Presidential Election of 2016

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      To Boldly Go Where No President Has Gone Before

      by

      Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. I have a clear memory of Democrats defending Bill Clinton tooth and nail for lying under oath in the Paula Jones case, about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. At the time, they said it was “just about sex” and that Clinton lied to protect his family and marriage.Morally speaking, is that better than, worse than or equal to the allegation that Donald Trump falsified business records to cover his alleged affair with Stormy Daniels (and possibly another paramour, too)?Gail Collins: Bret, sex scandal aficionado that I am, I’m sorta tempted to go back and revisit Clinton’s argument that he didn’t lie about Monica Lewinsky because it doesn’t count as having sex if … well, no. Guess not.Bret: To say nothing of Clinton parsing the meaning of the word “is.”Gail: Still, I’d say the Stormy Daniels episode — an ongoing, well-financed cover-up during a presidential campaign — was worse.Bret: Hmm. Trump wasn’t president at the time of the alleged affair the way Clinton was. And Daniels wasn’t a starry-eyed 22-year-old intern whose life got destroyed in the process. And lying under oath is usually a felony, unlike falsifying business records, which is usually treated as a misdemeanor.Gail: If you want to argue that Trump’s not the worst sex-scandal offender, I’m fine with it. Won’t even mention Grover Cleveland …Bret: “Ma, ma, where’s my pa?” Always liked Grover.Gail: Of all the investigations into Trump’s egregious misconduct, this strikes me as almost minor compared with, say, trying to change presidential election results, urging a crowd of supporters to march on the Capitol or illegally taking, retaining and hiding secret government documents or …OK, taking a rest.Bret: Totally agree. My fear is that the indictment will focus the media spotlight on Trump, motivate his base, paralyze his Republican opponents and ultimately help him win the G.O.P. nomination. In the first poll after the indictment, Trump’s lead over his Republican rivals jumped. Maybe that will make it easier for Democrats to hold the White House next year, but it also potentially means we could get Benito Milhous Caligula back in office.The only thing that will hurt Trump is if he’s ignored in the press and beaten at the polls. Instead, we’re contributing to the problem just by speaking about it.Gail: OK, now I’m changing subjects. It hurts my heart to talk about this, but we have to consider the terrible school shooting in Nashville — it doesn’t seem to have moved the needle one centimeter on issues like banning assault weapons or 30-round magazines. Pro-gun lawmakers, in light of the Covenant School shooting, are once again arguing that schools would be safer if the teachers could have their own pistols.Bret: I’m not opposed to an armed cop or a well-trained security guard on school campuses, who might be able to respond much faster to an emergency than the police could. Teachers? Seems like a really, really bad idea.With respect to everything else, I’m sometimes inclined to simply give up. Gun control isn’t realistic in a country with more guns than people. Even if stringent gun control were somehow enacted, it would function roughly the same way stringent drug laws work: People who wanted to obtain guns illegally could easily get them. I think we ought to repeal the Second Amendment, or at least reinterpret it to mean that anyone who wants a gun must belong to a “well-regulated militia.” But in our lifetimes that’s a political pipe dream.So we’re left in the face of tragedies like Nashville’s feeling heartbroken, furious, speechless and helpless.Gail: Your impulse to give up the fight is probably sensible, but I just can’t go there. Gotta keep pushing; we can’t cave in to folks who think it’s un-American to require loaded weapons be stored where kids can’t get at them.Bret: Another side of me wants to agree with you. Let’s ban high-capacity magazines, raise the age threshold for gun purchases and heavily fine people if they fail to properly store weapons. I just wonder if it will make much of a difference.Gail: Well, it sure as hell wouldn’t hurt.Bret: Very true.Gail: Let’s move on before I get deeply depressed. We’re slowly creeping toward an election year — close enough that people who want to run for office for real have to start mobilizing. Anybody you really love/hate out there now?Bret: Next year is going to be a tough one for Senate Democrats. They’re defending 23 of the 34 seats that are up for grabs, including in ever-redder states like Montana and West Virginia.I’d love to see a serious Democratic challenger to Ted Cruz in Texas, and by serious I mean virtually anyone other than Beto O’Rourke. And I’d love to see Kari Lake run for a Senate seat in Arizona so that she can lose again.You?Gail: Funny, I was thinking the same thing about Ted Cruz the other night. Wonderful the way that man can bring us together.Bret: He even brings me closer to Trump. “Lyin’ Ted” was priceless.Gail: Another Senate Republican I hope gets a very serious challenger is Rick Scott of Florida, who made that first big proposal to consider slashing Social Security and Medicare.Bret: Good luck with that. Florida may now be redder than Texas.Gail: You’re right about the Democrats having to focus on defense. The endangered incumbent I’m rooting hardest for is Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who’s managed to be a powerful voice for both liberal causes and my reddish home state’s practical interests.Bret: I once got a note from Brown gently reproaching me for using the term Rust Belt about Ohio. The note was so charming, personable and fair that I remember thinking: “This man can’t have a future in American politics.”Gail: And as someone who’s complained bitterly about Joe Manchin over the years, I have to admit that keeping West Virginia in the Democratic column does require very creative and sometimes deeply irritating political performances.Bret: Aha. I knew you’d come around.I don’t know if you’ve followed this, but Manchin is now complaining bitterly that the Biden administration is trying to rewrite the terms of the Inflation Reduction Act, which, with Manchin’s vote, gave the president his biggest legislative win last year. The details are complicated, but the gist is that the administration is hanging him out to dry. Oh, and he’s also skeptical of Trump’s indictment. Don’t be totally surprised if Manchin becomes a Republican in order to save his political skin.Gail: Hmm, my valuation of said skin would certainly drop . …Bret: Which raises the question: How should partisan Democrats, or partisan Republicans, feel about the least ideologically reliable member of their own parties?Gail: Depends. Did they run as freethinkers who shouldn’t be relied on by their party for a vote? Manchin got elected in the first place by promising to be a Democrat who’d “get the federal government off our backs.” But often this explosion of independence comes as a postelection surprise.Bret: Good point. There should be truth in advertising.Gail: Do they — like Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — forget their nonpartisanship when it comes to dipping into donations from partisan fund-raisers?And probably most important — is there a better option? If Sinema had to run for re-election this year, which she doesn’t, I would be a super-enthusiastic supporter if the other choice was Lake, that dreadful former talk show host.Any thoughts on your end?Bret: In my younger, more Republican days, I used to dislike ideological mavericks — they made things too complicated. Now that I’m older, I increasingly admire politicians who make things complicated. I know there’s a fair amount of opportunism and posturing in some of their position taking. But they also model a certain independence of thought and spirit that I find healthy in our Age of Lemmings.Gail: Hoping it’s maybe just the Decade of the Lemmings.Bret: If I had to draw up a list of the Senate heroes of my lifetime, they’d be Daniel Patrick Moynihan, John McCain, Howard Baker, Bob Kerrey and Joe Lieberman. And lately I’d have to add Mitt Romney. All were willing to break with their parties when it counted. How about you?Gail: Well, you may remember that a while back I was contemplating writing a book called “How Joe Lieberman Ruined Everything.”Bret: I recall you weren’t his biggest fan.Gail: Yeah, still blaming him for failing to give Al Gore the proper support in that 2000 recount. But I’ve come around on Mitt Romney. He’s become a strong, independent voice. Of course it’s easier to be brave when you’re a senator from a state that would keep re-electing you if you took a six-year vacation in the Swiss Alps. Nevertheless, I’ve apologized for all that obsessing about his putting the dog on the car roof.Bret: I came around on him too. I was very hard on him in 2012. Either he got better or I got wiser.Gail: I was a big admirer of John McCain. Will never forget following him on his travels when he first ran for president in 2000. He spent months and months driving around New Hampshire talking about campaign finance reform. From one tiny gathering to another. Of all the ambitious pols I’ve known he was the least focused on his own fortunes.Bret: I traveled with McCain on his international junkets. He was hilarious, gregarious, generous, gossipy — a study in being unstudied. If he had won the presidency, the Republican Party wouldn’t have gone insane, American democracy wouldn’t be at risk and Sarah Palin would be just another lame ex-veep.Gail: So, gotta end this with the obvious question, Bret. Republican presidential race! You’re a fan of Nikki Haley, but her campaign doesn’t seem to be going much of anywhere, is it? I know you’ve come to detest Ron DeSantis. Other options?Bret: Biden, cryonics or some small island in the South Atlantic, like St. Helena. Not necessarily in that order.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

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Supporter Convicted in 2016 Scheme to Suppress Votes for Clinton

      by

      The federal prosecution of Douglass Mackey turned on the question of when free speech turns into dirty tricks.Months before the 2016 presidential election, people intent on swaying the outcome were communicating in private Twitter groups with names like “War Room” and “Infowars Madman.”The participants included obscure figures and notorious online trolls, many of whom concealed their real identities. There were fans of Donald J. Trump and avowed haters of Hillary Clinton, all working toward a Republican victory while celebrating the “meme magic” they employed to circulate lies and attacks.According to federal prosecutors, one man, Douglass Mackey, crossed a line from political speech to criminal conduct when he posted images to Twitter that resembled campaign ads for Mrs. Clinton and falsely stated that people could vote simply by texting “Hillary” to a certain phone number.On Friday, after just over four days of deliberation, a jury in Brooklyn found Mr. Mackey guilty of conspiring to deprive others of their right to vote. He is scheduled to be sentenced in August and faces a maximum of 10 years in prison.Mr. Mackey, wearing a gray suit, white shirt and pink tie, was stoic as the verdict was read. His lawyer, Andrew J. Frisch, suggested that his client would appeal.“This case presents an unusual array of appellate issues that are exceptionally strong,” Mr. Frisch said, adding: “I’m confident about the way forward.”Breon Peace, the United States attorney in Brooklyn, said in a statement that by convicting Mr. Mackey the jury had rejected “his cynical attempt to use the constitutional right of free speech as a shield for his scheme to subvert the ballot box and suppress the vote.”Mr. Mackey posted one image showing a Black woman and a sign reading “African Americans for Hillary” a day after writing on Twitter about limiting turnout among Black voters. Another image, in Spanish, showed a woman looking at her phone.Both images, posted a week before the election, were accompanied by the hashtag #ImWithHer, which was used by the Clinton campaign. Both also included logos that looked like the campaign’s, and fine print saying they had been paid for by “Hillary for President.”Prosecutors said about 5,000 people sent texts to the number shown in the deceptive images.Mr. Mackey, 33, who grew up in Vermont, attended Middlebury College and once lived in Manhattan, testified in his own defense. He said he was in dozens of private online groups before the election but did not pay close attention to everything discussed in them.While testifying, Mr. Mackey said he found the vote-by-text images on an online message board and posted them with little thought. He added that he had not meant to trick anyone but wanted to “see what happens.”“Maybe even the media will pick it up, the Clinton campaign,” he testified, adding that the images might “rile them up, get under their skin, get them off their message that they wanted to push.”Mr. Mackey was seen, according to evidence, as someone who could marshal followers and move the national conversation. He used the pseudonym “Ricky Vaughn,” the name of a character in the movie “Major League.”In early 2016, the Ricky Vaughn account was included on a list of the top 150 election influencers compiled by a research group with the M.I.T. Media Lab, ranking ahead of NBC News, Drudge Report and Glenn Beck.As Mr. Mackey’s trial approached, people sympathetic to him claimed that he was being prosecuted unfairly. The defense sought to have his case dismissed, saying that the voting memes were protected by the First Amendment. But a judge denied that request, writing that the case was about conspiracy and injury, not speech.The star prosecution witness, a Twitter user known as Microchip, helped direct online attacks against Mrs. Clinton in 2016, but began cooperating with the F.B.I. two years later. He testified that the private groups that he and Mr. Mackey took part in had the goal of “destroying Hillary Clinton.”Communications from the groups provided a glimpse into a shadowy world of crass motives and dirty tricks in which anti-Clinton activists developed propaganda, spread falsehoods and exulted in their impact.Evidence showed that participants had shared memes about voting by social media, tried to figure out what font a Clinton ad used and circulated hashtags. One, #DraftOurDaughters, was posted on Twitter along with images suggesting that Mrs. Clinton would start wars and conscript women to fight them. Mr. Mackey advanced another, #NeverVote, that he wrote was meant to be spread in “Black social spaces.”During the trial, Mr. Frisch described his client’s posts as part of a rambunctious online discourse.“Speech regulates itself,” Mr. Frisch told jurors in his summation. “These memes were a bad idea and the marketplace of ideas killed them almost immediately.”Prosecutors countered that the false-voting images were part of an orchestrated effort to affect the election through deceit, adding that criminal activity cannot hide behind the First Amendment.“You can’t use speech to trick people out of their sacred right to vote,” one prosecutor, William J. Gullotta, told jurors.Prosecutors drew upon statements by Mr. Mackey, who wrote that the 2016 election was on “a knife’s edge,” to argue that he had tried to help Mr. Trump by suppressing votes.“Trump should write off the Black vote,” Mr. Mackey wrote at one point. “And just focus on depressing their turnout.” 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

    • 38 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump Indicted

      by

      He is the first former U.S. president to face criminal charges.A former American president has been indicted.A Manhattan grand jury voted yesterday to indict Donald Trump. The case relates to his involvement in paying hush money to a porn star to bury a sex scandal in the final days of his 2016 presidential campaign.There is still a lot we don’t know, including the exact charges. The indictment is under seal and will likely be released in the coming days. Trump has not yet been arrested, a delay that is common in white-collar criminal cases. He is expected to turn himself in on Tuesday and will probably travel to New York from his home in Florida. (Here’s more on what to expect when Trump is taken into custody.)Regardless, a conviction in this case would not legally prevent Trump from continuing to run for president. An impeachment conviction could have barred Trump from future federal office, but the Senate acquitted him in both of his trials there.Trump continued to paint the case as partisan and biased last night. “This is political persecution and election interference at the highest level in history,” he said in a statement. He has long feared the possibility of being arrested, according to my colleague Maggie Haberman.Today’s newsletter will explain the allegations against Trump, why some legal analysts applaud the charges but also why even some of his critics worry about the potential consequences of an indictment.What’s in the case?Even though the indictment is still under seal and the specific charges remain unknown, reporters have learned the broad strokes of the investigation.One possibility is that the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, is combining state laws to accuse Trump of falsifying business records. The prosecution would focus on Trump’s reimbursements to his lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen, for the $130,000 payment to the porn star, Stormy Daniels.A charge of falsifying business records is common in white-collar cases. The unusual part of the charge would be how it’s elevated to a felony from a misdemeanor. In New York, falsifying records can rise to a felony if the fraud helped commit or conceal another intended crime.In this case, Bragg could argue that Trump falsified records to cover up the hush money in the final weeks of the 2016 race, potentially making it an illegal campaign contribution. Supporters of Trump’s prosecution argue that a successful conviction would show that no one, not even a president, is above the law. “If the rule of law is to be applied equally — & it must — it must apply to the powerful as it does to everyone else,” tweeted Representative Adam Schiff, a California Democrat.Prosecutors try creative tactics all the time, and sometimes they work. But some experts worry that a case involving a former president is not the time for creative tactics. “Is this really the case where you want to be stepping out on a limb legally or factually in your charges, given the weight of this politically, socially, culturally and for democracy?” said Rebecca Roiphe, a professor at New York Law School and a former prosecutor.Is there precedent?Presidents have gotten in legal trouble before. Many historians believe Richard Nixon would have been charged over the Watergate scandal had his successor, Gerald Ford, not pardoned him. And Bill Clinton, in a deal to avoid prosecution after he left office, admitted to lying under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, paid a fine and agreed to give up his law license.Trump also faces other investigations — into his involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents.There is also one less serious example of a president being arrested: A Washington, D.C., police officer arrested Ulysses S. Grant in 1872 for speeding in his horse and buggy before letting him go.Will it stick?Creative legal tactics are inherently risky. Courts typically draw on past cases to decide current ones. But Trump’s case is the first of its kind, both in terms of charging a former president and potentially attempting a new legal strategy.It also has weaknesses. In 2012, federal prosecutors dropped charges against John Edwards, a former Democratic presidential candidate, after jurors voted to acquit him of one charge and deadlocked on others. In that case, prosecutors argued Edwards violated federal campaign finance laws to pay for a scheme to cover up an affair. The jury evidently did not believe there was enough evidence to tie Edwards to the scheme.In Trump’s case, some conditions do favor the prosecution. It will come before a judge and jury in a very Democratic city. And the judge who is expected to preside over the case, Juan Merchan, previously oversaw the conviction of Trump’s family business.More Trump newsTrump and his aides were caught off guard by the grand jury’s decision. They believed an indictment was weeks away or might not happen at all.The larger story of Trump’s indictment is that of a country heading down a road it has never traveled before, Peter Baker writes.While the indictment is a first for the U.S., such cases have become fairly common globally.Republican leaders defended Trump, with one prominent supporter suggesting his mug shot should double as a 2024 campaign poster.Fox News hosts called the indictment politically motivated and suggested it might lead to unrest.Some former Trump Organization employees cheered the latest developments over text messages. Follow our updates.Commentary“A pattern of disregard for the law often leads to a criminal indictment, and that is the outcome Mr. Trump now faces,” The Times’s editorial board writes.“Should state officials bring a state claim that depends on an accusation of having violated federal law when federal charges were never filed? My conclusion is no,” David French writes in Times Opinion.Five former South Korean presidents have faced prosecution. It helped strengthen the country’s democracy, Nicholas Kristofargues in Times Opinion.“Save the mug shot for Georgia, the handcuffs for Jan. 6. Those were real offenses against the country,” Peggy Noonan writes in The Wall Street Journal.THE LATEST NEWSInternationalTurkish lawmakers voting yesterday.Burhan Ozbilici/Associated PressTurkey approved Finland’s bid to join NATO, the final hurdle to membership. The move is a setback for Russia.By arresting an American journalist and accusing him of espionage, Russia is isolating itself further from the West.Mexico arrested five people over a fire at a migrant detention center that killed at least 39.PoliticsWealth funds in the U.A.E. and Qatar invested hundreds of millions of dollars with Jared Kushner’s private equity firm.A Democratic state senator in Nebraska has been filibustering for weeks to block a bill that would ban transition-related medical treatment for minors.A federal judge struck down an Obamacare provision that requires insurers to cover preventive care. The Biden administration will probably appeal.Other Big StoriesThunderstorms, high winds and tornadoes are forecast across the Midwest and parts of the South today.Missteps by the police contributed to the death toll in Canada’s worst mass shooting, when a gunman killed more than 20 people in 2020, an investigation found.A jury ruled in Gwyneth Paltrow’s favor in a 2016 skiing accident, finding that the man who sued her was at fault. OpinionsMany Russian men view fighting in Ukraine as a chance to fix their lives, Marlene Laruelle and Ivan Grek write.Israel’s political crisis is a chance to strengthen its democracy by writing a constitution, Yuval Levin says.MORNING READSMeeting etiquette: Is it rude to knit at work? It could help you focus.“It’s American football?”: Yankees caps are everywhere in Brazil, even if people don’t know the meaning of what they’re wearing.Modern Love: When climate change melts your relationship.A morning listen: Google’s chief executive discusses the A.I. arms race.Lives Lived: Yang Bing-yi opened a modest shop in Taiwan in 1958. He built it into a dumpling and noodle empire, earning a Michelin star and introducing the soup dumpling to a global audience. Yang died at 96.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICOpening Day attraction: The first at-bat for the Yankees’ Aaron Judge after a magical 2022 — and after signing a megacontract — was perfect: a home run. A singing pitcher: In a surprise to fans and teammates, the Cardinals pitcher Adam Wainwright took the mic for the national anthem yesterday. A look ahead: See previews for each M.L.B. team.ARTS AND IDEAS Reliving the 1990s.Joe Buglewicz for The New York TimesA dose of ’90s nostalgia At the second annual 90s Con, in Hartford, Conn., attendees perused VHS tapes and Furby tattoos and had a chance to be splashed with Nickelodeon-style slime. Two members of ’N Sync were there, as were stars from “Full House” and “Beverly Hills, 90210.” As millennials start to enter middle age, some find themselves drawn to reliving the decade of their youth. As Shawn O’Connor, 35, who runs a ’90s-themed bar on Long Island, said: “It makes me happy, and I want to feel happy because I’m old.”PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookJohnny Miller for The New York TimesFor the fluffiest results, mix this banana-and-buttermilk pancake batter minimally.What to Listen toA playlist for the early weeks of spring.What to WatchIn “Kill Boksoon,” an assassin must choose between the murderous career she loves and the daughter she’s been hiding it from.Late NightThe hosts discussed Trump’s indictment.News QuizHow well did you keep up with the news this week?Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was clickable. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Line, to Brits (five letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — GermanP.S. An earthquake devastated Managua, Nicaragua’s capital, 92 years ago today.Here’s today’s front page. “The Daily” is about Trump.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. Reach our team at themorning@nytimes.com. 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

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      What’s an Indictment and What Will Happen When Trump Is Arrested

      by

      He will be fingerprinted. He will be photographed. He may even be handcuffed.If he surrenders Tuesday, Donald J. Trump is expected to walk through the routine steps of felony arrest processing in New York now that a grand jury has indicted him in connection with his role in a hush-money payment to a porn star. But the unprecedented arrest of a former commander in chief will be anything but routine.Accommodations may be made for Mr. Trump. While it is standard for defendants arrested on felony charges to be handcuffed, it is unclear whether an exception will be made for a former president. Most defendants are cuffed behind their backs, but some white-collar defendants deemed to pose less danger have their hands secured in front of them.Mr. Trump will almost certainly be accompanied at every step — from the moment he is taken into custody until his appearance before a judge in Lower Manhattan’s imposing Criminal Courts Building — by armed agents of the U.S. Secret Service. They are required by law to protect him at all times.Security in the courthouse is provided by state court officers, with whom the Secret Service has worked in the past. But the chief spokesman for the federal agency, Anthony J. Guglielmi, said he could not comment on measures that would be put in place for Mr. Trump.It may take several days for Mr. Trump to appear at the courthouse. Now that the grand jury has voted to indict him — meaning to charge him with felony crimes — the indictment will remain sealed until his expected arraignment on Tuesday, when the charges will be formally revealed.After the indictment, prosecutors contacted Mr. Trump’s defense lawyers and negotiated the terms of his surrender, a common practice in white-collar investigations.Lawyers for Mr. Trump, who is running for president a third time, said late Thursday that he will surrender and he is expected to be arraigned on Tuesday.After he is arraigned, he is almost certain to be released on his own recognizance, because the indictment will likely contain only nonviolent felony charges; under New York law, prosecutors cannot request that a defendant be held on bail in such cases.The former president is already using the charges as part of a campaign strategy to energize his base.Surrender is not in the confrontational former president’s DNA, and he often seems to relish antagonizing and attacking prosecutors who have investigated him, such as Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who secured Thursday’s indictment. He has called Mr. Bragg, who is Black, “a racist” and an “animal” and said that his investigation was politically motivated.In the unlikely event that the former president refuses to surrender, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has already said that his state “will not assist in an extradition request,” should one come from New York authorities. Still, if the New York prosecutors were to actually seek Mr. Trump’s extradition, and Mr. DeSantis attempted to protect his Republican rival, he could possibly face legal action himself. More