Trump Arraignment (Manhattan)

The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise

Trump was arraigned for thirty-four felony counts.  The indictment is not a "narrative" as some are so there is a separate statement of facts. The first is dry stuff. NYT annotated it. 

The second has things like this:

B. Suppressing the Doorman’s Story

10. A few months later, in or about October or November 2015, the AMI [National Enquirer] CEO learned that a former Trump Tower doorman (the “Doorman”) was trying to sell information regarding a child that the Defendant had allegedly fathered out of wedlock.

Two women are cited (Woman 1 and Woman 2), one addressed as an "adult film actress."  Stormy Daniels gets a lot of attention but Karen McDougal also is involved.  McDougals' Wikipedia page has this little tidbit:

In June 2021, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) found that the National Enquirer violated U.S. election laws and that the $150,000 paid by AMI [owns National Enquirer] to McDougal amounted to an illegal campaign contribution. AMI agreed to a fine of $187,500. Because the FEC was equally divided on party lines, it could not pursue further investigation into Trump, who accordingly will not be punished or be the subject of further inquiry by the FEC.

The division of FEC was one of those multiple stories about how a divided government led to inaction. It also is just another reason why justice was delayed (sitting president etc.).

There is also continued hand-wringing about doing things the wrong way, including by Rick Hasen (who sometimes falls into this trap).  The idea is that this particular indictment (with the current schedule having the next hearing next December!) somehow will drag on in the courts more so than some others, for instance.  Georgia and the U.S. have not indicted him yet.  ANY prosecution will be a drawn-out affair.  There are no "slam dunks."

I won't repeat my arguments for thinking this is a good move "politically" too.  As to having one shot at the king, New York is not the only sovereign who will have a chance. And, with multiple other concerns, the feds now likely see this as a backburner sort of deal. So, the result basically is yet another "reason" by someone who assures us they are not a Trump supporter (no no!) to de facto enable him.  

[Hasen noted in 2018 that the feds probably could charge Trump for reasons related to what Michael Cohen is prosecuted for, but you know, no sitting president and all that.  The former Manhattan DA says the Barr-led Justice Department encouraged him not to prosecute before the feds look into it (any day now!).  Garland wasn't going to prosecute Trump on this before all the other stuff either.  So, the net effect is likely that state charges are the only realistic way to go after Trump on this issue.]

Here is one discussion of the not trivial crime of falsification of business records.  Manhattan District Attorney Bragg suggested in his short press conference that we might find more information in the coming days. He also emphasized that the business capital of the world and such makes this issue of special importance.

Meanwhile, we have headlines like "Prosecutors Cite Payoffs to Porn Star, Playboy Model and a Doorman."  And, over the top Trump bootlicking that never actually denies he did what he was charged for.  Since we know he did it.  The basic precedent of biting the bullet and realizing that the rule of law applies to former Oval Office members is set. 

It was also reported by a few people that Trump's son retweeted (or whatever; it was on Truth Social) an article with a picture of the judge's daughter. This was made out as basically an implicit threat.  The explanation is that she worked for the Biden/Harris campaign, so the judge is biased.  I'm sure they are very upset about Clarence Thomas.

(I don't like showing family members' pictures in this fashion but it's somewhat hard to see how even making the claim -- it's a standard one -- is illicit.  It is a real concern -- a federal law was recently passed to protect the family of federal judges.  But, it's probably a hard call.)  

ETA: The "hard call" is regarding people who see this as a blatant threat. I think it's bad. And, Trump (yet again) bad-mouthing the judge and his family on a personal level is also horrible on a moral principle matter. This sort of thing matters. Also, two of the Strict Scrutiny Podcast crew had an excellent summary of things.]

This covered alleged acts that happened before the events covered in the federal and Georgia investigations.  It made sense it came first. And, New York already gained a conviction of Trump's family business last December.  That too took time and energy.  

[Trump still has state civil charges pending, a lawsuit arising from the woman he denied he raped, and who knows what coming up.]

I am sympathetic to those who argue that it takes a long time to prosecute.  But, years have passed now since January 2021.  It was time to start the indictment/arraignment ball rolling too.  I support this effort.  

ETA: I think the Leah Litman and Kate Shaw remarks I cited in my update are very good.  Chris Geidner, who is no kneejerk sort, also challenges Rick Hasen (if more briefly) here.  As someone noted, isn't Manhattan -- Trump's home for most of his life -- a perfectly logical (and reasonable) place to try him? 

I think he's right too, especially from the political angle.  I am quite annoyed at the other side, who people already are flagging, and we will likely see more "even them" talk.  Thanks, guys!

Ian Millhiser is another hand-wringer here.  I'm getting tired of his general shtick.  He repeatedly comes off as over the top and it is getting old.  It's a "type."  It's just one that annoys me.