From: allin
On an “All-In Podcast” episode, discussions centered on the indictment of Donald Trump in New York and its broader legal and political implications.
The New York Indictment
Donald Trump was arraigned in New York, facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records [00:04:17]. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleged that Trump orchestrated a “catch and kill” scheme to suppress damaging information before the 2016 election [00:04:24]. Prosecutors claim the scheme involved falsifying business records to conceal payments made to Stormy Daniels [00:04:40]. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges [00:04:31].
The indictment itself was not a “speaking indictment,” meaning Alvin Bragg did not explain the detailed legal theories or evidence, which contributed to confusion and divisiveness [00:04:48].
Criticisms and Concerns about the Case
Many, including some on the left like former SDNY head Preet Bharara, expressed concerns about the strength of this particular case, viewing it as potentially the weakest of the four major investigations Trump is currently under [00:05:10].
Key criticisms include:
- Underlying Behavior Legality The private settlement with Stormy Daniels, even if considered “hush money,” is not illegal [00:06:21].
- Use of Personal Funds Trump used personal funds, not campaign funds, for the payment [00:06:36]. Critics argue that had he used campaign funds, that too would likely have been alleged as a crime, creating a “damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t” scenario [00:06:46].
- Jurisdiction and Federal Law Campaign finance laws are typically federal, not state, making it outside Alvin Bragg’s usual purview [00:07:15]. The feds previously investigated this matter and chose not to prosecute [00:07:21].
- Statute of Limitations The matter is well past the statute of limitations [00:07:59]. To elevate misdemeanors to felonies, the crime would need to be in aiding and abetting another crime, such as tax evasion [00:09:27].
Comparison to Michael Cohen and Hillary Clinton
Michael Cohen, who was involved in the payments, went to jail for the same underlying crime [00:04:43], leading some to argue that Trump would have been prosecuted regardless of his presidential status [00:13:30].
A comparison was drawn to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which paid a fine for miscategorizing payments to Christopher Steele for the Steele dossier as legal fees [00:07:33]. Critics highlight that no one suggested locking her up over this, suggesting a double standard or political motivation in Trump’s case [00:07:46].
Political Motivations and Implications
A significant theory, supported by some like Ann Coulter, suggests that the indictment is a “Honeypot” designed to rally Republicans around Trump, thereby securing him as the Republican nominee [00:08:30]. This would allow Joe Biden to face Trump in the general election, whom Biden’s campaign might prefer to run against compared to a younger, more vigorous candidate like Ron DeSantis [00:08:57].
The perceived political nature of the prosecution is seen as “poisoning the well” for any future cases against Trump, potentially causing all subsequent cases to be viewed as partisan “witch hunts” [00:12:32].
Concerns were raised about the significant cost and disruption to New York City due to security measures every time Trump appears [00:09:58]. The broader issue of criminalizing political disagreements, especially against presidential candidates, was highlighted as a negative trend in US political dynamics [00:14:26].
Other Cases Against Trump
Beyond the New York indictment, Trump faces three other major investigations:
- January 6 events [00:13:01]
- Election interference in Georgia [00:13:01]
- Stolen documents and obstruction of justice [00:13:05]
A core question is whether these cases would be pursued if Trump were a private citizen who never ran for president, with the argument that the targeting is political [00:13:14].