Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg EXCLUSIVE Interview with MeidasTouch

Episode Date: January 14, 2023

Legal AF Host Karen Friedman Agnifilo speaks exclusively with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg about the conviction and sentencing of the Trump Organization and more. Shop Meidas Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to a special edition of Legal AF. I'm Karen Friedman-Egnifalo, and I'm joined today by the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who's just finished his first year as the new Manhattan DA. And boy did he end it with a huge victory, 17 felony convictions against the Trump Corporation and their payroll company, both of which were sentenced this morning to a financial penalty of 1.6 million, which is the maximum allowable sentence under the law. And earlier this week, Trump's chief financial officer, Alan Weiselberg, was also sentenced

for his convictions of 15 felonies. These are the first criminal convictions in the Trump orbit and kudos to you, DA Bragg for getting this done. As a quick reminder to our viewers and listeners, I worked at the Manhattan DA's office for almost three decades, and I was the number two under DA Bragg's predecessor,

Sy Vance, but I myself have never worked with you, but I am so honored to have you here today since you've been carrying on the excellent traditions of the Manhattan DA's office and office I love and you're ending your first year on a very, very high note. So welcome and thank you for taking the time to join me today. Well thanks, thanks for having me on. I appreciate it. Love talking if you always are happy to be doing it on the podcast. And you know better than anyone that the week, and I thank you for the kind words.

It's really just a continuation of the fine tradition here, being at the Vanguard. I remember when I started out as a young associate, had a litigation boutique focused on white collar prosecutions in the early 2000s. And this office was bringing, you know, seismic white collar case after white collar case. And the most famous occupant of the seat Mr. Mortiff thou, you know, saying that we enforced the law from the streets to the sweets. So I'm honored and humbled to be building on the work that you've done and look forward to talking to you about it.

So congratulations on today's sentencing of the Trump Corporation. Tell us about this case, these convictions, Alan Weiselberg. We want to hear all about it from your perspective. It was, I love trials. It is to me that kind of one of the key heartbeats of our democracy. You take some folks off the street and put them in the box, as we say, and then they get to see and hear the evidence. And they got to hear about 13 years of tax fraud,

of money that should go to the public fists, lying, greed, all sorts of things like fancy cars and having executives getting monies paid off that didn't work reflective on their taxes. And so it is the kind of hallmarks of a classic white collar prosecution, but obviously against the backdrop of namesake cooperation for former presidents.

So it took on additional consequences. But fundamentally, greed, fraud, lies, that's what white collar prostitution has come down to. That's for sure. And the sentences that were handed down today was a total or an aggregate of about 1.6 million. Are you satisfied with that? With those sentences? We wish we could get more under the law. We've started having a conversation with our partners in Albany. You know you were a part of pushing for Carlos's law, which is a law that recently was signed by

the governor that heightens the penalties for workplace injuries and fatalities, a law that we support. We can't have corporations significant in any way, particularly systemic fraud that doesn't really get dealt with vigorously. Otherwise, corporations will just price it and it becomes a way of doing business. So we definitely want the law to change. I do think here that the marketplace will speak, that a criminal conviction certainly will have a significant chilling effect. I know for my work as a public integrity prosecutor, I'm bidding for public contracts, I think banks and others will think twice about extending credit and attaining agreements with these convicted corporations. So encourage that there is some accountability, but wish that there will be more and we'll

push that for going forward, we'll get more penalties of these kind of cases. Is that the part of the law that you think needs to change that higher penalties for corporate malfeasance, for corporate crimes? I think so, and we wanna be thoughtful for it kind of just adding to the penal law. But I do think this is a real hole that corporate actors, you can't jail the corporation and obviously for a human being,

the restriction of liberty is something that most people are going to think twice before committing a crime like this. But I would say for this kind of more than a decade, senior level, the highest levels of a corporation, systemic fraud, then having penalties that deter that will be good for all the other businesses that are following the law and for the rest

of us taxpayers who are paying, you know, Judge Mershon, who I know you've probably have appeared in front of who presided over this trial at the sinnishing of Alan Weisselberg, really focused in on some monies that went to allowing his wife to be eligible for social security and said, you know, this is pure greed. And what about this program that so many others actually need and are legitimately eligible for or Medicare, which was part of the sentencing today when he talked about, you know, how Medicare was built. So these are important government programs, and we really need to send a strong message that we all count as this.

There are people who are asking why Alan Weiselberg, the CFO, only got five months, and why your office you agreed to that plea deal with him. Can you explain your perspective on this? I mean, to me, five months for a 75-year-old or truthfully for anyone, for that matter, at the notorious Rikers Island, which to be clear is so bad, should be closed, in my opinion. It's not a walk in the park, especially if you're 75 years old, but there are people who've said that's not enough time. Right, you know, you, you,

unlike others, like know it so well, right? You know the conditions of the right goes and you know what what a case life is so you know you mentioned his age also the nature of the climb right so a first time conviction for a white collar or crime attack crime which certainly thought was serious and warranted prosecution, but when you look at other cases like this, it is a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a of someone who was on the inside. And so we felt that in order to get his testimony about the inner workings of the Trump organization. And it's just a center piece of the trial. Like I said, I love trials. His testimony was spread over three days with him talking in detail about what he did, why he did it,

his ongoing relationship with the Trump organization, which I think raised a lot of eyebrows on the jury. I think that's how somebody was invaluable. And you know, in these kind of cases, you know, it's called for sometimes you've got to make agreements with people who are complicit they're the ones who know. And so it's not it's something that we would do again. We felt that it was worthwhile so that we could prove the case against the Trump Organization and get accountability for him. Like he said, five months on Writers is significant.

Did the fact that he did not that Mr. Weiselberg did not cooperate against Trump in other as didn't implicate him? Does that affect any ongoing investigations or anything else given his testimony with regard to that? So for example, did he say anything on direct across at trial that Trump was not involved or in charge or anything that could hurt either you or someone else's abilities, another prosecutor's ability to potentially prosecute Donald Trump or hold him accountable for some of these actions? Certainly, the defense tried to pull out some threads to suggest that Donald Trump was nowhere around, and that Mr. Weissover was completely rogue.

The jury rejected that as part of finding the corporate liability. They have to find that the benefits to Mr. Weissover, these tax benefits, also were on behalf of the corporation. So we thought his testimony advanced the case that was before the court. Certainly, as we've said, we are looking at other pieces and obviously in Georgia and the special counsel on the federal level. Also, a mid-advice attorney alum leading that work. Those, I think, all stand kind of on their own terms. Certainly, you know, ours is, you know, other kind of, and George is certainly

disting for what we're looking at. So I think the testimony advanced the objective in hand, which was the corporation convictions, and really made the point that the misconduct was on behalf of the corporation benefit. You were referring to the Manhattan DA a lot of special counsel you mean Jack Smith he and I actually were in the same very small bureau together and worked together in the early 90s. It's a

long tradition. He's going from the streets to the sweets to like the international streets. Yeah exactly he sure has. In addition Alan Weiselberg also, he also had to cough up a couple million dollars, too, correct? Exactly. So we thought that was important, you know, of the financial, it's, you know, ultimately a financial climb and the payback, that money, to the, you know, it doesn't undo the climb, it doesn't put the toothpaste back in the tube, but certainly is an important part of accountability. So what do you say about the people who say, well, 1.6 million is nothing to an entity

such as the Trump organization. And correct me if I'm wrong. The Trump organization is the big umbrella corporation and under it are hundreds of smaller corporations, the Trump corporation and the payroll corporation, the two that you convicted, those are under this big umbrella Trump organization. And there are people saying that 1.6 million is nothing to them. That's, you know, a rounding error, if you will. And so how is that going to prevent not only others and deter others from committing this kind of fraud? Won't the Trump organization, for example, just close up the two convicted businesses and open up

two more or fold the duties into one of their other ones and just walk away and call this yet another law that he can claim on his tax returns and not paying income tax. I think those are all significant points. The high profile nature of this I think makes it difficult to run away from it. So it's something I think the marketplace will know. And the collateral consequences, you know, certainly when you're filling out, for example, you know, a public bid and they've got some public contracts. I mean, this is the kind of kind of, even if you reorganize the kind of conviction that would need to be disclosed. So I think it will be hard for them to distance themselves from this conviction.

But the points are well taken, which is why we think we need different penalties for this kind kind of, you know, ongoing, you know, pervasive fraud, a lack of operation. Yeah, I agree with you. The penalties need to be significant enough so that it doesn't just, this doesn't just get built into the cost of doing business for companies, right, that it'll really be a deterrent. Exactly. These are just astounding significant victories in my opinion. What does this mean to the office and to your administration? You know what I think you'll appreciate this more than almost anyone else. You know what I think it means for the office is another opportunity in the long history of the office for the public and we work for the public. We stand up and say history of the office for the public and we work for the public. We stand up and say,

we represent the people of the state of New York, for the people of the state of New York to get to see Susan Hoffinger, Joshua Stein glass, so I know you work with and oversaw his work, and the others who worked on this case to get to see the rigor, the professionalism, the integrity that we stand at the ready. I think it's really good for the public who we serve to see that. And I think it's good for the office. It sends a message to the fence bar, to potential wrongdoers that we stand at the ready and prepare. I think it's always good to show the trial readiness of any office. And I'm just really, really proud to be a part of the tradition proud of our,

and I've talked a lot about the prosecutors, you know, our analysts, you know, the role of the analysts, you know, you play, paralegals, just putting it together as a full team effort, and so I think it's great for other parts of the team to get to see the work that we're doing. The only thing, as I say that I would hasten to add, is this struck on a lot of attention, as I think was warranted. But as you know, the number of trials that happened in the courthouse during this one were a large number, and they're all important, all important, you know, to the victims and the survivors, and the same level of rigor and professionalism goes into each and every one of them. So I want the public to know that as well.

I think that's an excellent point. And you're right, I used to get frustrated that you know, you'd only hear about certain high profile cases when there were other very, very, very serious complicated cases going on at the same time with also excellent work. And the office does a lot of that. Speaking of Susan Hofinger and Josh Dyingglass, so you were handed this case when you took office. It was already indicted under the previous administration, but you're the one who chose who was going to staff the case, right? Who's going to try the case? And you put Susan

Hofinger, the chief of your investigation division, who has both substantial prosecution and defense criminal defense experience. And she has a reputation of being an excellent trial attorney. And I thought that was an excellent choice. But really interestingly, what you also did was you staffed it with Josh Stinglass, who, as you said, I've worked with for many years, he to me was an interesting choice because he's mostly known as a violent crime prosecutor. He's your stable of thoroughbred race forces,

you know, as a senior trial counsel, which is sort of, in my opinion, the most elite role at the Manhattan DA's office and has a lot of experience, but that was really, I think that showed a lot of foresight on your part to staff it with those two as a parent, I know there were others on the team as well. Tell us what went into this trial strategy

and staffing of the case in this manner. I was so happy, and it's great to see, they did not know each other really well before, and you know how these things work on trial teams. Now they're fast friends, and you see the dynamic, and the pairing ended up being phenomenal. You know, missions. You can go either way, by the way.

You're either best friends, at the end of the trial or the opposite. I'm a good friends of all my trial partners. Sometimes in the middle of trial, you know, it gets a little tense. But you know, you can just see that they really had a real chemistry and I think they complimented well one another. What I was thinking about was putting the team together was you know when I recruited Susan to the office I knew her by reputation we hadn't worked together but I knew the trial reputation and building complex cases and so I thought that having her on someone who's been a part of high profile white collar trials before would be important.

And then when we start thinking about the pairings, I'm a journalist, right? I've done federal prosecution, state prosecution, civil, criminal, white collar street crimes. And so I've done in a lot of my management at the New York Attorney General's office a lot of cross staffing and I've found that when you bring someone in from a different area they just see linkages and make connections that someone who may be steeped in that area doesn't so it was

important to me that you know they didn't come in as a tax expert his expertise is speaking to men out in He does that he does that phenomenally well as you said all of us in your trial counsel You know, I'm new here. I really one thing I've learned this year is just that role all of those folks are so dynamic and so good and In some ways it was really important that he hadn't worse It wasn't a tax expert. What he's an expert in is explaining things to Jerry's, right?

So, you know, this tax stuff could be mystifying and, you know, could be intimidating to Jerry. So I thought the pairing of someone who did a lot of white collar work was great for our feet with someone who, as you say, is most known for his street crime trial work, but bringing that narrative and that storytelling. And if you'll indulge in me, I just I can have this written down. I thought he had a great line in his closing,

which he repeated in the sentence in a day. He said that the scheme was far reaching in brazen. It was deep, wide, and long. As a trial lawyer, I love threes. There's some research on saying things in threes. So it's a deep in terms of the robust array of the practices, wide in terms of the number of beneficiaries, and long in terms of restoration. I mean, that's the kind of stuff that sticks in a juror's brain and brings it to life.

It's not a tax case about the IRS code and the state tax. No, it's a case about greed and lies. And it's deep, it's widening, it's long. And that's, I think, the beauty of having Josh on the team. And so we're really, really, happy about that period. Great. Well, I think it was great. I thought it was brilliant.

One last question about the case, and then I want to pivot. So these convictions to be clear are for state and city tax violations, correct? Right. So does that mean Weiselberg and the Trump Corporation still have potential federal liability with respect to the conduct that came out at trial and do you

know whether there's an active federal investigation into this? I don't know. I don't know. We focused on just sort of the charges that we had jurisdiction for. I don't know. My sense just, I don't want to speak for the federal government. My sense is that probably this will be the last word. There's a criminal prosecution giving the outcome here, but that's just speculation. So just pivoting now to the broader Trumps and Trump investigations, we know it's been widely reported that there's at least one

possibly more than one open and active criminal investigations still ongoing in your office. And you've spoken openly and made the comment that there are ongoing investigations with respect to the Trumps as individuals. So, I'm not going to ask you specifically about them. And many people don't understand why that is, but you really can't talk about an ongoing investigation. And you're not alone in that. Prosecutors, all prosecutors generally don't do this ever,

not just you. It's the very rare time that they have to. And I would love if you could explain why this is so, whether you're Jack Smith, whether you're Alvin Bragg, whether you're a Syvance Robert Borgadda or every other prosecutor across this country, why it is so important to allow criminal investigations to go on and go on not necessarily in full

view of the public. I'm so happy you asked me that question. This is something that has been on my mind a lot this year. We've got cases. We've worked on throughout our careers. This is something that has been on my mind a lot this year. We've got cases, we've worked on throughout our careers. Some of them get immediate attention, some of them don't. Obviously the attention on this is a lot.

But it's the same principles that apply. You said that without another name, that Liss Judge Gar, has been also dealing with this sort of wind of speak and how much to speak. And we obviously want the public to have confidence in the administration of justice. And sometimes being quiet means that false narratives abounds and it can be difficult. I found that to be challenging,

but it's remarkable when we speak prior to the closing of proceeding outside of court. So, when we issued the statement last year that the investigation was ongoing, that was of a lot of introspection and thought, because even that statement was remarkable and something that we would not normally do. And it's to protect the integrity of the investigation, as you know. First and foremost, there's privacy interests

and liberty interests for the people who are under investigation, for potential witnesses. That's why we have an important grand jury secrecy. So people will come forward. And it won't be public. And so they'll share and testify truthfully. We also don't want to have the public discussion about what a witness says and why we have

those privacy interests too. That might muddy the recollection of another witness. And so we have really strong privacy, confidentiality, hallmarks. And this is not something that just reasonable minds have come up with, right? These principles are embedded in the code of professional responsibility, which govern all New York lawyers and their analogous codes throughout the country. So there are really, really strong principles that we abide by in every case. But in a high profile case, it means that sometimes the silence comes at the expense of other narratives getting out there.

Then we got to ask ourselves the tough question, you know, when to speak, you know, to correct the record, whether we should, and it'd be very, very careful and judicious about it. And here, we had sort of an additional complication in that we had this trial. So we have the investigation that's ongoing that we're not talking about. And if we even found our way to saying, we should maybe say something, and there's something permissible we could say,

we then would have to think about, well, are we going to prejudice this trial? Are we going to, is it going or leads to some sort of mistrial motion because the impact it would have on the jurors? And so, you know, that, that, that underpins a lot of, a, a lot of this thinking too, is, you know, pre-trial publicity and the effect on a, on a potential jury pool.

Should the case be brought? I'm glad you mentioned Barrett Garland, but it was Bill Barr, is all the US attorneys that were appointed under Trump. I mean, this is not a Democrat or Republican thing. This is prosecutors. And politics do not belong in prosecution. Everybody who's ever prosecuted in a case says that as well.

So, but you do have active ongoing investigations, correct? Yes, yes we do. And are these joint with the Attorney General's Office, the New York Attorney General's Office, or is it just your office, or can you not say? So we've been working, the Attorney General's been a partner, Gary Fishman, who's a special ADA on the trial, that was just concluded, was with us today.

Jennifer Levy, who's the first deputy at the New York Attorney General's office joined us for the press conference. So it's a strong partnership and one that one that continues beyond the case. So the Trump organization this morning after this conviction or after I should say the sentencing called the prosecution politically

motivated and said that you would stop it nothing to get President Trump. What do you have to say about that? Because in fact, you were actually handed another case that was widely reported that some people thought was ready to go into the grand jury when you first became D.A. in January against Donald Trump. But you've slowed that down and put the breaks on that early on. So, if you were politically motivated, you would have just brought that case. But I have to say, you're not only just bringing cases, you're bringing cases without fear or

favor and waiting until you can prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. So, I just wanted to kind of point that out because I was really irritated by that statement. I'm sure you were too. But you've widely said that that case is still open to. Is that correct? Yes, and look, I appreciate it. I don't, I don't think the former president is no longer on Twitter from writing. So I don't know how the statement was released. I do not follow or put much stock in those words. We are doing what you and I have done for together

probably what 40, 50 years, which is the tradition of the office and prosecutors everywhere, which is following the facts and applying it to the evidence. Sometimes that means that there's a conclusion that the public loves and so be it. Sometimes it's a conclusion that the public doesn't like so be it. We've got to do our job. And I think the confidence in this is something that I think across the board,

not just the white color space, but more generally, sort of confidence in the system is something that I view is really, really part of my job to keep a focus on, particularly at this time of, you know, in some countries, it back to watergate, and it's obviously a lot of scholarly literature on this, but sort of declining faith in various institutions, including government, and including particular prosecutors.

I spent a lot of my career doing public corruption prosecutions. And kind of, the FITS 101 in those cases is to say, it's politically motivated, and I will always point out that people have prosecuted people of both parties, sometimes in the very same case. And you just go with the facts, take you, do it with rigor and professionalism. And what I've learned in this new seat is that, you do have to sometimes point out what you just said, which is explain and give some context

when you can permissibly do it. But into the day, we'll keep on following the facts and doing the work that's been done here for generations and the work that's being happened as you point out prosecutors' offices. And I think ultimately, you know, the work in the courtroom speaks for itself. One last question before I ask you any last thoughts

you wanna share. The Stormy Daniels Hush Payments investigation, in my calculation, the statute of limitations on that is going to run at some point this year. So we should know one way or another whether or not there's going to be a case if it ends with a prosecution, for example. But if it ends without a prosecution because you just don't have enough to charge that is that something you think you'll communicate publicly about? So so we've said in

in our statement in April that we will communicate our conclusion and you know if it's an indictment in a matter, then that obviously is where it's held. And if we don't, then we'll communicate it. And as we've been talking, you know, that is, that is in and of itself, I think, you know,

not something that prohibitioned, prosecutors are traditionally done. We did it in certain times of cases at the Attorney General's office. I think we see, so over time, more and more, there's some really good, for the, for the wonkier parts of the more. This is really good for the walk-year party to the audience. It's a really good scholarship in this case. Jessica Roth at Cardozo, who was a Lone Wild Office

Suffolk District, Becky Royfy, who was a professor in New York Law, a Lone Wild Office of written about and talk about when prosecutors should talk others in this space to group green and for them. It's a really rich area, you know, as you know, you know, with with our good friend, the Dean of New York law school, I spent some time there. And so this is the issue that's really rich. And I think about really trying to apply those theoretical principles in practice here. But yeah, we're committed to speaking

and letting the public know at, the public know at the appropriate time. If it's by way of a diamond, then that will back and we will speak and if it's not, then we will particularly at our conclusion and our basis for it in a statement. Well, I promised the press office that I wouldn't keep you too long, and so I want to keep that promise so that hopefully they'll let you come on the show again in the future. Are there any last thoughts you want to share before we end and say goodbye? No, I just great talking with you and I love the podcast, a lot of this conversation and looking forward to coming back on again and thank you for your you know, your work, I love the things you're doing now,

but in my mind, you're still a public servant, and thank you for, you know, talking a bit about the history of your office, and so thank you for being an important part of that, an important part of that history, and I'm looking forward to talking to you again. Well, thank you so much for being on the show. It's really a pleasure to talk to you,. Well thank you so much for being on the show. It's really a pleasure to talk to you and thank you really more importantly for the incredible work you're doing

both for New Yorkers but as well as the American people. So thank you for being here. Thank you. you