Consider This from NPR - Breaking down the legal case at the center of the political universe

Episode Date: April 22, 2024

The broad outlines of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case have been known for months. Hush money payments to a former porn star made in 2016, when Trump was a presidential candidate. Bragg alleges Trump was involved in a scheme to cover up those payments, one that amounted to criminal fraud.Now we're getting a more detailed outline of their arguments – and Trump's defense. We break down the legal case at the center of the political universe.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.Email us at [e-mail] more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Donald Trump began his week sitting at a table in a New York courtroom. This moment is the one that he's been trying to avoid for months, as four criminal cases have hung over his head. Two in federal court from Special Counsel Jack Smith. Today, an indictment was unsealed, charging Donald J. Trump with felony violations. Another from Fulton County District Attorney Fonnie Willis in Georgia. Specifically, the indictment brings felony charges against Donald John Trump. And the one that brought him into court Monday, charged by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

That is exactly what this case is about. 34 false statements made to cover up other crimes. These are felony crimes in New York State, no matter who you are. Since those charges have been announced, Trump has loudly attacked the indictments and nearly anyone involved with them on social media and on the campaign trail.

This is what you call a communist show trial. In the courtroom, it's a different story. No cameras, no social media, just 12 of Trump's fellow New Yorkers weighing the evidence. And Monday, those jurors heard opening arguments in the first criminal trial of a former president in U.S. history. Consider this. After months of spin and speculation, Trump and prosecutors begin to make their arguments in court. We'll break down the legal case that's at the center of the political universe. From NPR, I'm Juana Summers. It's Consider This from NPR.

The broad outlines of the Manhattan district attorney's case have been known for months. Hush money payments to a former porn star, Stormy Daniels, made in 2016 when Trump was a presidential candidate. Prosecutors say those payments amounted to election fraud, pure and simple. Trump's attorneys argued that none of this was a crime. To break down the case, I spoke to someone with firsthand experience. Dan Horwitz is a defense lawyer who formerly prosecuted white-collar cases for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. So Dan, if you could just briefly remind us what crime former President Trump is being charged with. So he's charged with a crime called falsifying business records in the first degree. It's a crime that sounds exactly as it's described.

You make phony or false entries in the books and records of a company. And you do that with the intention of covering up the commission of another crime. And here the DA's theory is that among other things, there were records that were falsified related to payments that were made to Michael Cohen, ultimately for the reimbursement of money that was paid to Stormy Daniels, all as a way of essentially committing the crimes related to New York State and federal election fraud. Right. And what is it that makes this a felony? Well, what makes it a felony is the fact that the business records were falsified with the

intention of committing another crime. That's what distinguishes the felony flavor of falsifying business records from the lesser crime of a misdemeanor flavor of falsifying business records. For folks who are not watching this case as closely as you and I are, can you just explain why the prosecution is making the argument that this is election fraud? Well, they have to. Let's just be simple about it, because that's the law that they have charged that Donald Trump violated requires them to show two things. One, that there were false or phony records made in the books and records of a company, like a general ledger, like a checkbook, like the regular records

that every company all across the world keeps. The second thing they have to prove is that the reason that these records were falsified was with the intention of committing another crime. In this particular case, the prosecution's saying that crime was election fraud. A lot of Republicans, and I should note, legal commentators from across the political spectrum, have made the case that the former president is getting some special scrutiny here that attaching the fraudulent financial documents charge to campaign finance is a bit of a stretch. How do you take that argument? You know, I take that argument that those are folks that don't probably fully understand the kind of work that the Manhattan DA's office does. You know, falsifying business records is a bread and butter, white collar charge that prosecutors here in Manhattan bring routinely. And the fact that

there was election fraud as the sort of the motivation for falsifying the records, it is not a case, if you would, of first impression. There are other politicians, most of whom the commentators probably don't know or remember because they're local politicians here in New York City. For example, the head of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, Clarence Norman, was prosecuted on similar charges, exactly the same charge. So it's not unusual. It's not unique. I want to ask you if I could to put yourself in the shoes of the prosecutor in this case. And if you were prosecuting it, what would you be most worried about?

Well, I think the thing that's obvious is that the president is going to make a very hard run at Michael Cohen's credibility. And that's because at the very heart of the case, there's a conversation that took place allegedly between Cohen and Trump, and there was nobody else present for it, about how to treat these payments to Stormy Daniels. That is to the extent that there is a sort of an Achilles heel, if you would, or at least one that the defense perceives. And Cohen himself has a lot of baggage. He's a convicted perjurer. He went to jail for his own crimes. He has been outspoken about his animus against the president. On the other hand, the prosecution has layers upon layers of witnesses, evidence, testimony, tapes that they will argue back up Cohen or corroborate him. I do have to ask, though, I mean, I have interviewed Michael Cohen, former Trump ally on this show, and I asked him this very question, given the convictions that he had that you have

just referenced, why should anyone see him as credible? Why should anyone believe him? So I guess I'm curious, would you be concerned about his credibility as a witness? to people like Michael Cohen. It is prosecutorial 101 that you use insiders and people who have baggage to help prosecute white collar, organized crime, even violent crime. So the idea that you've got someone with baggage, somebody who, whether they're a perjurer or they, like Gravano, they've committed murders, they have deliberately put their own interests ahead of society. And yet, prosecutors get convictions every single day with witnesses like that. And the jury may not like Michael Cohen, they might find him distasteful, and they might even find on various occasions that he hasn't told the truth.

But if the prosecutors do the job that I expect that they will do, they will argue to the jury and show that in this particular instance, when Michael Cohen says that I spoke with Donald Trump about how to handle these payments that I made to Stormy Daniels, here are the reasons that you can believe him, because he is backed up by reams of other evidence, whether that's David Pecker, whether that's Hope Hicks, whether that's the tape recording that's been made. So it is a tension that it exists. This is a tension that is the tension about the credibility of an insider, a cooperator, a rat, whatever you want to call that person. It is that tension that's central in many, if not all white collar cases

where you've got an insider testifying. Dan, last thing, the first day of the trial is over. What will you be watching for next? I think what you're going to see in the coming days is a lead up to Michael Cohen. And what the prosecution is going to do is they're going to lay down a foundation with testimony from witnesses that are credible. It's going to be like a crescendo of witness upon witness upon witness who are going to come in before Michael Cohen. And then Cohen will testify more toward the middle of the case. And then they'll conclude the case with more corroborating evidence. So they're going to sandwich, if you would, Michael Cohen with the evidence that helps to tell the narrative, but which they'll ultimately argue. This is why in this particular instance, when Michael Cohen says that he had a conversation with Donald Trump about how to handle these payments, you know that he was telling the truth in this

instance. Dan Horowitz previously worked in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office prosecuting white collar cases. He's now a defense lawyer for McLaughlin and Stern. Dan, thank you. You're welcome. Thanks a lot. This episode was produced by Janaki Mehta and Connor Donovan. It was edited by Courtney Dorning and Krishnadev Kalamer. Our executive producer is Sammy Yannigan. It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Juana Summers.