BREAKING NEWS: Trump Indicted

Broker studio in New York. We had been debating for days on when this was going to occur, if it was going to occur at all. This is one of several cases that the president could be facing. And so now we know that the grand jury has voted to indict. And you know, we can't overstate what a historic day this is. This is the first prosecution ever, the first

criminal charges ever against a former president. And yes, it seemed that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had backed off because there had been all this last week commotion that last week was going to be when there was this indictment. And then we heard that the grand jury was going to be off until April for the Eastern mister break. So this came as quite a shock that they have already voted, and I mean, listen, they've been considering this

for quite some time. They were just hearing the very last witnesses. And by the way, the very last witness was I think Pecker, right, and he was brought in we think to robut what had been said about Michael Cohen by a former legal advisor to him? So who is David Pecker? Again? Remind me this was the catch and kill scenario? Right? He was the publisher of the National Inquirer, I believe, yes, So he captured the story and then tried to bury it so that it couldn't

come out during the campaign. Right, So he was there, we think to buttress Michael Cohen's testimony because Cohen is a problematic witness, and he will likely be the star witness here. He's a problematic witness because he is a convicted felon, convicted for lying to Congress. So right away, right there, you have a problem with this kind of a witness. But as prosecutors tell you, you know, they

can't present priests and acquire boys to a jury. They have to present who they have and they're usually someone who's associated with the crime. So he does have a lot going for him, but a lot going against him. So they brought in after one of his former attorneys came forward, and Trump's lawyers requested that he testified to the grand jury. And you're a lot to do that

in New York. So they requested aim of kind of eroding the credibility of Cohen exactly just as if just like Trump was invited himself to testify to the grand jury. Of course he didn't, and that's a very smart move on his side not to come forward. So but you can't ask to have a witness come forward. So they asked to have this former attorney, former advisor to Michael Cohen, and he said some things that you tried to undermine Cohen's integrity, that he lied about this to him in

the past. And so then all of a sudden, it seemed as if things came to a halt. Then they brought in Packer to buttress Michael Cohen. The thing about this whole grand jury investigation you've heard came from a New York Court of Appeal judge. Prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham Sandwich in this case, it seemed like Alvin Bragg was almost trying the case, not just presenting it to the grand jury so that

he'd get an indictment, but almost trying the case. And perhaps it was an attempt to see how the case would flesh out. Perhaps because it's such it's the first indictment, there's going to be so much press on this, There's

going to be so much on this. Perhaps he wanted to make sure that he had every eye dotted in t cross And a big question is to what happens in Georgia because there is another case there very much of the focus of or on any interference with the election that was going on in twenty sixteen or twenty I want to get blend together. Yeah, they do, really.

I want to get to Ed Baxter, who is in the Bloomberg newsroom in San Francisco during our special coverage as we learned that a former President Trump has now been indicted by the District Attorney in Manhattan for directing hush money payments to a porn star during the twenty sixteen campaign. M. Yeah, I'm sure you're you're looking at wires and different types of reaction. What are you seeing yeah, I'm seeing a lot of stuff. But what I want to ask june A Doug if I may, is what

happens next? Now? I mean Donald Trump was out, remember the famous I'm going to be indicted on Tuesday line, said that he wanted to figure out what he was going to wear, should he wear a tie? How public is this going to be? And I understand and correct me if I'm wrong that he's a maralgo. Where does this go next? What is the process? So what will happen in this case? I've talked to several people and they say, you know, he's not going to be treated

like the ordinary citizen. He's going to be treated like the extra ordinary citizen. So a high profile citizen. They're going to tell his lawyers. I think Joe Takapino, one of his lawyers, has already said that he heard about this. So what they're going to do is they're going to request and arrange a date for him to come in and turn himself in. So there's not going to be that perp walk that people may have been expecting. He's not going to We don't think he's going to be

put in handcuffs. But apparently this is all going to be worked out between Alvin Bragg's office and his attorneys how they want to handle this. But he will have to be booked, He'll have to have be fingerprinted and have his mug shot taken, and they'll have to be an appearance in court where it's expected they're not going to request bail or anything. He's going to be sent out on his own recognizance. But those details have to

be done. But you know, how big a deal it is may depend more on Donald Trump than anyone else. Does he want to make this a big deal? So there would be ostensibly an arrangement right when he's charged, But after that, I mean a delay. Is that probably what we're going to see. Is there a way for the Trump legal team to kind of slow the process.

There will be motion upon motion upon motion upon motion to delay the process and to attack the you know, the evidence that the district attorney has, and um, you know you're going to see a lot happen in the courtroom and a lot happen outside the courtroom. And I think a lot of this depends on how hard Alvin Bragg is going to push for a trial date that's close. I mean, Trump also remember the trial is coming up where Attorney General Letitia James is suing Trump and his company.

That's coming up. Now that's a civil complaint though right right, it is a civil and criminal would take precedence. But I'm just saying there's a lot there are a lot of balls in the air here with Trump and what's happening. So you know, I have no idea when the trial would actually be set for ed now going down the road though, I mean, this has been from what's been leaked, and grand jury always is supposed to be secret. But

you mentioned that, you know, a very thin case. It's a very creative case, if we can put it that way at the very least. I mean, this is something that he would go down the road of definitely with any trial, he could be acquitted. And that has all kinds of ramifications as well, exactly. And the case is it's a novel legal theory. It's sort of, you know, to explain it simply, it's sort of hooks one misdemeanor crime onto a felony in order to make it a felony.

So the misdemeanor would be falsifying business records, which is they did not they did not record this hush money payment as it should have been recorded it as legal fees, I believe, and then the prosecutors have to show an intend to defraud and that would be a violation of election law. So the theory is that the second kind of hooks on the first, and then you get the the excuse me, the felony, which is what they want because it just you know, hush money payments. That would

just be a misdemeanor of falsifying business record. June, we have Robert Mints with us. He is the former I'll be able to explain. Well, you're going to ask the first question, let me do the introduction. He is a former federal prosecutor and now partner at mcarter and English. Mister Mints, thanks for being with us first, right out of the gate, let me get your reaction. Sure, well, it's not surprising really, because of Manhattan District Attorney's office

has been ramping up this investigation for some time. It's public knowledge that the grand jury has been meeting and as was close to returning an indictment. And still it's shocking to believe that this has actually occurred, that an indictment has been returned. And the first former president to face criminal charges that case will actually go forward. It's still something that is shocking that this has actually come

to pass. So, Bob, we don't know what the grand jury exactly indicted on, but we have an eye idea. So tell us about how they're going to use this misdemeanor and try to make it into a felony. Well, the core of this case is under New York while falsifying business records, which can be a crime, and that's really the bread and butter for the white collar section of the District Attorney's Obviously they charge this falsification of

business records all the time, something that's not unusual. But here, in order to turn this crime into a felony rather than a misdemeanor, they have to tie it to a second crime. And in this case, it appears that what the case is going to turn on is whether or not this concealment of these business records as falsifying of these business records also as a violation of federal election law and the facts here, which really is something that is out there now, there's no secret to what this

case is going to be about. It's going to hinge on the handling of this PA and one hundred and thirty thousand dollars which Michael Khone, the former president's lawyer, has said he used to pay off Stormy Daniels in order to conceal an alleged affair that President Trump had with Stormy Daniels leading into the election. And the question here the links beIN really of this whole case is going to be the district attorney's ability to prove that that money was paid in order to affect the election

and not for some other reasons. So a defense here, for example, that the firm president could raise his Yes, I paid that money. He denies that he had the affair, but he said he's going to say, I would expect that he paid the money in order to save the embarrassment to his family and to his wife, and that's why he paid off the Stormy Daniels through Michael Kane.

The government is going to have to prove the d is going to have to prove that it was done for the purpose of affecting the election and not merely in order to preserve the president's public image and to save his family from embarrassment. So, Bob, is this just novel legal theory or is there a precedent for anything like this where you begin with kind of the misdemeanor violation and then you pivot and then use that as the basis for a kind of a federal charge or

a criminal charge on on a federal level. Yes, I mean that's a great question. I'm not aware of New York State prosecutors ever having filed an election law case involving a federal campaign before. So this case is novel. It's an untested case that no one has brought before from the Manhattan DA's office, and it's susceptible to being attacked both at the trial level, and even if they gain a conviction, it's susceptible to potentially being thrown out

on appeal. So it is a high risk gambit for the Manhattan District Attorney's office to bring this case because it is an untested area, and generally prosecutors like to stay away from untested areas in civil litigation. You might want to bring a case that's never been brought before, But as prosecutors, generally, the idea is the law has

to be black and white. You want to know what's right or what's wrong, and you don't want to be bringing a case that has never been tested in the courts before, because you might go through an entire trial, you might even gain a conviction, and then it might get thrown out on appeal. Bob. There's also the question of whether hush money payment can be a campaign donation.

I mean, you remember what happened with the prosecution of Senator John Edwards, and I see that the Trump team has at times raised that They've said he didn't pay this hush money because of the campaign. He paid this hush money because he wanted to save his wife, Milania from being embarrassed. So that's may come up that kind of a defense here, Jordan. That exactly was the defense

in the John Edwards case. That was the situation. If you're a call where Senator Edwards wife was battling cancer and they was a third party who paid off somebody, and that was part of the defense, and it worked. There was an acquittal in that case where the jury could not decide whether the money was paid for the purpose of protecting his position as somebody running for president, or whether it was done in order to protect his wife and his family. And the prosecutors here are going

to be facing exactly the same dilemma. So, Bobby, one question is it regards you in regard to the investigation going on for five years. Is there a statute of limitations on any of this? Well, there's a statue of the limitations on the misdemeanor count of falsifying business records,

which has expired. So the only way prosecutors can bring this case is by bringing it as a felony, and that would be within the statue of the limitations, just barely having brought it now, So the case is going to rise or fall on their ability to prove this felony case. So, Bob, I want to talk a minute about Michael colem because so much has been said about how he is going to be the star witness and all the problems he may encounter, and we saw that there.

It appears that this indictment may have been delayed because the Trump team asked to have one of his former advisors come in, who undercut his credibility. So I'm wondering how much you think that's really a problem when he's been pretty consistent ever since he saw the light, let's say about about his position. So he's been pretty consistent

about what he's said. Yeah, we know Michael Cohen has been in and out of the DA's office for a long time now, and we also know that he has produced these checks that were written by President Trump to him as reimbursement for one hundred and thirty thousand dollars that he paid personally to Stormy Daniels. And so there is a record here that seems to be consistent with Michael's co own testimony. On the other hand, we don't

know else Michael Cohen may upset to prosecutors. We do know that he has told differing stories over time, and so he is going to be, in many ways the central focus of this case, and we don't know what else might be out there to potentially impeach his credibility. There was another case, there is another case going on in Georgia. We had the special grand jury meet in

that case and recommend indictments. We don't have a lot of visibility into who may be indicted as far as I know, and I was asking June this question earlier, Bob, whether or not that prosecutor in that case has convened a grand jury now with the idea of pursuing criminal charges. Talk to me about the context of both of these cases seeming to kind of almost coincide with one another, and I'm wondering whether prosecutors would wait for the other to kind of make the first move. Is that part

of the strategy here? If there is one, Well, that's really hard to say. These cases have taken a long time. I think from the standpoint of somebody like myself who was a federal prosecutor for ten years and who's been following these cases, they've taken a long time to work their way through the system and to get to where

we are today. We know, for example, that federal prosecutors who charged Michael Khne Michael Kon as we know, pled guilty to these campaign violations, but federal prosecutors never took the additional step to charge President Trump. So they looked at this evidence and decided for whatever reason, and we don't know why, but they decided not to bring the federal case against President Trump at the time that they

charged Michael Khone. The case going on in Georgia is a completely separate case regarding the president's elect interference with the election. That also has taken a long time. I think one of the things that we're seeing here, though, is while on the one hand, prosecutors like to take their time because they only get one shot really to get it right. You cannot go back usually fix these problems.

Once you bring this indictment, the clock is then running, and everything then favors the defense in the sense that they have the right to a speedy trial, They have a right to their day in court. As the prosecutor, you better have all your ducks lined up, all your facts, all your witnesses set into place before you bring that indictment. So they want to take their time and get it right.

On the other hand, they are racing against the political clock because they are not unmindful of the fact that there is an election coming up, the fact that President Trump is an announced candidate, There's primaries coming up, and the closer that any indictment gets to these primaries and to a potential presidential election, the more it looks like

some kind of attempt to interfere with that election. That's not what prosecutors would say they're doing, but they also have to be aware of the appearance of that, and I think that's one of the reasons we're seeing prostitutors finally decide one way or the other which way they are going to go in these cases. And we saw that the Manhattander has decided to bring English indictment. Bob, this may be an unfair question, but I'm going to ask you anyway. What happens here is for let's say

Georgia also comes in with an indictment. How do they decide which case takes precedent, which case goes first, and you know what happens if it does bump into the election electioneering? Well, that's a tough one because you've got two different judges and two different jurisdictions. They don't really control one another, they don't answer to one another, but they are mindful of what's going on. You know, typically you have a situation where you've got a federal judge

on a state court judge. The federal case usually takes precedent, so you will see a state corp judge decides to take have their case sort of put on the back burner and allow the federal case to play out. But here this case is obviously being brought in state court in New York. The case in Georgia would also be before a state court judge. So it's really going to be up to the prosecutors and the judges who were involved here to determine which case is going to take precedent.

I suspect they'll look at the cases, they'll decide how complicated they are. They may look and decide, you know, which case seems to be the stronger case or which case is more likely to get a conviction, and that may play into the decision about which case to bring first. But the short answer to your question, Tune, is that there is no plea book. There is no rule as to which case goes first. And you forgot the special counsel. Oh, that would be a federal case that would take precedent

most definitely. Let's not go there yet, Bob, thanks so much for being with us. Robert Mens's former federal prosecutor, is also a partner at McCarter and English. This is Bloomberg Special coverage of the news that broke within the last hour or so. Donald Trump has been indicted by the New York District Attorney for directing hush money payments to a porn star during his twenty sixteen campaign. Let's

bring in Bloomberg's Politics contributor g Genie Schanzano, who joins us. Now, Genie, I know that you and Joe Matthew were talking earlier about this as the news broke during your TV program. I'd like to get your reaction. Yeah. I mean, I think the word that comes to mind is unprecedented. And

we don't know what is going to happen. We don't know the charges against him, But what we do know is that we have a former president who is going to have a mug shot and has his fingerprints taken, and who can still run for president from behind bars, who just the other day went to Waco where his campaign designed these signs which talked about a witch hunt, and he is going to continue to use that as

a way to drum up support. And the other thing I would say, just today, we're looking at poles which show him with a double digit lead in the Republican nomination for president. So you know, when you say unprecedented, when you say no rule books, that is exactly where we are today. And oh, by the way, this is the first, as you've been talking about, of many potential prosecutions.

In other words, the or indictments, I should say, in other words, only the beginning and what is going to unfold to be a real, you know, contentious and sort of unpredictable election season as we move into twenty four. Let's bring in Joe Matthew next. He is Bloomberg's Washington correspondent. I want to correct what I just said earlier, Joe, I thought Cheney joined you today on the TV program when this news broke. I guess that wasn't the radio

program earlier. Okay, but you were on television when this news broke. It was first reported by the New York Times during your roundtable discussions. What are some of the angles that you were able to tease out on this? Well, you know, it's it's just depends who you want to ask here. One of the questions we've been asking is what's the response from Democrats and specifically the administration. The

answer is none. They're not weighing in on this, and it says a lot about the posture of a president in the case of Joe Biden, who's considering announcing a run for reelection. On the other hand, we saw other Democrats like Maxine Waters celebrating this, which really could it be a political risk if it does fulfill the narrative that Trump supporters have that this is a political attack. I do want to mention I spent some time with

Lannie Davis earlier this week. That's Michael Cohen's lawyer, and he just sent me a statement on this, because you know, Michael Cohen went to jail. He actually did jail time for this, for providing the payments that he says he was reimbursed by from Donald Trump. Michael Cohen, he writes, made the brave decision to speak truth to power and

accept the consequences, and has done so ever since. I'm proud to have been his lawyer and his friend through this long journey on the path to justice and accountability. So that's the side the message coming from Michael cohenside. We also heard from MAGA Inc statement from Taylor Buddh which at MAGA Pack says, this is not an indictment of a crime, there was no crime. Instead, this news is the indictment of a failed nation. That sounds a lot like what we heard from President Trump last weekend

in Waco. Doug He says that they're coming after me because they can't beat me at the ballot box. He calls this a new form of election interference. But he was able to do a great deal of fundraising as a result of he said it right. He sure did that day that he said I'll be arrested on Tuesday. That goes back to tuesdays now. He raised an enormous amount of money, and I suspect that more fundraising emails will go out now that it's actually happened. To Genie's point,

he gets potentially several more turns here. Fulton County, Georgia and the Special Council here in Washington are making great progress. We actually thought we'd hear from Georgia first. I don't know how Genie would agree with me on this, but that would suggest that we could hear from Fulton County literally any day. Now. Imagine now not only the first ever indictment of a former president who happens to be seeking reelection, but it would be the first ever multiple

indictments at once. Genie, you want to weigh in on that the Georgia case. Yeah, I think we're what we're going to hear in reaction to that, And as Joe mentioned, it's a stunning, absolute possibility, you know, is what Jim Jordan tweeted, you have a representative in Congress, a leader on the Republican side, tweeting outrageous in response to this indictment. So you can imagine if the Fulton County prosecutor comes

down with another indictment. And the challenge here is do these multiple indictments seem to Trump reporters and quite frankly many on the Republican side, as what Joe described as election interference. And this allows Donald Trump to portray himself as a victim. And his message has always been not just that he's a victim, but that his supporters are a victim, that this is a witch hunt not just against him, but of them. And he always says, if they can do this to me, they'll do this to you.

So that's what we'll expect to hear from the campaign. And I think if we do hear of Fulton County indictment, and let's not forget about the federal potential indictments that could come down, we are going to hear that in steroids as we see these multiple mug shots of Donald Trump. Alan Dershowitz on a conservative network just after this indictment is announced, says he's going to use that mug shot potentially Donald Trump as a poster for his presidential campaign.

Imagine that. Well, but Joe, that's an interesting point. I mean Donald Trump. By the way, guys, this is the first time we're hearing from him. This is a it's long, it looks like a newspaper article. But I'll just give you a couple of highlights. This is political persecution and election interference at the highest level in history. From the time I came down the Golden escalator at Trump Tower, the radical left Democrats have been engaged in a witch

hunt to destroy the Make America Again movement. Now I'm going to do a little site editing here. Never before in our nation's history has this been done. He goes on to say Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg handpicked and funded by George Soros, and we continue to hear that dog whistle is a disgrace. He goes on further to right, I believe this witch hunt will backfire. Are massively on Joe Biden, and he uses the word we here. We

will defeat Joe Biden. We are going to throw every last one of these crooked Democrats out of office so we can make America great again. There you have it now at six twenty two pm Eastern time, the statement from Donald J. Trump, Joe, I want to bring in June Grasso, who is our legal expert here in the New York studio. June. We know that the Department of Justice now has Jack Smith a special council working on

two separate cases. Does this necessarily slow in any way his intention or strategy, not at all, And he is moving at warp speed. You just found out this week that Mike Pence has been ordered to testify by a judge to testify to the grand jury in that case, the case involving January sixth, an investigation into whether Donald Trump or his allies had any criminal activities with regard to January sixth. So he's moving forward. He's got he's

got people coming in from lets. His lawyer, he had his lawyer, Evan Corkrane come in and they've been fighting all these different subpoenas and they've won all of them as far as I can, as far as I know. So they've won all these subpoenas with really unusual kinds

of arguments. Evan Corkrane, they used an argument that it was an attorney client privilege, and they came back with a crime fraud exception to that, and Mike Pence used the theory that it was based on the speech or debate clause, and the judge said, you can use that for some of it, but you can't use it for all of it, because everything you did that day was not related to your activities on the floor of the House.

So I'm just saying they are moving really fast. They're getting a lot of witnesses that the January sixth Committee couldn't get, and that I don't think anyone else has gotten either, Mark Meadows, So I think that they're moving very quickly, and I don't think that and there if they indict, that will take precedence over the state investigations

will move forward first. That's interesting, Joe. What do we know about a reaction either from let's say, Ronda Santis or Nicky Haley, any of the other candidates that are chasing the GOP nomination. We haven't heard from candidates yet. We have heard from a number of lawmakers on both sides of the Aisle Adam Schiff Democrat of course Thorn on the side of Donald Trump, whose years in the

White House and in fact was an impeachment. Manager says the indictment of a former president is unprecedented, but so too is the unlawful conduct in which Trump has been engaged. We saw a celebratory statement from Maxine Waters. We've also heard very different statements from some Republicans, and they're calling this a witch hunt. So so far it, Douget's been

very predictable. To be perfectly honest with you, I'm just really curious to hear what happens when centrists are called to speak about this, particularly Democrats who want in Trump districts, Republicans who want in Biden districts and have a potential a lot to lose if they say the wrong thing in the next cycle. So, Genie, neither a criminal charge nor a conviction would disqualify mister Trump in any way

from running or even serving as president. And I'm probably going to bet that he is going to proceed here full more without kind of tripping over any of these legal stumbling blocks. I mean, he knows what he's wants and he's going to get there. Yeah. I mean, his team has been preparing for this. I think it's clear

that they did not expect it today. They thought that the grand jury was going to be out, they had a little bit of time, so I think the timing of this coming this afternoon was a shock, but the fact that he might be indicted not a shock at all. They've been preparing for this. That's why they have the witch hunt posters printed. And he is going to run. I mean, we've seen this before. Eugene V. Debs in nineteen twenty sits in prison for espionage and runs for president.

So it is absolutely constitutional for him to do it, and he has said he will do it, and in fact, he is going to use it. He says to make the case that he is, as Joe was talking about, the victim of political persecution, the victim of election interference, that this has been a plan by Democrats. And he uses these sort of tropes that he talks about in these statements about Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan Day and others that are xenophobic and racist. He's used them and tried

to use them to his advantage. And of course I'm looking right now at the Real Clear Politics average. He is seventeen points ahead in the Real Clear Politics average. So his numbers, by the way, in the last month have double digit gone up. So if anybody thinks that he is sort of, you know, going to be a victimized by this in terms of his support in the Republican side, we haven't seen that in the polls yet. Of course, the indictment just coming out now, so maybe

that changes in the next couple of weeks. Joe, talk to me a little bit about the reaction that may happen from on the part of Trump's supporters to today's news and the concern. I'm I'm sure in a number of jurisdictions that there could be a level of protesting that may risk on I don't want to say violence or anything like that, but you know what I'm talking about. Well, yeah, I mean, I think we can say there's been a lot of concern about this. I'm glad you brought it up, Doug.

There's a reason why barricades are up in front of the courthouse in New York. There's a reason why the barricades went back up around the Capitol here in Washington. When the former president says, you know, kind of following up on his it'll be wild a tweak going back to January six, we says, protest save our country calling for the potential, at least as he said he didn't. He didn't call for it, but he was warning of the potential for death and destruction. We haven't seen this

happen yet, though, Doug. You know, when this first was brought to our attention by the former president saying is going to be arrested to tuesdays ago, there were more reporters than protesters in outside that courthouse. And it does make you wonder after what we saw in January six the hundreds of people who are actually in jail, what

they did attacking our capital, if they know better. The real concern from authorities we've talked to here is a lone wolf, somebody driving into the barricade at the capital, somebody doing something stupid in front of the courthouse, as opposed to an organized event, an organized attack like we

saw in January sixth. Yeah, most definitely big concern. June final thoughts, as we kind of rap, I'm sort of numb because we were expecting this for so long, and then we sort of put it aside and started to think that maybe it wouldn't happen. I mean, this is going to be an incredible case, whether it's a misdemeanor and a felony hook together. But it's going to be an incredible case and we'll see something that we've never seen before. We'll see how a president is treated in

a criminal trial. It's going to be you know, I have only superlatives right now. Okay, Well, I want you to stick around, June, because we're going to be speaking

with Michael Zelden in a moment. I want to say goodbye and thanks to Joe Matthew, who is a Bloomberg Washington correspond and Jeanie Shanzano, who is a Bloomberg Politics contributor, joining us as we unpack the news of the last hour, Donald Trump being indicted by the New York District Attorney for directing hush hush money payments to a porn star during his twenty sixteen campaign. All right, now, let's get

to our guest. We are joined by Michael Zelden. He is a former federal prosecutor and former special counsel to Robert Muller. He had worked at the Department of Justice. Mister Zelden, thanks for being with us. Let me get your reaction right out of the gate. Well, it's a little bit surprising As to the timing, we all thought that the grand jury was on pause for minutes, so that came as a bit of a surprise. As to the merits of the case, we have to see the indictment.

There are people like me who worried about the integrity of a case like this, A state pavement of hush money tied to a federal election case never been done before. Whether it's a viable legal theory remains to be seen. So really we're in the oh my god, he's been indicted moment, and now let's see what the prosecutors can show us gave reason for that indictment. So, Michael, you talked about this novel legal theory. Do you think that it's something that a judge might dismiss even before the

case got to trial. Is it that novel? I don't know that it would be that novel that it would be dismissed before the case, But it could get dismissed mid case, you know, after the prosecution rests, the government then turns over to defense and they can move him to have the case dismissed at that point. But I think on the paper it probably won't get dismissed. It probably should go to a jury. But it's a great

question because the theory is novel. We have to wait and see whether the court thinks that it's so novel that it is worthy of going forward to the jury or gets dismissed right out. We just don't know. We know the prosecution star witnesses Michael Cohen, and he is a felon, He's been convicted and served time. Does that majorly erode his credibility in a case like this? Sure?

And one of the things that I saw on the news today was that Alan Weisselberg, the CFO of the Trump organization who's in jail on unrelated charges, has changed lawyers from a Trump paid for a lawyer to a new legal team, And that gave me pause to wonder when whether he's going to start cooperating, because he's the person who can make this case much better than Cohen. He, though convicted of a crime, really knows much more about

the financial dealings than does Michael Cohen. So if you've just got to Michael cohen witness and documents and an argument that this was a payment made not to violate through election law, but rather just to protect his family from the allegations. It's a very triable case. But they've been trying to flip him or prosecutors try to flip him for the longest time, and they couldn't. They couldn't flip him to testify against Trump. He would testified to

what happened in the company. But he didn't testify against Trump. And he's still being paid by the Trump organization a lot of money. Do you really think that he would that they'd be able to flip him at this point after he's gone to prison. Well, it depends on what

they have to offer him. For example, if they have to offer him another indictment for some type of insurance fraud which you've heard about, and he spent time in Rikers Island and he knows how unpleasant that is, and he's facing the postil he's spending even more time there. That might be enough to have him change his mind. If they're just saying, please, out of the goodness of your heart, do it. There's not a chance when it comes to trying to find a jury during the dear process.

I mean, here we are in Manhattan, and I'm wondering whether or not it's going to be very difficult for the Trump legal team to even come to an agreement with a DA's office on a suitable jury. Is that going to be a huge hurtle as well? Well. It's going to be a big issue for the judge to make sure that the jury's selection process is fair to the defendant and fair to the prosecution. And I expect

that will take a long time. But we have other cases that are almost equally famous, though not a former president, where they have successfully selected jewelry. So I'm not of the mind that they won't be able to do it here. It just has to be very carefully undertaken. You can have people who have a predisposition of guilt or innocence prior to their being seated as a juror and listening to the evidence that is accepted in the court. How

much if you had to bet on it? How much of a spectacle do you think Donald Trump will try to make out of this arrest or do you think it's going to be handled as you know all the high profile arrests are. He turns himself in, he gets you booked, we see the mug shots eventually, but not a lot of hoop law. Are you asking whether Donald Trump is able to change his spots at this point

in his life. I think the answer to that probably is no. I expect that, as with the other cases with lawyers who have begged him to please ratcheted down and he has refused, that will be the case here there. I don't think any lawyer really wants their client out in the public speaking the way the President has spoken in previous cases. So I don't think the president is capable of change. Lucky, there's no escalator to come down

to the arraignment. If you're part of the Trump legal team, I mean, are you pretty confident that you understand all the evidence against your client at this point or could there be a process of discovery where you learn more about the evidence that would be kind of incriminating you for your client. I think you have a sense of what's going on here evidentually, but of course you want

to find out more. You want to know there have been people going in and out of that grand jury for a very long time, there have been documents have been presented today grandjury for a very low time, and as defense counsel, you're entitled to know about this stuff, and so you're going to vigorously seek additional information about what the charges are. But that said, I think that the lawyers for Trump understand pretty fundamentally what's at play here.

Joan Anything, Well, I'm sort of I think I think we've, like I know what, let's talk about the Special counsel for a minute and that investigation. Do you think that investigation will overtake this investigation? Which of the aspects of the Special Council, of the Moro Lago documents or genuinely either one? You pick? You pick one. If there's a there's a whole realm of possible indictments here, and we'll be on air now till about nine tonight. Which is

the stronger case as you see things at this point? Well, it's interesting because both cases now have had very recent important developments. In both cases, I believe that the prosecutor has needed more direct evidence tying Donald Trump to the activities. So in Mara Lago, I think we needed more evidence about Trump and the documents and what he said and

did with respect to those documents. We now know that his former lawyer Corkran, who tried to evade testimony assertions of executive privilege, has been required to testify and he was in the grand jury for three hours. We know that the person who worked on Trump's security team that actually moved the boxes may well have to testify too, So those are very important witnesses to understand whether they

obstructionist behavior. Similarly, in January six we now know that Mark Meadows and a whole host of other inner circle Trump people have been required to testify in that case. So in both cases we're getting inside the sort of dome of Trump's inner circle to see what Trump knew and did. And I think both of those cases there for are in a much stronger position they were a week or so ago, which is the more which is

a stronger case. I think the Mari Lago case is the more straightforward case if they can tie Trump to obstructing the investigation, that is, he gave directions of any sort to not reply to the grandeous speedis I think it's a much more cut and dried case. The January sixth case of conspiracy to evade, to avoid, and to obstruct the transfer power a little bit more complicated case.

So if I had to pick one or the other, if I were prosecutives that pick one or the other to try, and I had the evidence to tie Trump

to the activity. I'll go at the Marlongo doc so Michael June made the case earlier that Special Council Jack Smith has been moving very, very expeditiously, and I'm wondering whether or not the developments today this indictment from the New York DA proves to be a little bit of an accelerant to that process, does it or does Jack Smith continue to move at his own pace irrespective of

what we've learned today. I think the latter. I think that he has to be bound by the law and facts in his case that this doesn't put any additional pressure on him to be second, if you will, I think that all of these guys, unless they have a statue of limitations like New York had where they had to move quickly before the statue of limitations ran out, which is still a sort of an issue there, I think these guys have to go at their own pace

and make their determinations on the facts and the evidence that they're able to acquire. Great conversation, Michael, thank you so much for making time to chat with us on today's developments. He is Michael Zeldon, former federal prosecutor and former special counsel to Robert Muller when he worked at the Department of Justice June. Before we get to our next guest, is there anything that came out of that conversation that caused you to think of something in a

way maybe that you hadn't thought of previously. Well, I think you know, truth be told, we've all discussed these cases and they haven't even been brought yet. We've all discussed these cases over and over and over again, all the little details. I mean, how many cases do you know about each subpoena that's been served in all the different objections to the subpoena end, do you get a comment from the possible defendant on it? So, I think

that you know, we know the facts. As Bob min sends before, the facts are not going to surprise us in this case. We know the facts. The question is whether putting those facts before a jury and the novel theory, whether the jury will convict. Let's bring in Jack Fitzpatrick. He is Bloomberg government congressional reporter who joins us on the line from Washington. Jack, have you had any reaction or learned of any reaction on the part of the White House not from the White House yet. It'll be

very interesting to see how they handle this. It is such an unprecedented event that it's hard to imagine that they will not put out a comment. But at the same time, with the legal troubles around former President Trump, it's not something that President Biden has engaged in very frequently, so it's a difficult position for them. But at this point they are They have not put out a statement just yet. It is six forty on Wall Street. You're

listening to a special coverage. Normally it would be Daybreak Asia, but we have preempted that programming to cover the indictment of former President Donald Trump here in New York City by the city's District Attorney, the charge directing hush money payments to a porn star during his twenty sixteen campaign. I say that loosely because June, at this point we

don't know of the specific charges. I just want to be specific about that, and I also want to be specific in bringing back into the conversation Bloomberg's Ed Baxter, who joins us from our newsroom in San Francisco. Eddie, I'll turn things over to you, let me ask Jack. Then I want to I want to and I know that we've talked about this during the hour, but how do mister Trump will try? He's a master of rolling

this and spenning this. How does he spin it and actually politically I guess we'll have to wait and see some But does this work in his favor? He will definitely try to make this work in his favor. It raises some questions about how many people will consider this something that works in his favor. There is a statement out by the former president, a long statement essentially thinking

this is political persecution and election interference. It's a long list of his complains about how he's been treated, taking shots at the Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg considering that he got out in front of this. This for his die hard supporters could present a fundraising opportunity, but it certainly raises questions about how other Republicans respond to it. What Ron De Santis has to say, what Nicky Haley has to say, what maybe more moderate Republican voters think about this.

So it may be sort of a split answer in terms of if it helps him with some die hard supporters but hurts him elsewhere. Now appalling wise, he is still acting showing very very very strongly with his base. But within the Republican Party, have we seen any signs whatsoever that an indictment could weaken that support or do we know or could have strengthen it. That is very difficult to predict, and to be honest, at this point when you look at the polls and you see he

is the front runner in a sense. There was just a Fox News poll showing Trump in a theoretical Republican primary matchup with fifty four percent, a thirty point advantage over RHN DE Santists. But remember that it is still March twenty twenty three. Desantists has not launched a campaign. People are not coming after him just yet. A lot of Republicans are playing this very carefully, maybe alluding to

it at times. There is a statement by Decantists that will alluded to his legal troubles, but really, we won't know how this plays in polls one until we get the polls in two, until someone whether it's RHN DE Santist or some other competition decides to go after him and make it an issue and try to really make a run. Yeah, Jack's hanging there for a second, because we are getting a headline up on the terminal that it looks like the arraignment, at least according to CNN,

will happen our early next week. So June, let me ask you, and for somebody who's just tuning in to Bloomberg, the legal process itself. Obviously, it's not going to be as public as the end quotes average citizen. But what do we expect for the arraignment and for any kind of arrest. Well, first of all, Alvin Bragg's office is going to work with Donald Trump's attorneys to arrange him turning himself in, so there won't be any purer walk.

There won't be any handcuffs, though I have heard that there have been discussions about whether or not there might be handcuffs at some point. That's still an issue apparently, but there don't have to be handcuffs. And also, the Secret Service has been coordinating security plans with the NYPD, and the event of an indictment in arraignment, the arraignment

would take place in open courtroom in Manhattan. Trump would be fingerprinted and booked before that, and that mug shot most likely will find its way to you know, every media outlet in the country. So as far as that the fingerprinting and the booking that would be done as in any other case, and then he'll be arraigned in open court. And as I said before, it's it's not likely, it's unlikely that he you know, that there would be

any question of bail or anything like that. They'll release him on his own recognizance, and then the next step depends on, you know, the judge when the next date is that they'll do something in court. But you know, a lot of this is up to Donald Trump, whether he wants to keep this, you know, just driving down to the office and turning himself in, or whether he's going to come out of the court house after that

and appear before his whoever's gathered there. I mean, you have to say one thing, The New York Police Department is ready for whatever happened. They have barricades up, they have put special cameras on top of the telephone poles, and they're prepared for this. They've dealt with all kinds of you know, large groups in different circumstances, and I don't think anything will happen in New York. I think

they're well prepared for what's going to For whatever happens here. Yeah, and of course there have been just in social media, there have been memes there, you know, the late night comedians have shown pictures of him behind bars. At this point, there's no realistic thinking that he will spend any time in jail or is there No. I don't know even if he's convicted, if he would spend any time in jail. To tell you the truth, just remember this, he travels

with a Secret Service contingent. So if you even thought about putting him in jail with a Secret Service agents being the cell with him, would they be outside? There's no way he will. He will be held in a in a prison cell. Yeah, Okay, and Jack then you know, politically, he's still doing a lot of stuff on social media and campaign he has announced for the presidency. Does this keep him from from doing any of the campaign rallies, to do any of campaigning, or do we expect that

he might even step it up? Well, well, we'll see how the exactly how this plays out and what the logistics of it are. But I mean it's something he's already played up. He also has not been extremely active yet because we are early in the presidential cycle for twenty twenty four. He hasn't been, you know, Cris crossing the country constantly on a presidential campaign trail. So there are a lot of unknowns, but it does not seem like we are at a point right now where this

would immediately interfere with his political plans. In fact, it's something that he has played up and potentially could fundraise off of. Not that this is a good thing for him overall, necessarily, but it is something that he is speaking out about very publicly and seemingly trying to use to motivate his core supporters. Still, okay, Jack, Hey, thank you so much for your help. I really appreciate it.

Bloomberg's Jack Fitzpatrick, Um, let's bring in June. You're still there, I know, and we're going to bring in Joshua at Katzenberg, professor at University of New Mexico Law School. I know you know Joshua very well. June. You want to go ahead, and well, you know, I'll ask the question. The first question that we're that we're asking basically every guest, is

what's your reaction to this finally happening. Well, I think it's settles, you know, it settles a question in my mind as to whether or not a former president can ever be indicted. You know, we've seen this happen in other democracies, in Italy, in France, in particular, in Japan. You know, there was a Japanese prime minister indicted over

a Lockheed scandal in the nineteen seventies. And so I don't think it's an unhealthy thing for a former president to be on the same position is everybody else in the country. But but yeah, I'm surprised that it happened with the rapidity it did. Yeah, So so Joshua the path of this, then he'll go through because this is a Manhattan District attorney, so he'll go through basically a local process. He in the past has liked to go in the process of basically appealing everything all the way

up to the Supreme Court. Where how does this go? Where does it end? Well, most of it will stay in state court. It's very difficult to get a federal court to review state criminal court actions. There is a very narrow appeal process under the federal rules of civil procedure to do so. But we don't know what arguments will raise and just the this isn't fair, it's politically motivated that doesn't get you into federal court. What is likely to flow this process down is something known as

this goovery. The defense counsel in this case will undoubtedly file dozens and dozens of motions that are not frivolous but will come up the works, and so we won't have an answer as to what the jury will see for a while to come. Okay, And does this any way interact with the timing of the other cases, I know with us Hour, we've talked about We've talked about Georgia. You have also the classified documents. Do just behind the

scenes in the legal boardrooms. Do you wait and time and do this or can all of these kind of merge together? Well? You know, the New York Manhattan District Attorney in the Fulton County prosecutor down in Georgia are running two completely independent investigations, and so my sense is they probably didn't do much in the way of coordinating,

nor should they. The federal investigation is a different matter to the We don't know the extent which the federal government may have or did not assist in either of those two investigations. Obviously, some of the data that was developed in the January sixth commission by the House of Representatives could be used in either of the two state investigations, but particularly so in the Georgia one. Yeah, okay, now yeah, and that they in Georgia they've actually said that they're

moving forward on that as well. So if I'm hearing you correctly, they could all they could all be working simultaneously at the same time, couldn't they. Yeah. Absolutely, And in response to an earlier question that someone else was asked on the show about how does this effect as campaigning under ordinary New York and frankly the other forty nine states criminal justice systems, there's a valid reason for delaying a trial in terms of the lawyers having to

get ready for a trial. It's a very unique argument to say, hey, I'm running for political office, so I can't go to trial on this date. That probably doesn't fall into the category of a reasonable request to delay trial, but you never know, so, Jessure, we expected that this indictment was going to come out last week, and then we had a witness called basically by Trump's lawyers to attack the credibility of Michael Cohen, and then we had

a rebuttal sort of witness called by the prosecutors. Do you think that the prosecutors in this case did too much in the grand jury called too many witnesses and why, Well, you know, it's hard to know. And the reason I say that it's hard to know is is that they may have wanted to put on the strongest case possible to withstand a appeals against the indictment as opposed to

appeals against the potential conviction, should one ever happen. And so my senses that's why they probably frontloaded the grand jury with as many witnesses as they did. Now, having said that, that doesn't tie them into calling those witnesses and the actual criminal trial. So I don't think it was a mistake to do that. But I do think that I don't have a sense that mister Bragg wanted this news release today. Maybe he did, but this news broke from an anonymous source to the New York Times,

and then three anonymous sources came through. And what that tells me is that it's probably occurred before mister Bragg wanted it too, and before all of the law enforcement was ready for it to occur. Yeah, and that would coincide with the grand jury itself on a three week vacation.

I mean, this came basically out of a blue and a surprise, I would say to most anybody, Yeah, I'm wondering if someone jumped the gun for personally, you know, for personal or political reasons, kind of like the grand juror who leaked information publicly so we know her identity down in Fulton County, Georgia. That's my sense that now there is another possibility of the grand jury being on

a vacation for three weeks. And that possibility is what if mister Bragg intended that grand jury to investigate the potential for other charges, so it could have been Yeah, that's why the vacation could have occurred. They got more witnesses together, but they couldn't get those witnesses before the

grand jury for another three weeks. And I'm fascinated just in the Trump defense, and of course it's going to be different in the courtroom than what we're going to hear mister Trump trying to tweet on truth social where it's a witch hunt, where it's persecution, all of those kinds of things. There's a paper trail that goes back to him writing a check to Michael Kohn going through all of that stuff. Also with Trump denying that anything

ever had had happened at that was personal expense. Your take, does any of that I have the possibility of holding legal water. No. I mean, first of all, in order to get some of that evidence in the I didn't know or it didn't happen. You know, I'm hard pressed to think that in order for that to come before

a jury, he'd have to take the stand. And if I were his defense counsel, he's that type of witness I would not want taking the standard being subject across examination because of all the conflicting things he said, and he's tweeted. You want if a defendant takes the stand, you want them to be consistent above all else. And you know, mister Trump has not been consistent. I have he said that the other parts of the tweets or the other subject areas of his tweets about being a

witch hunt. That's not evidence that's going to come before a jury. Um, you know, this is a politically charged pace. That allegation or they're out to get me. That allegation, that's not evidence. That could be an argument raised before I judge to dismiss the charges. But it's really unlikely that it would ever go you know, that kind of an argument would ever be placed before a jury. Yeah, okay, Well, and and just very very quickly here will we see

Donald Trump on the stand? I doubt it. Yeah, like I look like I said, You know, I wouldn't if I were a defense counsel, I'd be very wary about it's his choice. A defense counsel can't stop him. But he said a lot of different things about a lot of different things, and that would be great fought or to cross him. If for the prosecutor, it would be just just from the outside, it would be fun. Joshua, thank you very much, really appreciate your time. Joshua Kassenberg, Professor,

University of New Mexico Law School. June is here going to bring Doug Krisner back into the conversation, you guys, thoughts, June. One of the things I'm most curious about is whether or not there's going to be any reaction on the

part of the public here in New York. You were talking earlier about both the Secret Service in the NYPD taking preemptive measures around the courthouse in Lower Manhattan, right yeah, and you know, when this first came out or when Donald Trump said that he was going to be arrested, which was less Saturday, and so Saturday before last hot time flies. So we expected a lot of demonstrations, A lot of people in the New York Police Department ramped

up for that, and we found very little people. In fact, the press outnumbered the protesters outside the courthouse and outside Trump Tower, where you usually find any kind of protesters

for or against Trump there. So, you know, I think that a lot of people bull who might be you know, avid Trump supporters might be scared off off a little by the January sixth investigation and prosecutions where you know, they came, some of them came to something that they didn't know what would happen, and boom, they ended up being inside the you know, the capital and getting prosecuted. So I think a lot of people who are you know, who might be the really avid supporters might stay back.

And you know the problem is too that since Trump said this, it's been people have been worked up, worked up, worked up. Now that it's happened, it's almost anticlimactic in a way. And it's the same with his saying it's a witch hunt. It's a witch hunt. It's a witch hunt. How many times can you say that? And that's something that the jury. He's not going to be able to preach that to the jury in any of these cases. It's going to be based on what happens, you know,

in the courtroom and the testimony. So I think that I'm not expected acting anything to happen, but you never know, You never do know, Eddie. And I heard you earlier saying that CNN had been reporting that mister Trump will likely be arraigned early next week. Is that right? Yeah, Yeah, that is the preliminary report, and they were early on

in the reporting of this. Just very briefly from me, Doug, I think that it's gonna be really interesting to see how the base of the Republican Party, not the not the Trump not the MAGA base, but the base plays this to see as we go forward toward the election. All right, that we'll wrap up a special hour of coverage here on Bloomberg Radio. As we tracked the news on Donald Trump being indicted in New York by the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and CNN reporting earlier that

mister Trump will likely be arraigned earlier next week. This is Bloomberg