[music]

DA Bragg: That is exactly what this case is about, 34 false statements made to cover up other crimes. These are felony crimes in New York State no matter who you are.

Brian Lehrer: "No matter who you are, one standard under the law," said Manhattan DA Bragg at his news conference yesterday. It's The Brian Lehrer show on WNYC. Good morning everyone. Let's just jump right in and talk about the facts of the case against Donald Trump. I read the full statement of facts released by Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, in conjunction with the 34-count indictment. Some of the interesting assertions include that Michael Cohen paid income taxes on the money he was given for paying Stormy Daniels.

A rare allegation, not of tax evasion, but of paying taxes you didn't really owe in order to cover up that the money was not income but merely a reimbursement. We'll explain that further. The DA asserts that he has emails and texts that show Trump tried to delay payment to Stormy Daniels until after the 2016 election because then it wouldn't matter if she went public, but the DA says with pressure mounting and the election approaching, Trump did agree to make the payment before the election. Plays into the long history of people saying Trump tries to get out of the money he owes.

There's also a new hush money payment allegation. In addition to the ones made to the two women, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, there was allegedly a $30,000 payment to a former doorman at a Trump building. Maybe you've heard this. The doorman was allegedly trying to sell a claim that Trump fathered a child out of wedlock. Now, the DA says that claim was later shown to be false, but still, Trump had a deal with the National Enquirer's parent company known as AMI to buy the story to hush it up, what's known as a catch-and-kill operation.

That adds to the DA's argument that all these payments were made as part of a deal with Michael Cohen and the National Enquirer Company to suppress claims about Trump for the purpose of the election campaign, not just to avoid personal embarrassment or trouble at home with Melania. We'll start there and talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the case as well as the judge's admonition to refrain from inciting violence while the case proceeds through the justice system.

Just a nice little request. Please refrain from inciting violence while you're getting ready for trial. With me now is Catherine Christian who has held high-ranking positions in the Manhattan DA's office for decades under DAs Robert Morgenthau and Cyrus Vance, including senior trial counsel and director of legal staff training. She's been president of the New York County Lawyers Association. New York County is Manhattan, of course. She is currently a partner in the Liston Abramson Law Firm. Ms. Christian, thanks so much for coming on to share your expertise. Welcome to WNYC.

Ms. Christian: Happy to be here. Longtime listener, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Great. Let's go through some of those facts that I just cited and maybe a few others, and then get your reaction to the debate that's breaking out about whether this is a strong case. Do you understand this allegation that Trump paid Michael Cohen more money than Cohen laid out to pay Stormy Daniels so Cohen could pay taxes that he didn't really owe?

Ms. Christian: [chuckles] Yes. It's bizarre, but it's part of the concealing. "Let's make sure we conceal this really, really good." [chuckles] It's interesting. Yesterday when the indictment came out and I was actually on TV, when I saw it, I was like, "This is not a speaking indictment. This is just the regular run-of-the-mill indictment where you have the charge and the elements and the date." Then there was a statement of facts and I'm like, "Well, this is bizarre. What the heck is the statement of facts?"

Then I read it and then I understood. They made a decision, the District Attorney's office to just do what we call a barebone indictment, which is basically just the charge, just the elements, and then to explain it to the defense attorneys, to the court, and obviously to the public what is actually this indictment about. It's actually, if you read that statement of the facts, and I tell everyone it's up on the Manhattan DA's office website if you really want to know what they're alleging instead of just what I'm saying they're alleging. [crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: It's up on the New York Times website. It's up on a lot of news organizations' websites. I read it over dinner last night. It is a 15-page really good read, folks. You should read it for yourself, right, Ms. Christian?

Ms. Christian: Yes. It's a roadmap of how Trump allegedly, and I'm going to say allegedly because he is innocent to proven guilty, how he allegedly falsified these business records in order to undermine the integrity of the 26th presidential election. It goes through it piece by piece. When I read it, I said, this is their opening statement. They clearly did not put all of the evidence that they have in the case because probably some of it was grand jury evidence that also they want to keep secret for a while, but it went through. I completely forgot about the doorman. [chuckles] When I saw the indictment, I said, "Oh my goodness, 34 accounts just related to Stormy Daniels. No."

The 34 accounts, every account is a crime, a check that was falsified, a check with Trump that was falsified, an invoice that was falsified, a false ledger entry in the Trump organization was falsified. The statement of facts talks about not just Michael Cohen who's the main witness, and, yes, he does have baggage, we have to admit that, but the, I called it the National Enquirer, the AMI, David Pecker, who also assisted in helping pay off Ms. Daniels and helping pay off Ms. McDougal, also known as the Playboy model and the porn star. Then you have the 30,000 to the doorman.

People can say, oh, this is not the crime of the century, and I can't with a straight face say this is more important than what the special counsel is looking at. It is not. It is not more important than what the Fulton County District Attorney's Office is looking at in terms of election interference. It is not, but it's also not a homicide. It is a serious thoughtful case and it is backed up with, which DA's office believe is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ultimately, a jury will make that decision, not the DA. When you read the facts, there are going to be still people who are going to say, "Okay, I get it. It's a crime. I get it. It's strong evidence," but it still just involves a porn star, a Playboy model, and a doorman. What DA Bragg said, which is true, falsifying business records. This is a charge that is, he calls it the bread and butter of the investigation division. It is. I was in the investigation division.

It is the white-collar charge when you're investigating corrupt organizations because they're corrupt because one of the things they're doing, and along with committing brand loss in the tax fraud, is they're falsifying their business records. They have charged it. Mr. Bragg came in January of 2022, over 100 times since he's been in office. The only thing unique about this case is it involves a former president and it involves a porn star and a Playboy model and a doorman. This is not, as he said, he's not selectively prosecuting.

He also inherited. People forget. I worked for Mr. Bragg for seven months. I worked for Cy. Vance for all three terms. These investigations began of Mr. Trump under Cy. Vance.

There's also people, as bad as you think Michael Cohen is, the man pled guilty for basically this act that Mr. Trump is being charged for. He went to prison for what Mr. Trump directed him to do. It's not like these charges suddenly came out of whole air. It was being investigated under Vance. Mr. Bragg took the case over.

You remember there was a big hoopla when Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne, those are the two attorneys, senior attorneys who were leading the investigation of Mr. Vance. When Mr. Bragg came in, he said, "Let's slow down. We're not going to run in the grand jury." They both quit and Mr. Pomerantz wrote a book about it. This has been an on. He said at the time, Mr. Bragg, that it wasn't the end of the investigation. It was just like, "I want to look some more at it." This has been a long three-year investigation and I suspect it's not over.

When I mean not over, we're are still could be looking at Mr. Trump. It's not unheard of that you indict a target, but then you're still are looking at other crimes so stay tuned for that. For what we have now, these 34 accounts, it is serious. They're felonies. Look at how Mr. Trump looked yesterday in court and as he was going into court. I saw that look many, many times of a defendant who is sullen and sober because they've come to the realization, "Oh my goodness, I'm being charged with a felony. I'm going to be arraigned with a felony," particularly someone who doesn't have a criminal record.

He had that look. Now, of course, hours later, he went to Florida and he was back to smirking and saying outrageous things, but in that courtroom, he knew it was a serious deal. If you look, there was no smirking, there was no swagger. He had the look of a man who was just hit with a ton of bricks and that was 34 bricks of felonies, of falsifying business records.

Brian Lehrer: Just on that small point about his look, I've seen others characterize it as he was scowling. He was trying to play a little body language intimidation game with the judge and the DA, you have him as being kind of cowed.

Ms. Christian: I didn't get that. He had, I've seen that look of resignation before. He could have, it's interesting. He's sitting in front of the judge looking cowering, and then he goes out and then he starts trashing him. Why didn't you do it in the courtroom? [laughs] Because he knew, well, I can't do this here. I also think it is sobering no matter what we feel about him. I think he did say, "Oh my goodness, this is real." Remember, he's always known as Teflon Don, and he always escapes civil. Civil cases are very different. The worst that can happen to you is you're found libel and you lose money, which is a big deal, but it's not the same as criminal.

If you don't come to court, someone's going to come and arrest you. It's a big deal and I think he realized that. I don't have sympathy for him, but I think he appreciated that, or at least he had the look of appreciating that this was a big deal. Now, of course, he went out of the courtroom and did something else, and basically, there was no court order by the judge. The judge, as you said, did not issue a gag order. He said, "At this time--" If he did, clearly, Mr. Trump would've violated it last night when he was trashing the judge again and the DA.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, your calls about the evidence and the DA Bragg indictment of Donald Trump for former Manhattan Assistant DA Catherine Christian, welcome here. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, and again, you can read along while we're talking about this if you want, the indictment itself, which is one part of the document and the statement of facts that support the indictment is the second half of the document. They're all over the place, including on our own Gothamist website.

You can go to gothamist.com and find it right there in a WNYC context, and you can call up and talk about any of this or ask Catherine Christian a question, 212-433-WNYC, 433-9692. Just to button up that little tax evasion piece before we go on to other details of the evidence, and maybe this is just for amusement purposes, but I imagine you've prosecuted tax evasion cases before. The Trump Organization CFO, Alan Weisberg was convicted of tax evasion justice this year. Have you ever seen a tax fraud case that involves fraudulently paying more than you owe to cover something up?

Ms. Christian: I'm thinking there must be more to that, as I said, not every piece of evidence is in this statement of facts. I mean, it was enough to get you to understand. It's actually interesting. Last night I had two different lawyers who I respect, one who's an election lawyer and one who's a tax lawyer. One said to me, just to go over the charge, falsifying business records, in order to prove Mr. Trump guilty, the prosecutor has to prove, one, that he put a false entry into his business records.

Two, he did it with the intent to defraud, and three, he intended to commit or conceal another crime. He was asked, Mr. Bragg, why don't you list the crimes in the indictment? He said, the law doesn't require you to do so because remember, it's intent to commit or conceal not that he committed or concealed. The four crimes, if you read the statement of facts, it appears that the District Attorney's office is relying on that he intended to commit or conceal New York State election law.

There's actually a misdemeanor New York State election law that says is a misdemeanor to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means, that's one. Federal campaign finance law, and he exceeded the cap for contributions. Three, the AMI false statements, and then four, tax crimes. The lawyer I know who's a tax lawyer said, well, the best one is tax. The lawyer I know who's an election lawyer said, no, no, no, no, no, the best ones are the election laws. You can see how this is going to be litigated very highly by this defense attorney and back and forth.

Then if Mr. Trump is convicted, is going to go to the appellate division and then onto the court of appeals. If you have even like lawyers who basically are on the prosecution side but are arguing about which one is stronger, you can see what's going to happen. I suspect there's more there to the text than there is because it was interesting during Mr. Bragg's press conference, he just sort of, I would say lightly touched on it, they mischaracterized for tax purposes the true nature of the payments. We'll learn more during the trial, the mischaracterization that they're talking about.

Brian Lehrer: Then there's the assertion that Trump tried to delay the $130,000 hush money payment to Stormy Daniels until after the election, presumably so he could get away with not paying it because after the election it wouldn't matter. Why is that important to the case though?

Ms. Christian: Because one of the defenses which I don't think they'll use again, but of course, they'll use it because they'll just say that Michael Cohen is lying, is that he had no intent of the fraud. This was not about campaign finance. He just didn't want Melania, he didn't want his kids, particularly the young one to know about this. The fact that he allegedly said, you know what, after election if it comes out, who cares? Shows he didn't give a hoot about his wife knowing about it.

That's why that's important because as I was thinking of this as defense attorney before the state and the facts, and it's still going to be a tough case. Believe me, it's going to be a tough case. I was thinking his argument is, "There was no intent to fraud. My intent was I just didn't want people to know about this that I cared about because it's embarrassing." Clearly, if that's true then it's not a crime.

Brian Lehrer: I've heard somebody raise the fact that he did a similar thing in 2011 way before he was a presidential candidate, which indicates that he's got a pattern, he's got a history of doing this just to protect himself from general embarrassment. Is that strong evidence in court if that's a truth fact?

Ms. Christian: If it's just general embarrassment as opposed to, I don't want people to know about this or I don't want this to come out because it's about the election and then all of this concealing. The bottom line is, if he had just said, "Michael, give this woman this amount of money, give this woman that amount of money, give this doorman that amount of money, just tell them to shut up." That's completely legal. [laughs] I could say, "Brian, you know stuff about me, can I give you $50,000 to shut up?" That's legal.

What is not legal is, "What we are going to do is we can't let people know we did that, so we'll pretend it was legal expenses and in fact, I'll put that and lie about that in my business records and we'll create a phony ledger." When people understand particularly that's what the statement of facts will let you know. It wasn't just him saying, "Michael, go pay her." Again, that's simple. I'm sure that happens a lot with very rich people. It was hiding it, lying about it, creating false entries in his business records. They were not legal expenses.

Brian Lehrer: That's what makes it a crime. Here's another bit of evidence around that. It's an audio recording of a phone call between Trump and Michael Cohen recorded by Cohen, where Trump is talking about repaying Stormy Daniels in a way to cover up what the payments are for. Now, listeners, the audio here isn't great. You may have heard this before. We played it I think sometime last year, but DA Bragg brought it up in his statement of facts. We're going to hear them refer to Trump's CFO, Alan Weisselberg, at the beginning of this clip. You'll hear them say, Alan, as part of the plot, as this 15-second clip begins, listen closely.

[start of audio playback]

Michael Cohen: I spoke to Alan about it when it comes time for the financing, which will be-

Donald Trump: Listen, what financing? We'll have to pay you.

Michael Cohen: No, no, no, no, no, no. I got no, no, no.

[end of audio playback]

Brian Lehrer: When we talk about the financing, we'll have to come up with a way to pay for it. Trump says, "I'll pay in cash." Cohen says, "No, no, no, no, no." Why is that phone call important in an evidentiary context? Why did DA Bragg refer to it in his statement of fact?

Ms. Christian: It's one of the bombshell pieces of evidence, which sort of, when he says, "Oh, I didn't know anything about this. Michael Cohen just did it on his own." There you are, now defense attorney is going to argue about the tape and whether it was altered and all that. That's very easy, you're going to have expert to say no, this is the exact recording as it was recorded. When they talk about Michael Cohen and he does have baggage, he has a criminal conviction, he, for whatever reason, and yesterday the judge not only asked the defense attorneys to make their client be quiet, he also said and people, talk to your witnesses.

We all know that he was talking about Michael Cohen. In fact, the prosecutor said, "We've tried [laughs], it's out of our control." This corroborates Michael Cohen. When you have someone, and I had many, I did a long-term of investigation of international narcotics organizations. You can't prosecute effectively an organized crime case, a gang case, a narcotics case unless you use people who worked for the main person you're prosecuting, the associate.

You can think of Michael Cohen as Trump's mini me. You may remember during the election, he was on TV all the time saying how wonderful Mr. Trump was. He never called him Donald, it was, "Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump." He was someone who was--

Brian Lehrer: Now, he's on television saying how terrible he is all the time.

Ms. Christian: Exactly.

Brian Lehrer: The defense can say Cohen says whatever is in his interest.

Ms. Christian: They will say that--

Brian Lehrer: It was in his interest to puff Trump when he was being paid by Trump, now he's got a deal with the state, so he trashes him.

Ms. Christian: Then the prosecutor will then bring out the text messages, the emails, all of this to corroborate him. Like, "You heard Mr. Cohen speak and you can believe him. Why?" Text message, emails, phone records, document after document after document, and then an audio tape. That's typically how you help bolster the credibility of a witness like that. Who has a criminal conviction, who has bad acts?

People forget John Gotti was convicted on the testimony of someone who on the stand confessed to murdering over a dozen people. Sammy the Bull. That was a number of years ago. The juries are smart. If his testimony was not corroborated, Mr. Cohens or Sammy the Bulls, there would've been a not-guilty verdict in that case. It is credible that Mr. Trump would have used Cohen because as I said, he was like his mini-me. He was his right arm. It made sense that he would be the one to be the bad man, so to speak. Everything is corroborated. Well, the government I'm sure are going to say that everything is corroborated and will present that evidence to the jury.

Brian Lehrer: Here's Laura in the Bronx who has a question about the National Enquirer piece, I think. Laura, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Laura: Hi. Thank you very much for taking my call and thank you Ms. Christian. I've been listening in and you're very crisp and clear, and you're conveying a great deal of information. I appreciate it. My question has to do with Mr. Pecker or Packer from the-- I don't know if he's the current or former CEO of the National Enquirer. To your knowledge, is he going to face charges for conspiring in this nasty mess to distort information and to withhold information? What's his status? What's his possibility?

Ms. Christian: Well, his name is Pecker, and I can tell you two things. First, I'll remind people that Michael Cohen was prosecuted by the Southern District of New York. Those are federal prosecutors. By the federal prosecutors and pled guilty, and served time for these acts and other acts. It's my understanding, one, that Mr., I think it's pronounced Pecker, who was a close friend of Mr. Trump's in, "I'll take care of that." You imagine the head of a publishing company, albeit the National Enquirer, agreeing to make payoffs, received immunity when he testified.

First of all, in New York State court, with the exception of a defendant or the target of investigation, when you appear as a witness on behalf of the prosecution, you receive immunity from prosecution. That would have happened when he testified. Were there any other deals that he made with the prosecutor? I don't know. That would be secret. It'll be revealed as part of the discovery process to the defense in the appropriate time. He's received immunity, so he's not going to be prosecuted with that, so he can tell.

You need to do that. People say, "How do you give him that?" Because then how we know what he did? If he was a target or if he was the defendant, you have a right to remain silent. As prosecutors, we call it, use the little fish to go after the big fish. You might have someone, Sammy the Bull, who confessed to killing 12 people who's just horrible, but we need to go after the big guy who's like a mob boss. That's typically how you do these investigations.

Brian Lehrer: With a former assistant Manhattan DA and current partner in the Liston Abramson law firm, Catherine Christian, and let me take a caller to set up this stretch on the doubts about this case because Ron in Queens is calling to express some. Ron, you're on WNYC. Hi there.

Ron: Hey, good morning, Brian. How are you?

Brian Lehrer: All right.

Ron: Good. I haven't called since the pandemic when everything first shut down. It's the last time I spoke to you. It's good to hear from you again. I'm a Black man. I didn't vote for Trump. I'm a lifelong Democrat. I'm born here in Queens County like Trump. I think it's a weak case. I think DA Bragg is wasting taxpayers' money, police overtime, but quick point, I'll get off the phone.

I think it's going to be moved to Staten Island, and I think that's textbook. I hope they move it to Staten Island. I think it's going to be three or four hung juries. Quick question, what's the amount of hung juries that Bragg would maybe, say, just give up? I think it's going to be three or four hung juries. He's going to get off by the hung juries. What does your guest think about that?

Brian Lehrer: Ron, do you want to say though, before you go, why you think it's a weak case that'll result in hung juries?

Ron: You know what? I'm a Black man. I keep putting that in there. I think it's just hush money. Just leave him alone, man. I think DA Bragg made a big mistake. Let the Fed take care of it, let Atlanta take care of it. He paid up the money. I just think it's a weak case, Brian, I'm sorry.

Brian Lehrer: [crosstalk]

Ron: Quick question, I think it's going to be three or four hung juries, can you ask the guest, how many times would DA Bragg bring this if [unintelligible 00:25:59] gets hung three or four times? How many times do you think Da Bragg will bring the case with three or four hung juries?

Brian Lehrer: Ron, thank you very much. Keep calling us. What's your answer to that exact question, Catherine?

Ms. Christian: Well, I'll reply to three things he said. One, I've had lifelong Democrats, some of them are friends of mine, who texts me and say, "Are you kidding me? A case about a porn star?" What he said, that's the same thing. You can say that you think it's a trivial case, you think it's not the most important case in the world, but it's not a weak case. It's actually a very strong case. Again, it still has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It's a strong case in terms of the evidence.

Yes, the facts, you can argue. Oh my goodness, this is not, and I cannot say with a straight face that this is more important than the special counsel investigation. It is not. That investigation involves January 6th, it involves classified documents ending up in his house, it is not, in my opinion, as important what the Fulton County District Attorney is looking at, which is election interference. Which is interesting, this was election interference before the election, and now she's looking at the election interference into Georgia.

That's very serious. There is a civil rape case with E Jean Carroll, which is pending in the federal court of the Southern District of New York. That's serious. AG, Attorney General, Tish James, has a civil fraud matter in state Supreme Court where that's going to probably go to trial if it's not settled. That's very serious. Now he has this. It doesn't mean that this is weak, it is not a weak case. It is a strong case. It is legitimate to have the opinion, and as I said, I have a very close friend who's probably listening now who is as anti-Trump as you can get but thinks that DA Bragg shouldn't have brought this because it's not as serious. I think it may--

Brian Lehrer: Go ahead. Do you want to finish the thought there?

Ms. Christian: I think in many ways-- Can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: Yes.

Ms. Christian: In many ways, it's good. If you think about it, this came first. I heard someone yesterday say, it broke the ceiling. Yes, if a former president commits crime, you actually can get an indictment. Then I think that now, and I hope she doesn't rush, I want her to do it right, the Georgia DA will say, "DA Bragg did that, and the roof didn't cave in, and then all the attention's on him, so now let me slowly go about my work." In terms of the feds, they did have this case, and they chose not to prosecute after, and this came out on Sunday, former District Attorney Cyrus Vance said, "I think it was going to meet the press." That they asked him to stand down because they were looking at it.

Under DA Vance, you say, why didn't DA Vance do it? Because he was told to stand down. He didn't have to listen to that, I can imagine Robert Morgenthau telling them what they can do, if they police stand down, but they chose to just go after the little fish, Michael Cohen, and New Attorney General, Merrick Garland, he still hasn't done it. I don't think that DA Bragg should have said, "Well, it's really federal. Let me not do it." As I said, stay tuned. There might be something else, another shoe to drop. I don't have any inside information. Let me make that clear.

Brian Lehrer: That's a very interesting prospect that there's going to be more detail filled in or additional charges that are related that make some of the vagueness here come clear, but on this vagueness, let me try to lay out for the listeners-

Ms. Christian: It's not a weak case, it's just-- Go ahead, sorry.

Brian Lehrer: -what this is and what the criticism is, and get your take. Everyone is saying that falsifying business records like this is only a misdemeanor unless it's to cover up a different crime. It's never before been bumped up to a felony for covering up a federal crime, not a New York State crime. What's the underlying federal crime? DA Bragg is getting criticized for not even naming a federal crime or at best being vague about that. Without saying what that federal crime is, he's only got a misdemeanor against Trump, not 34 felonies. What do you think about that?

Ms. Christian: That's what makes it a tough case, not a weak case. What Mr. Bragg and what that team did, which was very smart, they're not relying just on federal campaign finance. They're relying also on New York State election law, they're relying on the false statements allegedly made in AMI records, and they're also relying on tax crimes.

If it was solely, which is all the news articles before the indictment, all of the leaks is about Stormy Daniels. It's a novel theory, and the novel theory is about federal campaign finance laws.

If it was solely that I would still say it's a strong case, but very difficult case because of all of the issues, but you have Mr. Pecker. You're going to have a live witness saying, "He told me to do this." Mr. Cohen, "He told me to do this." You don't believe him? Listen to the audio, read the text message, the emails, look at all of these documents. If it was solely on the federal campaign, then you could say, "Oh my gosh, this is really, really tenuous and this is going to be very, very hard," but they very wisely gave basically four different crimes that the jury can consider.

Brian Lehrer: Another criticism of the case that I've heard is that any coverup of the money to Stormy Daniels as a campaign finance expense could not really have been to help with the election because the payment to her was made so close to election day, it was October that year, that the next campaign finance reporting period would've been after the election so no coverup of that was needed to help him get elected. Do you follow that critique?

Ms. Christian: I follow, but I think it's inaccurate in factually after reading the statement of facts. Clearly, the defense are going to argue that. Every single defense that they can come up with, they're going to argue as they should, but then again, that's why you have the tax crimes and the AMI false statements. I think the DA's office built-in. A good prosecutor always thinks about the defenses. They were been reading the papers and listening and hearing people who are positive. I'm talking about lawyers for Mr. Trump, what they're saying. I'm sure that factored into their thinking about how they were going to ultimately charge.

Brian Lehrer: Jay in Queens, you're on WNYC. Hi, Jay.

Jay: Hi. Thanks. I think I heard that the next hearing is in December. I'm curious why so far in the future, what's supposed to happen between now and then and will the story just fade out of interest till then?

Ms. Christian: It was adjourned to December 4th. Why? Because as I tell people, you could have a three-witness case of a no-name person that could take a year to go to trial. Remember, this is Manhattan. There are over 400 assistant attorneys in that office. They have their own cases there. They have nothing whatsoever to do with this case. All the other judges in the courthouse, Judge Merchan has other defendants who have probably incarcerated and should they go to trial before Mr. Trump. He should go first because he's a former president?

The reality is it's going to be motion practice. All of these legal issues that Brian and I are talking about, what callers said, "Isn't this going to be an acquittal?" There has to be a very major motion that the defense are going to file and it's going to take time for them to prepare that and then the prosecution are going to be responding to that motion and it's going to take time for them to prepare that. Then the judge, after reading both sides, it's going to make a decision and it's going to take time for him to prepare that decision. There's also in between all of that.

There's back and forth, during. What I thought interesting when I read the transcript, I was shocked but not surprised. Typically, in violent criminal enterprise cases, gang cases, mob cases, the prosecutor says, "We know we are obligated under the law to hand over discovery, to hand over documents, to hand over audio recordings, but because this defendant is so violent or is known to post things on social media," I'm talking about in gang cases, "we are requesting, Your Honor, protective order. Only the defense attorneys are allowed to see it and no copy should be given to the defendant because we're afraid they're going to put them up and witnesses will be injured."

The prosecutors, in this case, made the same application. They said, "We are now working with the defense now for a protective order. One, that the only use that Mr. Trump should be able to use these documents for is for his defense. Two, he can only look at these documents in his attorney's office and not take them out, and three, he should not be allowed to post anything or give it to any reporters." That was extraordinary because, again, it's not done in white-collar cases. That's done in organized crime cases, in gang cases.

What was interesting is that Mr. Tacopina, because they said that-- The ADA who was speaking said, "I'm working with the defense on this. We might have an agreement soon." Mr. Tacopina said, "Hold on a minute. The agreement was not that he would be in my office reviewing these documents. The agreement is that we would be in his office."

Brian Lehrer: All right.

Ms. Christian: [crosstalk].

Brian Lehrer: To finish up-

Ms. Christian: All of these issues are going to take time.

Brian Lehrer: For you as a former assistant DA in the Manhattan DA's office, how thick a skin must DAs have here, including to withstand expressions of racism and antisemitism and implied or explicit threats that help Trump with his base, like calling Brag an animal and Soros backed. Here from last night's speech, Trump calls the Georgia prosecutor investigating that case a racist. Listen.

[start of audio playback]

Trump: And in the wings, they've got a local racist Democrat district attorney in Atlanta who is doing everything in her power to indict me over an absolutely perfect phone call. Even more perfect than the one I made with the president of Ukraine.

[end of audio playback]

Brian Lehrer: Fani Willis, the DA, she's Black, so he calls her a racist for investigating him. In your experience, have you seen that before and how does the DA not get baited into reacting in a way that's bad for their cases?

Ms. Christian: Never. 30 years under Morgan Thor, under Vance, and brief period under Bragg, we've had high profile defendants. Harvey Weinstein, other defendants, other politicians. Never any of these public statements, also any social media. You'll have cases, individual ADAs, we have found out about threats. Again, those are usually in violent criminal enterprise cases. This is a whole new world.

I actually know personally, when I saw the photo of the trial team, I know personally two of the assistants on that, they're very smart, tough. They've handled tough cases before that, Chris Conroy was the deputy of the homicide investigation unit under Mr. Morgenthau. He knows about threats. I hope that they're just not reading those things. What made me sad is I saw a photo in the New York Times this weekend, I think it was, of the chief of the investigation division, Susan Hoffer leaving the DA's office and she had two security guards escorting her. I was glad she had security, but I was sad that she had security.

I think this is because of Mr. Trump's rhetoric. That's what this has come to. They're human. I'm trying to put myself in their situation. I like to go out to DA's office. I would do my Starbucks runs, all of that, and now I can't do that unless I have security. It must be pretty horrible, but they're going to just focus in on the facts and the law and just deal with all of these issues in the courtroom.

Brian Lehrer: There it is. That's the world that officers of the court are having to live in, in the context of indicting Donald Trump for an alleged crime. Catherine Christian, who has held high-ranking positions in the Manhattan DA's office for decades under DA's Robert Morgenthau and Cy Vance, and is currently a partner in the Liston Abramson Law Firm. Thank you so much for coming on today and explaining as much as you did. We really appreciate it.

Ms. Christian: It was my pleasure. Thank you, Brian.

 

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.