the payment.Mr. Trump repaid him in monthly installments over the course of the following year. While president, he personally signed several of the checks.In Mr. Cohen’s federal case, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, “falsely accounted” for the reimbursement payments as legal expenses and that company records cited a phony retainer agreement with Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen was a lawyer, but there was no such retainer agreement and the reimbursement was unrelated to any legal services.When Mr. Cohen was asked during congressional testimony why Mr. Trump’s company spread out the reimbursements over many months, he explained, “That was in order to hide what the payment was,” adding that it was done “so that it would look like a retainer.” Asked whether Mr. Trump knew, Mr. Cohen replied, “Oh, he knew about everything, yes.”Now, those false reimbursement records are at the heart of the potential criminal case against Mr. Trump.In New York, it can be a crime to falsify business records, but it amounts to a misdemeanor. To elevate it to a felony, prosecutors would need show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.Alvin L. Bragg, who was criticized for calling off an earlier grand jury presentation, would be the first American prosecutor to indict a former president.Sarah Blesener for The New York TimesIn this case, that second crime could be a violation of election law. Like the federal prosecutors who charged Mr. Cohen, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors will likely argue that the payment to Ms. Daniels was an illegal contribution to Mr. Trump’s campaign, given that the money silenced the porn star and, thus, benefited his candidacy.Combining the false records charge with the election violation would constitute a novel legal theory, raising the possibility that a judge or appellate court could throw out the case. Mr. Cohen for years has pointed the finger at Mr. Trump, saying that his boss directed him to pay Ms. Daniels, an accusation that was supported by federal prosecutors in the case against Mr. Cohen.But Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors may have to rely on Mr. Cohen in linking Mr. Trump to the false reimbursement records. Mr. Cohen wrote in his memoir that he worked out the monthly repayment plan after the election with Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization’s longtime chief financial officer, Allen H. Weisselberg.Mr. Weisselberg is not expected to testify before the grand jury; he is serving a sentence in the Rikers Island jail complex after pleading guilty to unrelated tax fraud charges in a case that also led to the Trump Organization’s conviction last year.Since Mr. Bragg impaneled the grand jury in January, it has heard testimony from Mr. Pecker, Mr. Howard and Mr. Davidson. The jurors have also heard testimony from two employees of the Trump Organization, as well as Kellyanne Conway, who managed the final months of Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign.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., had directed prosecutors to begin presenting evidence to an earlier grand jury. But after taking office last year, Mr. Bragg and some of his prosecutors grew concerned about the strength of that case, which was focused on the former president’s business practices. He halted the presentation, prompting two senior prosecutors leading the investigation to resign.That portion of the investigation is continuing, people with knowledge of the matter said.But over the past several months, Mr. Bragg has focused on the hush money, the initial impetus for the investigation when it opened in 2018.Mr. Cohen has faithfully tracked his meetings with the district attorney’s office over the years, and on Tuesday noted that he had met with prosecutors to discuss Mr. Trump 19 times to date.“He needs to be held accountable if in fact there’s something that he did wrong,” Mr. Cohen said outside the district attorney’s office on one of his final visits.Kate Christobek More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      What We Know About the Potential Indictment of Donald Trump

      by

      A case against the former president — who is also a current presidential candidate — poses challenges for prosecutors. Here’s why.The revelation that the Manhattan district attorney’s office has indicated to Donald J. Trump’s lawyers that he could soon face criminal charges marked a major development in an inquiry that has loomed over the former president for nearly five years.It also raised a number of questions about the contours of the potential case against Mr. Trump, who could become the first former American president to be indicted.Alvin L. Bragg, the district attorney, is focused on Mr. Trump’s involvement in the payment of hush money to a porn star who said she had an affair with him. Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s fixer at the time, made the payment during the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign.While the facts are dramatic, the case against Mr. Trump would likely hinge on a complex interplay of laws. And a conviction is far from assured.Here’s what we know, and don’t know, about the longest running investigation into Mr. Trump:How did this all begin?Stormy Daniels during an event at a Washington, D.C. bookstore in December 2018.T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesIn October 2016, during the final weeks of the presidential campaign, the porn star Stormy Daniels was trying to sell her story of an affair with Mr. Trump.At first, Ms. Daniels’s representatives contacted the National Enquirer to offer exclusive rights to her story. David Pecker, the tabloid’s publisher and a longtime ally of Mr. Trump, had agreed to look out for potentially damaging stories about him during the 2016 campaign, and at one point even agreed to buy the story of another woman’s affair with Mr. Trump and never publish it, a practice known as “catch and kill.”But Mr. Pecker didn’t purchase Ms. Daniels’s story. Instead, he and the tabloid’s top editor, Dylan Howard, helped broker a separate deal between Mr. Cohen and Ms. Daniels’s lawyer.Mr. Cohen paid $130,000, and Mr. Trump later reimbursed him from the White House.In 2018, Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to a number of charges, including federal campaign finance crimes involving the hush money. The payment, federal prosecutors concluded, amounted to an improper donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign.In the days after Mr. Cohen’s guilty plea, the district attorney’s office opened its own criminal investigation into the matter. While the federal prosecutors were focused on Mr. Cohen, the district attorney’s inquiry would center on Mr. Trump.So what did Mr. Trump possibly do wrong?Michael Cohen visited the Manhattan district attorney’s office for an interview on Tuesday.Jefferson Siegel for The New York TimesWhen pleading guilty in federal court, Mr. Cohen pointed the finger at his boss. It was Mr. Trump, he said, who directed him to pay off Ms. Daniels, a contention that prosecutors later corroborated.The prosecutors also raised questions about Mr. Trump’s monthly reimbursement checks to Mr. Cohen. They said in court papers that Mr. Trump’s company “falsely accounted” for the monthly payments as legal expenses and that company records cited a retainer agreement with Mr. Cohen. Although Mr. Cohen was a lawyer, and became Mr. Trump’s personal attorney after he took office, there was no such retainer agreement and the reimbursement was unrelated to any legal services Mr. Cohen performed.Mr. Cohen has said that Mr. Trump knew about the phony retainer agreement, an accusation that could form the basis of the case against the former president.In New York, falsifying business records can amount to a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. To elevate the crime to a felony charge, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.In this case, that second crime could be a violation of New York State election law. While hush money is not inherently illegal, the prosecutors could argue that the $130,000 payout effectively became an improper donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign, under the theory that it benefited his candidacy because it silenced Ms. Daniels.Will it be a tough case to prove?Even if Mr. Trump is indicted, convicting him or sending him to prison will be challenging. For one thing, Mr. Trump’s lawyers are sure to attack Mr. Cohen’s credibility by citing his criminal record.The case against the former president also likely hinges on an untested and therefore risky legal theory involving a complex interplay of laws.Combining the falsifying business records charge with a violation of state election law would be a novel legal theory for any criminal case, let alone one against the former president, raising the possibility that a judge or appellate court could throw it out or reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor.And even if the felony charge remains, it amounts to a low-level felony. If Mr. Trump were ultimately convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of four years, though prison time would not be mandatory.How did prosecutors convey that charges are likely?Prosecutors in the district attorney’s office recently signaled to Mr. Trump’s lawyers that he could face criminal charges.They did this by offering Mr. Trump the chance to testify next week before the grand jury that has been hearing evidence in the potential case, people with knowledge of the matter said. Such offers almost always indicate an indictment is close; it would be unusual for prosecutors to notify a potential defendant without ultimately seeking charges against him.In New York, potential defendants have the right to answer questions in the grand jury before they are indicted, but they rarely testify, and Mr. Trump is likely to decline the offer.Will Mr. Trump definitely be indicted?It is still possible that Mr. Trump will not face charges. Mr. Trump’s lawyers could meet privately with the prosecutors in hopes of fending off criminal charges.And although Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors have already questioned at least six other people before the grand jury, they have not completed their presentation of evidence. Mr. Cohen, for example, has yet to appear before the panel.The prosecutors will then need to present the charges to the grand jurors, who will vote on an indictment.Until then, Mr. Bragg could decide to pump the brakes. As of now, however, that seems unlikely.What has Mr. Trump said in his defense?Mr. Trump has referred to the investigation as a “witch hunt” against him that began before he became president, and has called Mr. Bragg, who is Black and a Democrat, a “racist” who is motivated by politics.In a statement released Thursday night on Mr. Trump’s social network, Truth Social, he reiterated those claims, and denied he had ever had an affair with Ms. Daniels. He noted that prosecutors from various offices — including Mr. Bragg’s predecessor — had investigated the matter and had never before charged him with a crime.He wrote that the potential indictment was an attempt to thwart his presidential campaign.“They cannot win at the voter booth, so they have to go to a tool that has never been used in such a way in our country, weaponized law enforcement,” Mr. Trump wrote. Former Justice Department officials have accused Mr. Trump of ordering them to act in ways that aided him politically when he was in office. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Hope Hicks Meets With Manhattan Prosecutors as Trump Inquiry Intensifies

      by

      At least seven witnesses have met with prosecutors in what now appears to be a fast-moving investigation into a 2016 hush-money payment to a porn star.Hope Hicks, a trusted aide to Donald J. Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign, met with the Manhattan district attorney’s office on Monday — the latest in a string of witnesses to be questioned by prosecutors as they investigate the former president’s involvement in paying hush money to a porn star.The appearance of Ms. Hicks, who was seen walking into the Manhattan district attorney’s office in the early afternoon, represents the latest sign that the prosecutors are in the final stages of their investigation.She is at least the seventh witness to meet with prosecutors since the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, convened a grand jury in January to hear evidence in the case. Last week, another prominent member of the 2016 campaign, Kellyanne Conway, testified before the grand jury, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. Two employees of Mr. Trump’s company have also testified, as have two former executives of The National Enquirer who helped broker the hush-money arrangement, as well as a lawyer for the porn star, Stormy Daniels.The potential case is focused on Mr. Trump’s role in covering up the payment to Ms. Daniels, who has long said that she had an affair with him. The $130,000 payment was made by Michael D. Cohen, a longtime fixer for Mr. Trump, in the waning days of the 2016 campaign. After Mr. Trump took office, he reimbursed Mr. Cohen.It is unclear whether Mr. Bragg will ultimately seek an indictment of Mr. Trump, who has denied all wrongdoing and said that he never had an affair with Ms. Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. But the weekslong presentation of evidence to the grand jury suggests that the district attorney could be nearing a decision.It could not be immediately determined whether Ms. Hicks,who also served in the White House, was testifying before the grand jury or was only meeting with prosecutors to answer their questions. A spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office declined to comment, as did Robert P. Trout, a lawyer for Ms. Hicks.Mr. Bragg is one of three prosecutors whose investigations into Mr. Trump appear to be moving quickly, even as the former president mounts a third campaign. A district attorney in Georgia is investigating Mr. Trump’s attempts to interfere with the 2020 election results in the state. And a special counsel is examining whether Mr. Trump committed federal crimes in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, and in his handling of classified documentsMr. Trump has said that the prosecutors, including Mr. Bragg, a Democrat, are engaged in a politically motivated “witch hunt.” On Saturday, speaking to conservative media, he said that he would not drop out of the presidential race if he were to be indicted.“I wouldn’t even think about leaving,” he said.Mr. Cohen, who in 2018 pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the hush money and turned on Mr. Trump, has met with the district attorney’s office a number of times this year but has yet to testify in front of the grand jury. He has said he expects to testify “very soon.”As the spokeswoman for Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign, Ms. Hicks was responsible for damage control on a number of issues, a role that has attracted the interest of various investigators over the years. In court records from Mr. Cohen’s federal case, the F.B.I. noted that she participated in a phone call with Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen on the same day they learned that Ms. Daniels wanted money for her story. Ms. Hicks also spoke with Mr. Cohen the day after he wired the $130,000 to Ms. Daniels’s lawyer.Prosecutors are likely to want to know whether she was privy to any conversations or other information about Mr. Cohen’s dealings with Ms. Daniels’s representatives or how the hush money payment was arranged.Ms. Hicks, however, has testified before Congress that she was not present for any conversation in which Mr. Cohen and Mr. Trump discussed the hush money. She has also said that she was unaware of the deal with Ms. Daniels at the time it was arranged.It is unclear how Ms. Hicks’s testimony would affect any case should Mr. Bragg decide to seek charges.Any case involving the hush money payment would be likely to hinge on internal Trump Organization records that falsely identified the reimbursement to Mr. Cohen as legal expenses. To prove their case, prosecutors would have to link Mr. Trump to those false records.Falsifying business records can be a crime in New York. But to charge Mr. Trump with a felony, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors would have to show that his involvement in the false records was meant to help commit or conceal a second crime — probably a violation of New York State election law. The theory linking the false records to a violation of state election law has not been tested in court.If Mr. Trump were ultimately convicted of those charges, he would face a maximum sentence of four years. But prison time would not be mandatory, and a conviction is far from assured.Sean Piccoli More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Kellyanne Conway Meets With Prosecutors as Trump Inquiry Escalates

      by

      The Manhattan district attorney’s office is scrutinizing the former president’s role in the hush money payment to a porn star.Kellyanne Conway, who managed the final months of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 campaign, met with prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney’s office on Wednesday, the latest sign that the office is ramping up its criminal investigation into the former president.The prosecutors are scrutinizing Mr. Trump’s role in a hush money payment to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, who has said she had an affair with him. The $130,000 payment was made by Mr. Trump’s longtime fixer, Michael D. Cohen, in the closing days of the 2016 campaign, and Mr. Trump ultimately reimbursed him.Mr. Cohen has said that Ms. Conway played a small yet notable role in the payment: she was the person Mr. Cohen alerted after making the payment, he wrote in his 2020 memoir.“I called Trump to confirm that the transaction was completed, and the documentation all in place, but he didn’t take my call — obviously a very bad sign, in hindsight,” he wrote. Instead, he wrote, Ms. Conway “called and said she’d pass along the good news.”Ms. Conway, who was seen walking into the district attorney’s office shortly before 2 p.m. on Wednesday, is the latest in a string of witnesses to meet with prosecutors in the last month or so. Since the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, impaneled a grand jury in January to hear evidence about Mr. Trump’s role in paying the hush money, at least five witnesses have testified: Jeffrey McConney and Deborah Tarasoff, employees of Mr. Trump’s company; David Pecker and Dylan Howard, two former leaders of The National Enquirer, which helped arrange the hush money deal; and Keith Davidson, a former lawyer for Ms. Daniels.The decision to question those central players in the hush money saga before the grand jury suggests that Mr. Bragg is nearing a decision on whether to seek an indictment of the former president.A spokeswoman for the office and a lawyer for Ms. Conway declined to comment. It is unclear whether Ms. Conway appeared before the grand jury or was only interviewed by prosecutors.Still, the investigation is not complete. Mr. Cohen has met with the prosecutors for several hours of questioning, though he has yet to testify in front of the grand jury. Ms. Daniels herself has yet to be interviewed, and Ms. Conway might not be the last 2016 campaign official to face questioning.It is one of three potential criminal cases looming over Mr. Trump, even as he remains a front-runner in the 2024 presidential campaign. In addition to Mr. Bragg’s inquiry, Mr. Trump could face charges from a local prosecutor in Georgia investigating whether he interfered in the 2020 election. And at the federal level, a special counsel is scrutinizing Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the election — including whether he committed any crimes in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — as well as his handling of classified documents.Mr. Trump has denied all wrongdoing and accused the investigators of carrying out a politically motivated witch hunt. He has also denied having an affair with Ms. Daniels.In Manhattan, any case would likely center on whether Mr. Trump was involved with the falsification of business records related to the payment to Ms. Daniels. When Mr. Trump repaid Mr. Cohen for the $130,000 payout to Ms. Daniels, the Trump Organization falsely recorded the reimbursements as legal expenses.It can be a crime in New York to falsify business records. But to make it a felony, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors would have to show that Mr. Trump was involved in the falsification of the records to help commit or conceal a second crime — in this case, likely a violation of New York State election law, a legal theory that has not been tested.The case would rely on testimony from Mr. Cohen, who pleaded guilty to federal charges over the payments in 2018. Mr. Cohen is expected to meet with prosecutors again in the coming days.If Mr. Trump were ultimately convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of four years, though prison time would not be mandatory and a conviction is hardly assured. Mr. Trump’s lawyers would likely seek to undermine Mr. Cohen’s testimony, arguing that he is a convicted criminal and admitted liar who has an ax to grind against Mr. Trump.Ms. Conway remained one of Mr. Trump’s top aides when he ascended to the White House, staying on until the summer of 2020. She still speaks with Mr. Trump and is close to his wife, Melania. But Ms. Conway has been equivocal about his chances at regaining the White House.In January, she considered his prospects in an Op-Ed, writing that the case against his candidacy rested in part on concerns that he “cannot outrun the mountain of legal woes.”Kate Christobek More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Manhattan Prosecutors Begin Presenting Trump Case to Grand Jury

      by

      The Manhattan district attorney’s decision represents a dramatic escalation of the inquiry, and potentially sets the case on a path toward criminal charges against the former president.The Manhattan district attorney’s office on Monday began presenting evidence to a grand jury about Donald J. Trump’s role in paying hush money to a porn star during his 2016 presidential campaign, laying the groundwork for potential criminal charges against the former president in the coming months, according to people with knowledge of the matter.The grand jury was recently impaneled, and the beginning of witness testimony represents a clear signal that the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, is nearing a decision about whether to charge Mr. Trump.On Monday, one of the witnesses was seen with his lawyer entering the building in Lower Manhattan where the grand jury is sitting. The witness, David Pecker, is the former publisher of The National Enquirer, the tabloid that helped broker the deal with the porn star, Stormy Daniels.As prosecutors prepare to reconstruct the events surrounding the payment for grand jurors, they have sought to interview several witnesses, including the tabloid’s former editor, Dylan Howard, and two employees at Mr. Trump’s company, the people said. Mr. Howard and the Trump Organization employees, Jeffrey McConney and Deborah Tarasoff, have not yet testified before the grand jury.The prosecutors have also begun contacting officials from Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign, one of the people said. And in a sign that they want to corroborate these witness accounts, the prosecutors recently subpoenaed phone records and other documents that might shed light on the episode.A conviction is not a sure thing, in part because a case could hinge on showing that Mr. Trump and his company falsified records to hide the payout from voters days before the 2016 election, a low-level felony charge that would be based on a largely untested legal theory. The case would also rely on the testimony of Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer who made the payment and who himself pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the hush money in 2018.Still, the developments compound Mr. Trump’s legal woes as he mounts a third presidential campaign. A district attorney in Georgia could seek to indict him for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state, and he faces a special counsel investigation into his removal of sensitive documents from the White House as well as his actions during the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.Mr. Bragg’s decision to impanel a grand jury focused on the hush money — supercharging the longest-running criminal investigation into Mr. Trump — represents a dramatic escalation in an inquiry that once appeared to have reached a dead end.Under Mr. Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the district attorney’s office had begun presenting evidence to an earlier grand jury about a case focused on Mr. Trump’s business practices, including whether he fraudulently inflated the value of his assets to secure favorable loans and other benefits. Yet in the early weeks of his tenure last year, Mr. Bragg developed concerns about the strength of that case and decided to abandon the grand jury presentation, prompting the resignations of the two senior prosecutors leading the investigation.One of them, Mark F. Pomerantz, was highly critical of Mr. Bragg’s decision and has written a book that is scheduled to be published next week, “People vs. Donald Trump,” detailing his account of the inquiry. Mr. Bragg’s office recently wrote to Mr. Pomerantz’s publisher, Simon & Schuster, expressing concern that the book might disclose grand jury information or interfere with the investigation.District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, center right, jump-started the inquiry last summer into Mr. Trump’s role in the hush money paid to the porn star Stormy Daniels.Karsten Moran for The New York TimesAlthough he balked at charging Mr. Trump over the asset valuations, this is a different case, and Mr. Bragg is now a bolder prosecutor. He has ramped up the hush money inquiry in the weeks since his prosecutors convicted Mr. Trump’s company in an unrelated tax case, a far cry from his unsteady early days in office, when Mr. Bragg was under fire from all quarters for unveiling a host of policies designed to put fewer people behind bars.For his part, Mr. Trump has denied all wrongdoing and chalked up the scrutiny to a partisan witch hunt against him. He has also denied having an affair with Ms. Daniels. If Mr. Trump were ultimately convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of four years, though prison time would not be mandatory.“This is just the latest act by the Manhattan D.A. in their never-ending, politically motivated witch hunt,” the Trump Organization said in a statement, adding that reviving the case under what it called a “dubious legal theory” was “simply reprehensible and vindictive.”A spokeswoman for Mr. Bragg’s office declined to comment. Mr. Pecker’s lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A lawyer for Mr. McConney and Ms. Tarasoff declined to comment.The panel hearing evidence is likely what’s known as a special grand jury. Like regular grand juries, it is made up of 23 Manhattan residents chosen at random. But its members are sworn in to serve for six months to hear complex cases, rather than for 30 days, as is the case with panels that review evidence and vote on whether to bring charges in more routine matters.The investigation, which has unfolded in fits and starts for more than four years, began with an examination of the hush money deal before expanding to include Mr. Trump’s property valuations. Last summer, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors returned to the hush money anew, seeking to jump-start the inquiry after the departures of Mr. Pomerantz and Carey R. Dunne, the other senior prosecutor in the investigation.The district attorney’s office, working with the New York attorney general, Letitia James, is also continuing to scrutinize the way that the former president valued his assets, the people with knowledge of the matter said.Over the course of the investigation into Mr. Trump, the hush money payment was discussed within the district attorney’s office with such regularity that prosecutors came to refer to it as the “zombie theory” — an idea that just won’t die.The first visible sign of progress for Mr. Bragg came this month when Mr. Cohen appeared at the district attorney’s office to meet with prosecutors for the first time in more than a year. He is expected to return for at least one additional interview in February, one of the people said.The lawyer who represented Ms. Daniels in the hush money deal, Keith Davidson, is also expected to meet with prosecutors.Mr. Trump’s company was instrumental in the deal, court records from Mr. Cohen’s federal case show.Although Mr. McConney and Ms. Tarasoff were not central players, they helped arrange for Mr. Cohen to be reimbursed for the $130,000 he paid Ms. Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.Allen H. Weisselberg, the company’s former chief financial officer, was also involved in reimbursing Mr. Cohen. And, according to Mr. Cohen, Mr. Weisselberg was involved in a discussion with Mr. Trump about whether to pay Ms. Daniels.Mr. Weisselberg is serving jail time after pleading guilty to a tax fraud scheme unrelated to the hush money deal, a case that also led to the conviction of the Trump Organization in December. Although he was the star witness for the district attorney’s office in that case, Mr. Weisselberg has never implicated Mr. Trump in any wrongdoing.Without his cooperation, prosecutors could struggle to link Mr. Trump directly to the misconduct.In 2018, when Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance charges stemming from his role in the hush money payments, he pointed the finger at Mr. Trump, saying the payout was done “in coordination with, and at the direction of” the president. Federal prosecutors agreed that Mr. Trump was behind the deal but never charged him or his company with a crime.The cooperation of Allen H. Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s former chief financial officer, will be key to the prosecution’s case against Mr. Trump.Jefferson Siegel for The New York TimesThere is some circumstantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Trump was involved: He and Mr. Cohen spoke by phone twice the day before Mr. Cohen wired the payment to Ms. Daniels’s lawyer, according to records in the federal case.For prosecutors, the core of any possible case is the way in which Mr. Trump reimbursed Mr. Cohen for the $130,000 he paid Ms. Daniels and how the company recorded that payment. According to court papers in Mr. Cohen’s federal case, Mr. Trump’s company falsely identified the reimbursements as legal expenses.The district attorney’s office now appears to be focusing on whether erroneously classifying the payments to Mr. Cohen as a legal expense ran afoul of a New York law that prohibits the falsifying of business records.Violations of that law can be charged as a misdemeanor. To make it a felony, prosecutors would need to show that Mr. Trump falsified the records to help commit or conceal a second crime — in this case, violating a New York State election law, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. That second aspect has largely gone untested, and would therefore make for a risky legal case against any defendant, let alone the former president.Defense lawyers might also argue that Mr. Trump, who was a first-time presidential candidate, did not know that the payments violated election law. And they could take aim at Mr. Cohen, arguing that he is a convicted criminal who has an ax to grind against Mr. Trump.In its statement, the Trump Organization noted that “the narrow issue of whether payments to Michael Cohen were properly recorded in a personal accounting ledger back in 2017 was thoroughly examined” by the federal prosecutors who charged Mr. Cohen and concluded he had engaged in a “pattern of deception.”Mr. Pecker’s testimony, however, could bolster the prosecution’s contention that Mr. Trump was involved in planning the hush money payment. A longtime ally of Mr. Trump, the publisher agreed to look out for potentially damaging stories about Mr. Trump during the 2016 campaign. He agreed to this at a meeting in Mr. Trump’s office.In October 2016, Ms. Daniels’s agent and lawyer discussed the possibility of selling exclusive rights to her story to The National Enquirer, which would then never publish it, a practice known as “catch and kill.”But Mr. Pecker balked at the deal. He and the tabloid’s editor, Mr. Howard, agreed that Mr. Cohen would have to deal with Ms. Daniels’s team directly.When Mr. Cohen was slow to pay, Mr. Howard pressed him to get the deal done, lest Ms. Daniels reveal their discussions about suppressing her story. “We have to coordinate something,” Mr. Howard texted Mr. Cohen in late October 2016, “or it could look awfully bad for everyone.”Two days later, Mr. Cohen transferred the $130,000 to an account held by Ms. Daniels’s attorney.Michael Rothfeld More