Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 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

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      The Vice President Question: The Stakes Are High

      by

      More from our inbox:Mike Pence, It’s Time ‘to Do the Right Thing’What Chris Rock Gets to BeStains Left on a Rare TextFamily Values? We Need to Talk About School Shootings. Illustration by Zisiga Mukulu/The New York Times; photograph by Leigh Vogel/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Voters Should Pick the Vice President,” by Greg Craig (Opinion guest essay, March 5):Mr. Craig’s article raises a larger question. The vice-presidential nominees of the two major parties are too often chosen largely or entirely because of their perceived ability to help elect their presidential running mate, rather than an apparent ability to act as president if needed.Considering the stakes, the main or sole criterion in selecting a vice-presidential nominee should be that person’s capacity to immediately and competently step into the president’s shoes, if required.Just in the last century, Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan all labored under the specters of age, infirmity or both. This clearly demonstrates the national interest in vice-presidential nominees having the qualifications, experience, health and ability to competently represent the country as a whole.If a vice-presidential nominee is also a plausible national candidate in her or his own right, all the better, and having a nominee of such stature should benefit his or her party and the ticket.Over the last 50 years, some vice presidents, such as Spiro Agnew (crook), Dan Quayle (lightweight) and Dick Cheney (unelectable) were unqualified, and Mike Pence seems marginal. Lyndon B. Johnson, Nelson Rockefeller, Walter Mondale, George H.W. Bush, Al Gore and Joe Biden were clearly qualified, reflecting positively on those who chose them.The question for whoever chooses vice-presidential nominees should always be “Can this person competently lead the country?” — not “Will this person help our party get elected?”Anders I. OuromVancouver, British ColumbiaTo the Editor:I’m very grateful for “Voters Should Pick the Vice President.” Greg Craig has raised perhaps the most significant and worrying issue, however delicate, of the Biden candidacy.Given the entirely realistic concerns over President Biden’s age and chances of dying in office in a second term (and I write as an 87-year-old in decent health), the choice of a running mate shouldn’t be a reflexive decision.It should be one requiring a great deal of thought, consultation and polling about who could handle the most demanding of offices in these difficult and perilous times — and whom a wide spectrum of Democratic voters see as the most convincing possibility as their next president.Barbara QuartNew YorkTo the Editor:As our octogenarian president ponders another presidential run, he needs to consider replacing his 2020 running mate. It’s a delicate subject, sure to arouse fierce opposition within the Democratic Party (however it’s accomplished).Forget loyalty, tradition or popularity. In 2024, the top priority for selecting the second-highest elected official in the country should be proven foreign policy experience.President Biden has an age problem that he can’t control. It will be a major campaign issue that will only place greater emphasis on who would be next in line for the presidency.Continued support for Ukraine (including maintaining the broad coalition of European and NATO nations forged by President Biden) and other brewing major-power standoffs demand a vice president with longstanding, first-rate diplomatic skills.Replace Kamala Harris with Susan Rice, the longtime diplomat and policy adviser. It’s time to dispel conventional wisdom and go bold.Carl R. RameyGainesville, Fla.Mike Pence, It’s Time ‘to Do the Right Thing’ Erin Schaff/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump Asks Judge to Block Pence’s Testimony to Grand Jury” (news article, nytimes.com, March 4):There is no doubt that former Vice President Mike Pence did the right thing (and his constitutional duty) by certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election in favor of Joe Biden.Now is the time for Mr. Pence to do the right thing by honoring the Justice Department’s subpoena to testify about his knowledge of the events before and after Jan. 6. Mr. Pence says he will fight the subpoena, citing specious legal arguments. But why?Mr. Pence, you know what former President Donald Trump did and did not do. Tell us. It is your duty as a citizen, and it is the right thing to do.William D. ZabelNew YorkThe writer is a lawyer, the chairman of Immigrant Justice Corps and the chairman emeritus of Human Rights First.To the Editor:Re “Pence Says That History Will Judge Trump” (news article, March 13):The shortcoming of former Vice President Mike Pence’s pronouncement that “history will hold Donald Trump accountable” for the former president’s lead in fomenting the violent Capitol insurrection is obvious.History’s verdict takes a long while, and it is rarely unanimous and subject to revisionism.Mr. Trump and his minions must pay the price now, and Mr. Pence should render an unequivocal verdict to that end, instead of punting into history.Justice delayed is justice denied, especially in this case.Lawrence FreemanAlameda, Calif.What Chris Rock Gets to Be Illustration by Shoshana Schultz/The New York Times; photograph by Kirill Bichutsky, via Netflix, via Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Chris Rock Looks Very Small Right Now,” by Roxane Gay (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, March 11):Chris Rock’s recent Netflix special certainly deserves critique, but Ms. Gay’s article gets one thing very wrong. As the target of another man’s violence, Mr. Rock is not responsible for entertaining us with his response to that attack, nor redeeming himself with the right joke.He gets to just be angry.Catherine HodesFlorence, Mass.Stains Left on a Rare TextTo glove, or not to glove? For rare book librarians, there’s no question. The best option is (almost) always clean, dry hands.Chris Ratcliffe/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:“For Rare Book Librarians, It’s Gloves Off. Seriously” (Arts, March 11) notes that stains left on a rare book tell us something about who has used it in the past.I was once privileged to see the original Sarajevo Haggadah, one of the oldest extant Passover Haggadahs. It dates to the 14th century.I was deeply moved to see this ancient text. But what I remember best were the wine stains on some of the pages. Clearly, long before this book had become a priceless object listed on UNESCO’s Memory of the World register, someone had used it at a Seder and had, as still happens in the 21st century, spilled their wine on it.Deborah E. LipstadtWashingtonThe writer is the professor of Holocaust history, currently on leave from Emory University.Family Values? We Need to Talk About School Shootings. Illustration by The New York Times; Photographs by Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “The Party of Family Values Should Truly Value Families,” by Patrick T. Brown (Opinion guest essay, March 9):The idea of a political “parents’ party” may be a good one, but the total absence of any discussion regarding school shootings is glaring. Republicans won’t be much of a parents’ party if they can’t figure out how to deal with an issue that parents and their children think about every day.Jeff WelchLivingston, Mont. More

    • 63 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      2024 Republicans Converge on Iowa

      by

      Jordan Gale for The New York TimesGov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who is expected to run, made appearances in Davenport and Des Moines on Friday.Former President Donald J. Trump will be in Davenport on Monday.Nikki Haley, a former governor, has been campaigning in Iowa since Wednesday, with stops in Council Bluffs and Clive. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      ‘History Will Hold Donald Trump Accountable’ for Jan. 6, Pence Says

      by

      At a Washington dinner event, Mike Pence criticized the president he served under as well as Republicans who are minimizing the Capitol riot.Former Vice President Mike Pence, delivering his strongest public rebuke yet to the president who made him his running mate, said on Saturday night “that history will hold Donald Trump accountable” for the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, which he called “a disgrace.”The annual Gridiron Club Dinner in Washington is usually a venue for lighthearted ribbing between political figures, government officials and the district’s media veterans, but Mr. Pence used the occasion on Saturday to dig into Mr. Trump at a moment when conservative media commentators and some Republicans in Congress have again tried to dismiss the seriousness of the Capitol riot.“Tourists don’t injure 140 police officers by sightseeing,” Mr. Pence said, according to media reports from the event, an implicit rebuke of the Fox News host Tucker Carlson and other conservatives who have used selective security camera footage to reframe the riot as a largely peaceful demonstration. Thousands of hours of that footage was released to Mr. Carlson by the House speaker, Kevin McCarthy of California. “Tourists don’t break down doors to get to the speaker of the House or voice threats against public officials.”And Mr. Pence made his reprimand of Mr. Trump personal when he said, “President Trump was wrong; I had no right to overturn the election. And his reckless words endangered my family and everyone at the Capitol that day. And I know that history will hold Donald Trump accountable.”The timing of the remarks was significant. Mr. Trump and his ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, are the only two major, declared candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, but other potential challengers are edging closer. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida is on a swing through early primary and caucus states, including Iowa and Nevada. Senator Tim Scott, Republican of South Carolina, is on a “listening tour” in the same states. Mr. Pence is considering a run as well.But until Saturday, any rival jabs at the former president and presumed front-runner for the nomination have been implicit. Mr. Pence called him out by name, setting a new bar for other Republicans hoping to replace Mr. Trump as the party’s leader.Early this month, a group of men imprisoned for their participation in the Capitol attack released a song titled “Justice for All” — the national anthem interspersed with Mr. Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance — and House Republicans on the party’s right flank have started what they are calling an investigation into the treatment of such “political prisoners.”Mr. Pence was unsparing in his condemnation of such efforts, as well as the selective editing of thousands of hours of security footage.“The American people have a right to know what took place at the Capitol on Jan. 6,” he said. “But make no mistake about it, what happened that day was a disgrace, and it mocks decency to portray it in any other way.”He also jokingly hinted at his presidential ambitions.“I will wholeheartedly, unreservedly support the Republican nominee for president in 2024,” he said. “If it’s me.” More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Little-Known Lawyer, a Trump Ally, Draws Scrutiny in Georgia

      by

      A special grand jury looking into election meddling interviewed Robert Cheeley, a sign that false claims made by Donald J. Trump’s allies loom large in the case.ATLANTA — At a Georgia State Senate hearing a few weeks after President Donald J. Trump lost his bid for re-election, Rudolph W. Giuliani began making outlandish claims. “There are 10 ways to demonstrate that this election was stolen, that the votes were phony, that there were a lot of them — dead people, felons, phony ballots,” he told the assembled legislators.After Mr. Giuliani’s testimony, a like-minded Georgia lawyer named Robert Cheeley presented video clips of election workers handling ballots at the State Farm Arena in downtown Atlanta. Mr. Cheeley spent 15 minutes laying out specious assertions that the workers were double- and triple-counting votes, saying their actions “should shock the conscience of every red blooded Georgian” and likening what he said had happened to the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.His comments mostly flew under the radar at the time, overshadowed by the election fraud claims made by Mr. Giuliani, who was then Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, and by other higher-profile figures. But Mr. Cheeley’s testimony did not end up in the dustbin. He was among the witnesses questioned last year by a special grand jury in Atlanta that investigated election interference by Mr. Trump and his allies, the grand jury’s forewoman, Emily Kohrs, said in an interview last month.Robert Cheeley reads through Georgia law during a hearing at the Henry County Courthouse in McDonough, Ga., in 2021.Alyssa Pointer/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, via Associated PressThe fact that Mr. Cheeley was called to appear before the special grand jury adds to the evidence that although the Atlanta investigation has focused on Mr. Trump’s biggest areas of legal exposure — the calls he made to pressure local officials and his involvement in a scheme to draft bogus presidential electors — the false claims made by his allies at legislative hearings have also been of significant interest. Mr. Giuliani has been told that he is among the targets who could face charges in the investigation.“He did testify before us,” Ms. Kohrs said of Mr. Cheeley in the interview.His appearance left such an impression that Ms. Kohrs began reciting from memory the beginning of Mr. Cheeley’s remarks at the State Senate hearing. Asked if his testimony to the special grand jury had been credible, she said, “I’m going to tell you that Mr. Cheeley was not one that I’m going to forget.”Mr. Cheeley did not return calls for comment for this article, and he was not present when a reporter visited his office on Wednesday in the Atlanta suburb of Alpharetta. The fact that he testified before the special grand jury was not previously known.Understand Georgia’s Investigation of Election InterferenceCard 1 of 5A legal threat to Trump. More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Knows How to Make Promises. Do His Rivals?

      by

      To understand the resilience of Donald Trump’s influence in the Republican Party, the way he always seems to revive despite scandal, debacle or disgrace, look no further than the contrast between his early policy forays in the 2024 campaign and what two of his prospective challengers are doing.Judging by Trump’s address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, his policy agenda so far includes two crucial planks: first, a pledge to defend Social Security and Medicare against deficit hawks in either party, and second, a retrofuturist vision of baby bonuses‌ and new “freedom cities” rising in the American hinterland, with building projects following classical rather than ugly modern-architecture lines.Meanwhile, two of his challengers, the definitely running Nikki Haley and the hoping-to-run Mike Pence, have made headlines this year for floating entitlement cuts: Haley for her proposal this week to change the retirement age for today’s twentysomethings, Pence for bringing back the idea of private Social Security accounts, of the kind that George W. Bush proposed in 2005.Trump’s insouciance about the cost of entitlements is irresponsible, needless to say, and after four years of experience with his leadership we can imagine what the freedom city policy would yield — a Trump casino and some mixed-used buildings run by Jared Kushner rising off an unfinished spur of highway somewhere in the vacant portions of the American West, funded by hard-sell fund-raising appeals to vulnerable seniors. And of course in the CPAC speech Trumpian policy was a minor theme amid the dominant motifs of rambling self-pity and threats of retribution.But one can acknowledge all that and still see that once again he’s offering G.O.P. primary voters an alternative to the pinched style, stale ideas and phony fiscal seriousness of the pre-Trump — and now, it would seem, post-Trump — Republican Party.A real fiscal seriousness would be defensible with inflation running hot. But Haley’s idea of cutting benefits for Americans retiring in 2065 is largely irrelevant to those immediate considerations. Pence’s revival of the private account proposal, meanwhile, is hopelessly out of touch with both fiscal and political reality. As National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru notes, the Bush-era private accounts plan depended on using surplus funds to smooth the transition, but now that the boomers are into retirement, the window for that kind of maneuver has been closed.Mike PenceAnna Moneymaker/Getty ImagesNikki HaleyScott Olson/Getty ImagesSo if Trump is being irresponsible and implausible in order to pander to his voters, Haley and Pence are doing something weirder and more self-defeating: They’re offering ideas that are implausible and unpopular, whose only virtue is that they sound vaguely serious if you don’t think too hard about the details. “Neither popular nor right” might as well be their motto, one that doubles as the epitaph for the kind of right-wing politics that Trump’s 2016 campaign overthrew.The reality is that there are only two ways to address the ballooning costs of Social Security and Medicare and their crowding-out of other national priorities. One is to negotiate deals that supply bipartisan cover for reform — either working at the margins via the so-called Secret Congress, the out-of-the-headline deal making that’s become more commonplace of late, or seeking the kind of grand bargain that eluded John Boehner and Barack Obama.But no Republican primary candidate these days is going to campaign on making deals, small or large, with Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer, so this kind of scenario is more or less irrelevant to a presidential campaign. The only scenario that could possibly be relevant, for a skillful communicator with some sense of civic duty, would be to frame an entitlement reform as a kind of intergenerational transfer, a rebalancing of accounts in a society too tilted toward old-age spending. To use the example of Trump’s big ideas, such a framing might reassure voters in youth and middle age that they would be receiving slightly lower benefits at retirement so that more things could be done right now, like baby bonuses for young families and cheaper real estate in sparkling new cities.But that’s a hard imaginative leap for a certain kind of Republican politician, trained in the idea that making actual policy promises to persuadable voters is what Democrats and socialists do, and the point of cutting Social Security and Medicare is either fiscal virtue for its own sake or else to free space for the lowest possible upper-bracket tax rate.Whereas whatever one might say about Trump’s follow-through, he has never had any trouble making attractive-seeming promises to voters (or to investors or municipal officials, for that matter).So the question for his would-be rivals, and especially for Ron DeSantis as he waits, watches and prepares, is whether they can learn enough from this style to finally overcome it, or whether they’ll offer so little to voters that Trump’s promises will still sound sweet.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

    • 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

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Former N.Y.P.D. Officer Is Convicted of Taking Part in Capitol Riot

      by

      Sara Carpenter yelled at, pushed against and slapped the arms of police officers, all while wielding a tambourine, prosecutors said.A former New York City police officer was convicted this week of several crimes for her role in the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, during which, prosecutors said, she pushed against and slapped the arms of police officers, all while yelling and wielding a tambourine.A federal jury in Washington, D.C., found the retired officer, Sara Carpenter, guilty Thursday on seven felony and misdemeanor charges that included civil disorder, obstruction of official proceeding and entering or remaining in a restricted building or ground, according to court records.Ms. Carpenter, 53, is among about 1,000 people to be charged in connection with the Jan. 6 riot, prosecutors said. She and other supporters of former President Donald J. Trump stormed the Capitol that day in a bid to disrupt the certification of President Biden as the winner of the 2020 election. The first person to be convicted, Guy Wesley Reffitt, was found guilty last March of obstructing Congress’s certification of the election results and other crimes.Security footage captured Ms. Carpenter, left, wielding a tambourine inside the Capitol. Department of JusticeMs. Carpenter was charged after security cameras captured her confronting a phalanx of officers as they guarded a hallway leading to the U.S. Senate chambers, prosecutors said. Despite having been told to leave the premises, she stayed for a half-hour, prosecutors said.At one point, prosecutors said, she could be heard yelling at the officers, “I’m an animal,” with a common vulgarity added for emphasis.When she finally left the building, prosecutors said, she was recorded on video saying: “The breach was made. It needs to calm down now. Congress needs to come out. They need to certify Trump as president. This is our house.”A lawyer for Ms. Carpenter, Michelle Gelernt, declined to comment on Friday. The New York Police Department did not immediately respond to an inquiry about Ms. Carpenter’s service as an officer. Ms. Carpenter is to be sentenced on July 14.About a day after the attack on the Capitol, the F.B.I. received an anonymous tip that Ms. Carpenter had called a relative and told that person that she had made it inside the Capitol and had been hit with tear gas, according to a criminal complaint. She was interviewed by federal officers about a week and a half later, on Jan. 18, the complaint says.Ms. Carpenter told investigators that she had left her home in New York and driven to Washington “on or about” the evening of Jan. 5, 2021, the complaint says. An E-ZPass tag attached to her vehicle confirmed that she had made the trip between 12 a.m. and 4 a.m. on Jan. 6, the complaint says.Once she got to Washington, Ms. Carpenter told investigators, she monitored Mr. Trump’s tweets to find out where to meet for the rally he had scheduled for Jan. 6 and then joined a large crowd of his supporters as it descended on the Capitol.Ms. Carpenter said that “she observed police yelling for individuals to get out, then pushing and shoving the crowd,” according to the complaint. She also told investigators that she had been trampled and pepper-sprayed.Using video that Ms. Carpenter provided and security camera footage from the building, investigators were able to track her movements through the Capitol. She also voluntarily turned over the tambourine she said she had carried inside the Capitol, the complaint says.Another former New York City police officer, Thomas Webster, was convicted last May for his role in the riot on charges that included assault. In September, Mr. Webster, who swung a metal flagpole at a Washington officer during the riot, was sentenced to 10 years in prison. More