Trump Pleads Not Guilty

an intense national debate over the prosecution. At a press conference, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg said the office has brought these kinds of cases before. Thirty four false statements made to cover up other crimes. These are felony crimes in New York State. No matter who you are, we cannot and

will not normal serious criminal conducts. The thirty four counts are ordinarily misdemeanors under New York law, but are charged as felonies in the case because they were allegedly committed in the service of another crime, in this case, promoting Trump's candidacy by unlawful means. The indictment stems from Bragg's probe of hush money payments made just before the twenty sixteen election to cover up an alleged decade old affair.

Trump denies the affair and any illegal acts. My guest is former prosecutor Joshua Castenberg, a professor at the University of New Mexico Law School. So tell us about the Manhattan District Attorney's case against Trump. So it's thirty four charges of their bones information that doesn't give the general public a full outline of who the hush money went

to and what the defined purpose was. But you can drill down and understand that the hush money was paid as an expense other than what it was and reported for matters other than what it was stated for, and it was done to affect the election, and under New York law, that makes it a felony. What did you think about the way Alvin Bragg tried to address I think his critics who'd been saying that this was, you know, much ado about nothing, he said that this is a

lie time and time again, and then a cover up. Right. I mean, I think he made the case as to why he brought these charges, and that these charges were brought not as a personal vendetta, but rather because there

was evidence of a crime. What he didn't say, and he perhaps was wise not to add, is that, you know, for the six years that have preceded the four years of the presidency, the election before the presidency, there wasn't inkling that Trump didn't do things by the books, by the rules, and there was sort of the thumb in the eye sort of mentality that would go on, and that this isn't a case of the FBI or New York investigators targeting an individual who's unknown to the public,

but rather investigating the finances of someone who has kind of fallen under scrutiny before. So do you think that he hasn't been answered his critics enough when he said that, you know, we investigated, and then I bring cases when they're ready to be brought. No, I think he did exactly what he needed to do, because if he said what I said or made that suggestion, he would go a step too far and violate prosecutorial ethics. So he

made the case. I didn't make this clear enough. He made the case as far as he would be permitted to under prosecutorial ethics without crossing any lines. But that's the best he could do. So in that regard. I think he did a very effective press confidence And also what about his trying to talk about New York the importance of business records and how this is just another one of hundreds of cases that we've brought like this,

his white collar crime. Yeah, look, he has the ability to say that this is not the first or the hundreds or the thousandth white collar crime that New York criminal courts will try over the course of the next year, or have tried in the prior year or two. That's absolutely right. This case is unique because of the defendant who's going to be on trial for it, but not

because of the charges. Explain what happens next, Well, what happens next is there'll be a process known as a discovery process, and that's a constitutional process under both the US and the New York Constitution that require the prosecution to provide all evidence in their possession that they intend to use at the trial, and also all known exculpatory

evidence that they may have obtained. So it's not enough to just give to the defense, Hey, herow witnesses, and here's documentary evidence that we're going to bring to trial. The prosecute also has an obligation through that process to give evidence that would tend to negate the guilt or prove the innocence, if you want to put it another way,

of mister Trump or any other defendant. That process takes a while, and then they'll be all sorts of pre trial hearings, including motions raised by the defense to dismiss the charges, probably change venue. That'll probably be one. And also you may see emotion for a gag order or some other type of speech restriction raised in the future as well, if there's another true social type picture with

the former president, the baseball bat and the like. These allegations have been out there for a long time and we've heard most of them. Do you think that the defense has to do really any kind of investigative work beyond what they already know? Oh? Probably so. Mister Trump has hard working defense counsel, and they're not going to just rely on the information and data that's given to

them that by mister Bragg. They're going to conduct their own investigations, and they're probably want to investigate matters that their own client tells them, you know, matters that you would tend to undermine the integrity of the witnesses called by the prosecution, so they will investigate. How long it takes, I can't speculate. Do you think that they'll be able to get it dismissed as a novel kind of legal argument, No, I don't think so. I mean, these laws have been

on the books for a long time. I think the defense is most likely avenue to make a hard case for dismissal. Is a statute of limitations case as well as you know, the prosecution not having evidence of mister Trump's specific intent to commit a fraud, but rather him just signing hundreds of documents on any given day and not always knowing what he was signing, and what about a change of venue, it's likely if they can show

that there aren't jurors who are bare and impartial. Now, the law doesn't require adults serving on a jury to be an empty vessel. It doesn't require someone to have been a sort of a sleep coma and now they're awakened and they're like, oh, I didn't read about this. But it does require people to be fair and impartial and come in with an open mind, with no preconceived notions, and not have a bias against mister Trump. And that's

the important point. You know, I'm convinced that in the United States's largest city there are enough citizens out there that you could get a jury. But if the process takes too long, or if it looks improbable, they'll change venue if the defense raises emotions. We've been speculating and speculating about what this will be. It's partly what I expected.

I expected these charges, but I also expected a broader charge of conspiracy or criminal enterprise or something broad like that, an all encompassing charge, and that wasn't in there, and so that caught me by surprise. On the other hand, of mister Bragg brought that charge, he would be accused of overreach. And so I think, you know, there's an old rule in charging cases that prosecutors have, and that's prosecute what's serious and what you know. You can prove

what you believe in your heart you can prove. And so I think that's what we're looking at right now. So and do you think that looking at the indictment and all the months of work that the prosecutors basically have their case set out, Oh they do. I mean when they asked for it, when they asked for an early trial date. I think they asked for an early trial date not to call a bluff or make a bluff on the court, but because they believe they're ready to go. What do you think about the strength of

the charges. Well, you know, first of all, we don't know what the evidence is that's going to be backing these charges. The charges are simply ink on a sheet that the prosecutor was able to show to a grand jury and obtain an indictment by probable cause for that. So I'll get more clarity to the strength of the prosecution's case in the days and weeks ahead through a process known as discovery, and that's when the prosecutor has to name witnesses and provide evidence over to mister Trump's

defense counsel. Having said that, you know, these charges business fraud type charges are going to be characterized in a lot of different ways, but at their core, whenever someone is charged with a crime of fraud, there really is essentially just like tax fraud, they're charged with a crime of not paying into the system what the system demands

of them. In this case, you think about you know money that New York, the State of New York collects this is money that goes to police salaries, teacher salaries, school improvements, road improvements, keeping the subways running. Things like that. You know you're going to hear. Look, it's a political crime. They're not serious charges. Well, if you talk to a police officer who hasn't gotten a raise or a teacher

who's looking at retirement, it all adds up. This case was termed a zombie case by a former prosecutor in the office because it died and kept getting revived over the years. Does that make a difference in the long run. It matters that it takes that long to bring a case to trial. But I think we can read a lot of different angles into that. And one angle I suggest is, you know, the Trump's attorneys, they're saying, well, look, even the dj didn't bring this forward, and as are

the former president's backers in Congress. But let's keep in mind that mister Trump dismissed a very well regarded United States Attorney from the Southern District of New York, you know, mister pret Barr. He put his own people in there, and so we don't know what happened in the US Attorney's office, whether they looked at the charges and said they're good, but we're not going to go forward, or they looked at potential charges and said they're terrible, We're

not going to go forward. Then we get to divance his tenure as DA. These may not be the identical charges that Vance's team was looking at. We don't know that either, but it is problematic because it makes for quite a bit of political fodder, both in Congress and on the street. Well, thanks so much, Joshua. That's Professor Joshua Castenberg of the University of New Mexico Law School.

It was the most expensive race for a state Supreme Court seat in US history, thirty nine million dollars spent on advertising, and it swung Wisconsin's highest court toward liberals for the first time in fifteen years. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Janet Proto Sawitz, a liberal, defeated former Justice Dan Kelly, a conservative, by more than ten points. Speaking to supporters after the election, Proto Sawitz said the state was ready

for a change in its highest court. Our state is taking a step forward to a better and brighter future where our rights and freedoms will he protected. In his concession speech, Kelly was less than gracious and accused his opponent of running a dirty campaign. I wish that in a circumstance like this, I would be able to concede to a worthy opponent, But I do not have a worthy opponent to which I can concede. Joining me is Bloomberg.

National politics reporter Ryan Teague backwith Ryan tell us about all this money spent on advertising. The good news for in Wisconsin is that the there are for ten years, so that money will keep for a while, as though I imagine that there'll be some more competitive Supreme Court reasons coming up in the coming years. Most of his money was spent on behalf of Janet fer Se, who's the Milwaukee area judge who it was backed by Democrats. She was able to use her money more effectively too,

because it came directly from Democrats. So because she's spending the money herself, then she gets a better rate from the broadcasters under the rules. She spent not only more money than the Republican backed candidate Dan Kelly, but she got more big for her box. So she was running a lot of that, and she was spending most of those bad time talking about abortion, whereas dan Kelly most of the money was being spent for him by outside groups. What was the focus of the campaigning Was it one

particular issue? You know, State Supreme Court races are kind of weird because the candidates usually don't want to talk for sort of judicial essex reasons. They don't want to get too much into what they think about the issue. This one really broke the mold on that there is an upcoming case involving in eighteen forty nine, one that's essentially banned abortion in Wisconsin since Roe versus. Wade was overturned, and that case is clearly going to be decided by

the winner of this rate. There was a four three conservative majority on the One of those conservatives was being vacated and the replacement would determine which side had the majority. Janet Perta was running basically by going out there with a wink and a nod and saying, I really support women with abortion. So she was really clearly signaling that she would overturn the law and restore abortion rights in Wisconsin. Dan Kelley has done some work for our anti abortion

groups in the past. He was more circumspecting. He wasn't going to say how he would rule, and that her claims that he would uphold the band were inaccurate, and that she was violating judicial ethics by even tipping her hand as much as she was. So abortion was clearly clearly the driver of the rights. Were Democrats so focused on this as well because they have no chance of

regaining control of the state legislature in the near future. Yes, jerrymandering is the other issues that this really would decide, although I don't think it really motivates voters and it wasn't really a focus of the ads for to say, which was very clear in saying that she thinks that there are current maps in the state are as she called them rigged. Political scientists I've talked to have a number of different ways of measuring how jerrymander maps are.

Basically they all come back saying that these are jerrymandered, and they've been that way since two eleven, and there's not really any way to fix that under the current law and under the current court. So for to say, what's indicated that she would revisit that issue and that those maps may be overturned, which would give Democrats a fighting chance that winning back the legislature and winning a few more in the Congessional delegation, which is also turnemas.

So as we know, Wisconsin plays a part repeatedly in presidential elections, So explain what happened in twenty twenty when it came within a single state Supreme Court vote of

switching the state's electoral college. This was another issue that was kind of low key but was present in the race because Dan Kelly had done some work for the state Republican Party in that capacity, he advised them on a fake elector scheme during Trump's attempts to overturn his loss in Wisconsin in twenty twenty, and he was cited by the January sixth Committee in its Furt Court as

one of the people who had worked on that. He tried to sort of downplay that and say, you know, I was just asked my opinion on things and gave something of advice and it was a one time conversation. But that raised a lot of questions, and there was some third party groups that ran as attacking him on that issue and saying we don't want someone on Supreme Court who might back one of these efforts in the future.

And we have seen in other races where that's become an issue that people really don't like election denial, and electri deniers pretty much lost in most of the state wide races that they were on the ballot for last November. In Wisconsin, this is particularly Germane because there was a OR three decision with one of the conservative justices joining with the liberals to throw out the attempt by Donald Trump to challenge his loss and say we're not going

to hear it. We're going to We're not going to go there. So there was some concern there that they were one vote away, as there were from from hearing that, and who knows what might have happened from there. His concession speech was not what you would call graceful. He said, I wish you that in circumstances like this, I would be able to concede to a worthy opponent. But I do not have a worthy opponent to which I can concede.

Were there hard feelings between the two of them, I mean, aside from even saying I don't have a worthy opponent? He said, to which and not to whom y are known for those little ticks there, but like he didn't even call her a person. Basically, in what passed for a consession, I guess I mean that was really really classless and not gracious at all. Now, he was very upset because he did not like the ads that were running against him, and they're one debate that they had

in late March. He really went after her for her ads and said that you don't know what I'm thinking. You're slandering me with these ads about abortion, and you know, seemed to really be bothered by that. The ads did not strike me, as someone who watches a lot of

political ads as being particularly beyond the pale. I know judges and he was a past justice on the State Supreme Quarter, had been appointed may not be used to that rough and tumble, but he also worked for the State Republican Party, So it was a little mystifying to me that he was quite this bothered by his loss. Now, that wasn't eleven point loss, and it wasn't second time time that he's lost an election for the State Supreme Court in the last few years, So maybe he was

just taking it more personally. There's some people who are worried that this signals that there may be more to come here the legislature. The Republicans just warned a supermajority on the legislature and a special election that was also on the ballot, and that gives them the ability to impeach statewide officials. And there had already been some people in the state Republican party throwing around the idea of

impeaching for to se with if she was elected. That's to several steps between now and that possibility, which I think is still fairly remote because you're kind of got to get everybody on board with that idea. But if it looks like she's going to throw out the Gerryman and during and that could affect the livelihood of all of the members of the legislature, there may be a temptation to take the fight and continue it. So I

think we'll see where that goes. It's definitely a very closely fought state that it's very evenly tied between the two parties, and Republicans have been able to use that during Mandarin to end their control of the screenport in the state to really kind of old power for a long time. Democrats with this win look to be breaking that lock, and so I expect that their counter reaction to that will be pretty fierce. So we'll see this

state the real locus of activity. I think in twenty twenty four, do they have grounds that they are going to use to impeach her on already? Are they going to come up with grounds? I think if you're saying, let's impeach someone who hasn't even been in office, yeah, I think you're kind of tipping your hand that you

don't exactly have grounds. But they probably could come up with something like, well, you know, because she said these maps were rigged and now she is refusing to refuse herself from you know, a case on it, then she should be impeached. They also, we were attacking her for accepting money from the State Democratic Party, although that's a pretty routine thing, you know, saying that she should recuse

herself from any cases involving the State Democratic Party. So imagine that there will be a lot of different arguments that they could make if they decided that something that they want to do. And again, if if it really looks like, you know, they could lose control of the left fature by new maps being drawn up, then that may be something that moves more closer to a possibility. But I would still say we're always awesome, and she won by a wide margin, so it didn't even end

up being that close of a race. Yes, he won by eleven percent. This was a blowout. This was turnout was up, and turnout was and and the youth turnout was incredibly high. The area around the University of Madison, Wisconsin. Turnout was extremely high there and they were voting. And Dane County there by like eighty percent for pro to say with even as for to say was holding down down the Republican margin and some of the suburbs that

they traditionally win. So this has shown I think again as with our Governor Tony Win in November, that Democrats have figured out how to win Wisconsin right now, and it's largely using abortion. It's an issue that's helping them win the suburbs, and it's helping them to turn out, and it's helping them win women voters, and by enough of a margin to offset what otherwise, like I said,

is a really closely tied stake. Do you think that Democrats are going to be looking at this race and the abortion strategy used and perhaps using it in national races or in other races. I mean, I definitely think that we're going to see that be an issue nationally

in twenty twenty four. President Biden does not like talking about social issues because he thinks that they rile people up on the other side as much as they rile up your side, and so he looks for ways to de escalate them whenever possible and change the object to kitchen table stuff. Abortion is the one exception there, and that's larger because it clearly right now riles up more people on the side of supporting abortion right then it does rile up people who are opposed to abortion, Like

there is a turnout advantage here. If you can make a race about abortion and you can show that there will be an actual consequence if you vote on this, then you're going to get that higher turnout and you're

going to win those voters. So I think Democrats are definitely going to be looking to making more races about that, and I think that Biden will definitely be talking about it a lot in his ads and his campaign stops, even though it's not a natural issue for him, because this has just yet another example of that being a very effective message for Democrats and one that the Republicans really did not have a good counter for the State

Supreme Court are a lot of their decisions so close. No, it's really just on that handful of issues where you really get that partisan divide and it matters. I think there's a lot of issues that state supreme courts consider about this law or that law, and you know, how should we determine legislative intent of this or that? And those can break in all kinds of ways. They're really not a part of some sort of hotbeds that I

think people see, like the Supreme Court. But when it's crunch time, Um, you know, on a handful of issues there there are divisions. The proportion was clearly one and jerrymandering is clearly another. And you know, I imagine it's been fifteen years since Democrats had a majority on the state supreme courts. Imagine there's a lot of issues that they hadn't even bothered with because they didn't think they

would win. So we may see you know, some Democratic allied groups going to the state Supreme Court with the arguments about union organizing or social issues and trying to see if they can win a case there that might help them out or help them achieve them policy goal. So you know, it will definitely be a fee change there in the state in terms of who has the power. Thanks so much, Ryan, that's Bloomberg. National politics reporter Ryan

Teague beckwith I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg,