ChrisWeigant.com

Some Thoughts On This Historic Day

[ Posted Tuesday, April 4th, 2023 – 18:58 UTC ]

[Written before Trump's evening remarks]

As I write this, America is in an extended intermission between Act 1 and Act 2 of today's political drama. Donald Trump has surrendered himself to the New York authorities, been arraigned, been charged with 34 felonies, and been released. He is currently en route to Florida, where he will later give a speech and/or press conference from his own golf resort.

The television networks heavily covered the morning's events and I expect they will break into regular programming once again for Trump's comments. Indictment or not, this is the type of breathless news coverage Trump has been missing, so I expect he'll be back to his old self for his remarks, revelling in the nationwide attention.

I have not read the legal filings yet, so I am going to refrain from commenting on the relative weakness or strength of the actual charges. There'll be plenty of time to do so later. Instead I merely offer up a few observations from watching the day's events unfold.

The first was inescapable, in the brief glimpses the cameras got of Trump. He is not a happy camper. He is in a situation that he does not personally control, which is a rare thing for him, and he does not like it. Entering the court he was grim-faced, he was equally as stony sitting at the table in court (from the still photo that was released), and he did not stop to address the media once, entering or exiting the courtroom -- which is also a rare thing for him.

The biggest news from the day (actual news instead of "fill the airwaves with supposition and chatter while we air a closed door with a bunch of cops standing around...") was that the judge did not place any sort of gag order or other restraining order on Trump. The prosecutors pointed out the inflammatory and derogatory statements Trump has already made towards both them and the judge, but Trump was not restricted as a result. He may have been admonished by the judge verbally, but his lawyers were quick to spin it as "all sides were warned about their communications." So Trump won't have any legal bar to letting fly with a fit of high dudgeon tonight, when he finally does speak to the cameras.

The other big news was kind of shocking (at least to someone who is not familiar with the criminal justice system) -- not much of anything public is going to happen in this case until December. That's when Trump will likely be scheduled to return to the courtroom to hear how the judge rules on any motions the defense lawyers have made by that point. The prosecution suggested beginning the actual trial next January, but Trump's team is pushing to move that back to spring of 2024 -- a full year from now.

To state the politically obvious, if this truly is the schedule, it will all happen at the height of primary season -- unless Trump's lawyers are so successful that the trial gets pushed back so far it happens after the majority of states have voted. That right there is going to introduce all sorts of complications for everyone involved.

The other news that seemed apparent (at least to the television commentators) was that it won't just be Michael Cohen testifying against him, but also most likely David Pecker, who used to run American Media, Inc. -- the publisher of the National Enquirer. Pecker and the magazine weren't involved in the payments to Stormy Daniels, but were at the center of similar payments made to two other people. His magazine was heavily pro-Trump, but if he testifies that they illegally aided Trump's campaign with Trump's direct knowledge it will strengthen the case against Trump for the charges he faces. Michael Cohen is slightly problematic as a witness, so this would help the prosecution's case -- that seems to be the conclusion many experts had after hearing the news.

One thing struck me about the media coverage today, although I have to admit I didn't start watching until after Trump had already left his namesake building and his convoy was rolling towards the courthouse. And I should also mention that I only flipped around between a handful of broadcast (not cable) television networks. But I didn't see hide nor hair of a protest, either pro-Trump or anti-Trump. The networks were so expectant about getting that 15-second shot of Trump passing through a hallway on the air live that they didn't break away from the shot of "here's a black doorway at the end of a hallway" once, in order to head outside to see and hear what people were saying.

Since then, I have read that the demonstrations were woefully small. Neither the pro-Trump crowd nor the anti-Trump group had more than a couple hundred people in it, apparently. Which meant, in all likelihood, that they were both outnumbered by camera-toting journalists. When there are more media present than actual protestors, that's not a good sign, to put it mildly. Because then you get coverage like this:

But the crowd -- for a demonstration convened by the New York Young Republican Club, where Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene would soon speak -- was overwhelmingly made up of journalists. Trump supporters were so outnumbered that anyone in Make America Great Again attire was quickly swarmed by cameras.

As I said, there'll be plenty of time later to hash out the actual charges, the relative strength of the case, and what it will all mean to American politics. But for now I am returning to the television, as the curtain is about to go up on Act 2.

 

[After Trump's address]

Well, that wasn't really worth waiting for. Donald Trump spoke, but only spent a few moments even referencing what had happened that morning or the charges he now faces in New York. Perhaps the judge's instructions in court sank in, or perhaps his lawyers convinced him to keep quiet, but either way Trump barely touched on the 34 felonies he was just officially charged with.

Trump made a few insulting remarks about both the prosecutor and the judge -- and even the judge's family -- but he spent most of his time complaining about two other prosecutors who are contemplating bringing charges against him, in the federal system and in Georgia. This just brought home the fact that the New York charges were the first, but probably won't be the last -- which is a rather strange thing for Trump to remind everyone about in such detail.

Trump did some campaigning during the speech, as he painted America in near-apocalyptic terms. The doom and gloom was oppressive, as Trump warned of impending "nuclear World War III." But even when he veered off into campaigning, there were very few applause lines for his rapt audience to react to. Mostly it was just grim -- a half-hour of Trump's ever-growing list of complaints. Victimhood on steroids. "Woe is me, everyone is out to get me!"

This wasn't a real campaign rally, of course, but from the reviews I have read Trump seems to just give longer versions of this doom-and-gloom and his laundry list of enemies during the few rallies and appearances he has held so far. One wonders if even his own supporters might not get a little tired of this sort of thing. Trump and his supporters keep trying to make a political case that Donald Trump is all that stands between his voters and the evil forces of government, and that somehow "they'll come after you next!" This is a stretch, obviously, since few of his supporters have ever made a $130,000 hush-money payment to an adult film actress or called up a state's governor to try to overturn an election result. But many of them will no doubt buy it, hook, line, and sinker. Somehow, Trump is fighting for them, not just to save his own hide.

Whatever happens next, today was certainly one for the history books. From the helicopter block-by-block coverage of Trump's motorcade to the courthouse (and then to his airplane) to that endless shot of a black door guarded by cops, America has certainly never seen such a spectacle as this. Interestingly enough, none of the major broadcast networks broke into their regular programming to carry Trump's evening remarks live tonight. The pro-Trump protest was tiny and insignificant. Perhaps Trump's whole schtick is getting stale? Well, we've all got until December to find out whether that's true or not... today was not the end of the road but rather the beginning of a whole new chapter in the ongoing Trump soap opera. Perhaps in a few months we'll even all get so used to Trump being arraigned in a number of courtrooms that it will seem normal, but today was different because it was the first such spectacle ever seen. A former president has now formally been charged with committing crimes.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

40 Comments on “Some Thoughts On This Historic Day”

  1. [1] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    I am in awe that you spent most of today watching that thing.
    Didn't it feel like a waste of time? Is blogging about all Trump, all the time, really worth the boredom, the bile, the lies and the grift and the BS?
    I know you write a politics column, but aren't there moments when you think, this isn't helping - all he really wants is to be the center of the political media's focus, and I'm enabling that by running a column about a day where, symbolism aside, almost nothing actually happened that wasn't already expected?
    Sorry to be a grump, but I do feel that media coverage, even negatively-coded media coverage, is what made Trump president, and less media coverage is possibly the only thing that will prevent him from becoming president again.

  2. [2] 
    andygaus wrote:

    What's perhaps more important than anything else that happened today is that the Democratic candidate won for the open suit on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, so it won't be so easy for the state to be gerrymandered and ruled by draconian anti-abortion laws.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    andygaus,

    ah, some good news! ... I mean that sincerely, I'm not trying to be facetious here ... :)

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW

    Trump did some campaigning during the speech, as he painted America in near-apocalyptic terms.

    Well then, it pains me *shakes head* to point out the patently obvious, but if you were the same Orange Blowhole who claims how great your presidency had been for the United States, wouldn't it be an incredible self-own to insist that America is a dystopian hellscape mere months after you left office but not before promising "this American carnage stops right here"?

    I mean, if you had verily done such a bang-up job of making America "great again," how in the name of everything that is holy would somebody/anybody be able to so easily put asunder that "greatness" you're claiming to have created?

    So, to recap: Trump today has for all practical purposes conceded he "sucked at it" and requests four more years in which to do more of that.

    Defendant Donald goes on to further opine: "As president, I have a right to declassify documents, and the process is automatic. If I take them with me, it's automatic." So you're also acknowledging you retained documents. Nice touch. Keep digging.

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    andygaus
    2

    What's perhaps more important than anything else that happened today is that the Democratic candidate won for the open suit on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, so it won't be so easy for the state to be gerrymandered and ruled by draconian anti-abortion laws.

    That is 100% hands down and without doubt the most consequential development of the day, and it wasn't even a close call the way Wisconsin elections usually are, as the liberal candidate won the open seat by around 10 points. Janet Protasiewicz was elected to a 10-year term beginning in August and will give liberals a 4-3 majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Courrt for the first time since 2008.

    Note to Democrats: Running on a woman and her family's right to make their own decisions about reproductive health care and to move freely about the country and not be forced to give birth and remain in custody in a state and making voting easier and not harder are winning messages. Meanwhile, having to jump through hoops to vote and the creation of rapists' rights and government making health care decisions for you and your family not faring so well.

  6. [6] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [1]

    Sorry to be a grump, but I do feel that media coverage, even negatively-coded media coverage, is what made Trump president, and less media coverage is possibly the only thing that will prevent him from becoming president again.

    So you think the 81 million voters who turned out against Trump are going to change their minds about Trump because he’s finally starting to pay for his crimes? Trump, even in custody, will be the GOP Nominee— and he will LOSE even more decisively than in 2020.

    I, too, watched all day as well as most of Trump’s speechifying to date and the “tepid” adjective keeps occurring to me. Even the simpletons aren’t nearly as enthused — it’s like everybody including Trump is just going through the motions.

  7. [7] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Here’s Glenn Kirschner’s take on Defendant Trump’s first indictments in NYC. (15:43)

  8. [8] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    MtnCaddy on [6],

    I know most of the country won't vote for Trump in 2024. Most of the country didn't vote for him in 2016 or 2020, either.

    But he won in 2016, and he almost won in 2020 (he needed about 80,000 more votes in just four specific states - hardly a 'decisive' defeat), because the Electoral College doesn't give a hoot how large your pluralities are in states where you're popular.

    And media coverage does make a difference in how seriously the country takes its candidates. As you say, and I agree, Trump's base and the anti-Trump base (much larger) aren't going to change their minds about the guy at this point -- acquittal or jail time or anything in between notwithstanding.

    But more or fewer of them will stay at home and not vote if they think their vote won't make a difference - which is a state of mind that the media has a large impact on.

  9. [9] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Again, 81 million voters showed up to vote against Trump. Add his unfolding indictment-o-Rama, no looking ahead to create a better America and throw in Dobbs and I see NO reason to fret. Trump is toast and so is the cowardly GQP.

  10. [10] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    That Liberal judge won by 10 points in swing state Wisconsin for Pete’s sake! Voters know what’s at stake nowadays.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Trump was charged with 34 felonies and not misdemeanors because of an alleged cover-up. Hmmm. A jury will have to find that the former president attempted to cover up crimes that he has not been charged with and are not named in the indictment.

    What could go wrong? ;)

  13. [13] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Liz,

    Opinion piece in the NYT has the opposite opinion...

    Bunch of Republicans say nay but someone who has worked for the Manhattan DA's office says otherwise...

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I like Andrew McCabe's take on it.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's a look at how the world reacted to the arraignment.

  16. [16] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I like Andrew McCabe's take on it.

    I don't as there is absolutely no substance to it what so ever. What questions? What legal theory? Sounds like a talking head trying to fill air time...

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bashi,

    Interesting piece in the NYTimes ... these sorts of indictments are often successfully prosecuted in New York but there are some very bigly differences with this one!

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't as there is absolutely no substance to it what so ever. What questions? What legal theory? Sounds like a talking head trying to fill air time...

    Shocking. Positively shocking.

  19. [19] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Point out the substance if you disagree...

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Point out the substance if you disagree...

    McCabe wanted to see more detail and explanation about how prosecutors intend to transform a solid misdemeanor case into a felony conviction by proving intent to conceal a crime that is not even being charged because, in one instance, it isn't in the jurisdiction of a local DA. That sounds complicated to me.

    McCabe's main point is that if it is hard for lawyers to grasp Bragg's reasoning on this, then how difficult might it be for jury to do the same.

    Given everything about this case, intrinsically and externally, it all sounds ridiculously and politically contrived.

    But, you think McCabe is just some talking head trying to fill air time, so ... ;)

  21. [21] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    [20] Elizabeth Miller

    According to Jennifer Rubin (gift link), Bragg doesn’t show all his cards in his case against Trump there's a lot of space between what McCabe and others would like to have seen in the indictment and what Bragg is required to submit in his filing. Not disclosing all of his plans is not a reliable proxy for weakness.

    Here's a key sentence from her op-ed: Media impatience is no reason to reveal more in an indictment than he would normally do at this stage. (New York legal experts point out to me that even in the jury instructions, the prosecutor need not specify the precise crime that bumps up a charge to a felony.)

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What McCabe and others are talking about is NOT a full disclosure of the prosecution strategy.

  23. [23] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    They want more details but the indictment was not written to provide them with the details they want, so they judge the case weak. Doesn't work that way. We'll find out when Bragg brings his case.

    From Karen Friedman Agnifilo and Norman Eisen (gift link, I think) We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong Mr. Trump, who pleaded not guilty to all charges on Tuesday, is the 30th defendant to be indicted on false records charges by Mr. Bragg since he took office just over a year ago, with the D.A. bringing 151 counts under the statute so far. Indeed, the Trump Organization conviction and the Weisselberg plea included business falsification felonies.

  24. [24] 
    MyVoice wrote:
  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    OMG!

    Alvin Bragg didn't reveal his entire case in the initial charge so therefore the armchair pundits claim he's got nothing!

    I can't stop laughing. :)

  26. [26] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    11

    Trump Critics React to Indictment

    What I learned from your link:

    (1) High probability that Romney (R-Utah) is likely to run for reelection.

    (2) Andrew McCabe, Republican, misses his old friends lost to the Trump cult.

    *laughs*

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    20

    McCabe wanted to see more detail and explanation about how prosecutors intend to transform a solid misdemeanor case into a felony conviction by proving intent to conceal a crime that is not even being charged because, in one instance, it isn't in the jurisdiction of a local DA. That sounds complicated to me.

    *laughs* That is some hard-hitting substance. *shakes head* The setting up of multiple shell companies in order to hide the multiple payments is where I would suggest Andrew McCabe turn his attention to. The New York statute doesn't require that the Defendant be charged by the Manhattan District Attorney with the crime being covered up. Indeed, the New York state statute doesn't even require that the crime being committed be a state crime. I may have mentioned this already in a prior post (spoiler alert: I did).

    An individual “is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” N.Y. Penal Code § 175.10.

    For Trump to be prosecuted for felony violation of falsifying business records, the statute requires the DA to prove not only that Trump is guilty of falsifying business records (a misdemeanor), but that he did so with the intent to commit “another crime,” or aiding or concealing the commission of “another crime.”

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2023/03/31/friday-talking-points-trump-indicated/#comment-202496

    *
    Bold emphasis added in blockquote is mine.

    McCabe's main point is that if it is hard for lawyers to grasp Bragg's reasoning on this, then how difficult might it be for jury to do the same.

    McCabe thinks it will be hard for a jury to understand the grossing up of payments in order to reimburse his lawyer for the payoffs and the use of shell companies in order to hide the source of funds? Really!? *laughs*

    You think a jury will not understand that Michael Cohen spent time in jail for his role in the cover-up of the crimes and that David Pecker/AMI entered into a non-prosecution agreement wherein he admitted his role in the cover-up of the crimes? Since McCabe was himself part of Trump's DOJ, it puzzles me why he can't grasp these facts.

    It seems Republicans really do think people are stupid.
    You sure you're not a Republican? ;)

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yeah, I'm just stupid.

  29. [29] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    MyVoice [23][24]

    That's the opinion piece I linked to in [13]...

    Side note: good way to get around the NYT paywall is to copy and paste the NYT article URL into the wayback machine on archive.org. Also great if you want to read a NYT article and are on a computer you don't feel comfortable logging into. Also works on the WSJ. Does not work for the WaPo, that you have to disable javascript which is usually more of a PITA than it's worth unless you have a plugin that makes it easy...

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's too complicated for me.

  31. [31] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    [29] BashiBazouk

    Thanks, Bashi; sorry I didn't acknowledge your link. I'd read the column independently.

    As it happens, I have JavaScript disabled by default for security, mostly, but you are right, it does allow me to read a lot of stuff I otherwise couldn't. Simple enough to re-enable when I feel the site is safe. No need for a plug-in these days.

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    28

    Yeah, I'm just stupid.

    I've seen enough out of you to know that's not the case. Nice try, though. :)

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The NYTimes is my home page, just so y'all know. :)

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I did not tap out comment number 30, btw.

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    Who here thinks it would be hard for a jury to understand that a rich man avoided paying taxes on thousands of dollars by categorizing reimbursements he made to his lawyer for hush money payments his lawyer made to multiple persons so that the rich man could therefore deduct those amounts as a business expense?

    Anybody!?

    Who here thinks it was at all confusing to the grand jury?

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    34

    I did not tap out comment number 30, btw.

    So you're blaming your lawyer, I suppose!? ;)

  37. [37] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [35]

    You mean the Grand Jury that just voted to indicate* Trump for 34 felony counts, or some other Grand Jury?

    *It’s out of control I simply cannot resist ;D){

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm blaming my bad habits. :)

  39. [39] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    37

    You mean the Grand Jury that just voted to indicate* Trump for 34 felony counts, ...

    Yep, that's the one.

    ... or some other Grand Jury?

    Supposin' I did mean some other grand jury or even any jury in general, I could spend a whole lot of time and blog space 'splainin' how a jury is instructed by a judge and the general basics of the intricacies of what is known as the "jury charge."

    Right off the top of my head, I'll give you an example of the paperwork the jury actually uses to deliberate:

    Example of Language in Typical Jury Charge

    The People v. Defendant Donald Trump

    Count 1

    The first count is Falsifying Business Records in the
    First Degree.

    Under New York law, a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud including intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission of another crime, that person makes or causes the making of a fraudulent entry in the business records of an enterprise [etc. regarding intentional omission and erasure/alteration and all kinds of various ways that a fraudulent entry in a business record can be committed]

    Penal Law § 175.10 reads: "A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

    [Then there's generally definition of multiple terms:

    ENTERPRISE
    BUSINESS RECORD
    INTENT
    ETC ]

    In order for you to find the defendant guilty of the crime in Charge 1, the People are required to prove, from all of the evidence in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, the following elements:

    1. That on or about [insert date] in the county of New York, Defendant Donald J. Trump did make or cause to be made the comission thereof in the business records of an
    enterprise; and,

    2. That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that
    included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or
    conceal the commission of another crime.

    If you find that the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt both of the above elements, you must then consider any affirmative defense the defendant may have raised. If you have already found the defendant not guilty of Charge 1, you do not consider the affirmative defense.

    Under New York law, it is an affirmative defense to this Charge 1 of [repeat the crime]:

    Defendant was an employee who received no benefit and was directed by a superior to make fraudulent entry [or omit/erase etc.]

    In determining whether or not the defendant has proven that affirmative defense, you will decide by a preponderance of the evidence. This is different than making a determination beyond a reasonable doubt [more 'splainin' etc.]

    [Then places/spaces/maybe even check boxes for jury foreperson to record decision:

    Guilty / Not Guilty / Affirmative Defense of I Just Worked There and Followed Orders and Received No Personal Benefit]

    Count 2

    The second count is Falsifying Business Records in the
    First Degree.

    [Then lather, rinse, and repeat for every single charge that remains of the Prosecution/People's 34 original felony charges. ]

    *
    So the point being that juries aren't just thrown in a room to decide complex legal issues; they are guided by specific language provided to them by the Court for every single thing they decide. The prosecution and defense will generally argue over the verbiage they want the Court to include in each and every specific Count included in the Charge because words matter bigly.

    *It’s out of control I simply cannot resist ;D){

    Heh. :)

  40. [40] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    38

    I'm blaming my bad habits. :)

    So you've indicated your bad self. Nice touch. ;)

Comments for this article are closed.