Former prosecutors outline lengthy legal battle ahead for Trump

Amna Nawaz:

Well, the former president's not guilty plea has set off what's expected to be a lengthy legal battle in Manhattan.

Joining me now to discuss the legal issues connected to the president's arraignment is formal — former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg and former Manhattan assistant district attorney Marc Agnifilo.

Welcome to you both, and thanks for joining us.

Chuck, I want to make sure that we understand and explain the charges here. The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, is alleging Mr. Trump made 34 false statements to cover up other crimes.

The very first line of the statement of facts reads this way: "The defendants, Donald J. Trump, repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election."

Chuck, I just want to get your reaction to the nature of those charges.

Chuck Rosenberg, Former U.S. Attorney:

Sure, and I think I can simplify it a bit.

The charges relate to a hush money scheme, payments to Stormy Daniels through an intermediary, Michael Cohen. And each payment to Cohen to reimburse him generated a number of false documents, maybe a false ledger, a false invoice, a check that was falsely recorded.

And so what the district attorney did was take each of those false documents, 34 in total, and charge each one as a felony under New York state law. I don't think it's an inordinately complex case. I read the indictment, which is bare-bones, and a statement of facts that accompanied it, the narrative, if you will. And it doesn't involve thousands of documents or dozens of witnesses.

It's a fairly straightforward case. It doesn't mean it's not susceptible to legal and factual challenge. And I'm confident that that will happen from Mr. Trump's attorneys. But it seems relatively straightforward to me.

Amna Nawaz:

And, Marc, we have in fact heard that argument from Mr. Trump's attorneys already. They're arguing the charges are very unusual, and there's nothing there. What's your take?

Marc Agnifilo, Former Federal Prosecutor:

So it's a very typical Manhattan DA indictment for these charges.

Unlike a typical federal indictment, which is often much more of a speaking indictment that really tells the story that my colleague Chuck really just laid out for all of you, the DA's office doesn't do that as much. And, really, what they did is they just gave the bare-bones legal recitation of the charge.

The thing that they leave out is the thing that everyone's been speculating about the most. What is that second — what is that second offense? You have to have dual intents to commit these crimes. You have to have the intent to defraud. And then you have to have a secondary intent to aid or cover up or commit another crime. And that other crime is not charged in the charging document itself.

But in the people's statement of facts that they issued today along with the indictment, they suggest that it's — it could be campaign violations or tax violations, but that's not in the body of the charge. So I agree it's a bare-bones indictment. But I do think that there's going to be a lot for the — for the people to prove in order to prove these charges.

Amna Nawaz:

So, Marc, just to see that through in more simple language, what does that mean for the bar that the prosecution has to meet?

Marc Agnifilo:

So they have to — they have to find that Trump acted with specific intent, not just to commit fraud, but to violate a second statute.

And that's really going to be where the rubber meets the road in this case, in my opinion. The defense is going to say, as they have already said, well, he wasn't violating another statute. He was being extorted. He was being shaken down. It was a personal matter. It had nothing to do with an election.

And so what the DA is going to have to prove is that it was about the election. And I think the facts that the DA alludes to in their statement of facts all relates to the timing of these things, meetings that took place where there was a plot hatched, basically, to try to quell negative press, which never happened before he was running for president.

So that's going to be the major factual issue, as I see it, in this case.

Amna Nawaz:

So, Chuck, we now have our first details with the indictment being unsealed today. Judge Merchan set the next in-person hearing date not until December 4.

What happens between now and then?

Chuck Rosenberg:

A bunch of things potentially.

For one, the prosecutors have a responsibility to provide to the defendants discovery, documents and witness statements and the like, to help the defendants prepare, the defendant prepare a case. As well — and this is something we alluded to earlier — the defendant will file motions challenging the legal sufficiency of the case. He may seek a change of venue. They may argue that there's a selective prosecution here of Mr. Trump for improper reasons, a type of prosecutorial misconduct.

And so defense will file their motions. They will receive their discovery. The prosecutors will respond to these various motions to dismiss. And, ultimately, Judge Merchan will hold hearings and decide whether or not the case goes forward. If it does, then there will be more date set and it will be even further out.

Amna Nawaz:

Marc, I want to ask you a little bit about the team that we're going to be seeing a lot of in the months ahead.

When you look at the legal teams, both the prosecution and the defense in this case, at the prosecution's table there on the left side of the screen, we see Chris Conroy, the man with the glasses and his hands clasp there, and he's presenting most of the prosecution's case today.

Behind him is a woman in a white blouse and dark jacket named Susan Hoffinger. She was recently involved in another case involving the Trump Organization. Tell us about that and why she might be important to the team.

Marc Agnifilo:

So, I think — I think you hit on the two key people for the prosecution. Conroy and Hoffinger are probably the heart and soul of the day's prosecution team.

Hoffinger, as you pointed out, was involved in the Trump Org case. She was the lead prosecutor there. Conroy is a super experienced lawyer. I have had a number of fraud cases with him. He's very experienced, and he's probably one of the office's go-to people. So it makes all the sense in the world to see the two of them at counsel table for a big case like this.

Amna Nawaz:

And what should we know about the team defending former President Trump?

Marc Agnifilo:

So, you have Joe Tacopina and Susan Necheles.

I have had trials with both of them. They're both very experienced lawyers. Susan is a little more stronger in the areas of research and preparation. Tacopina is a real trial lawyer guy, has been trying cases his whole — his whole life. You have you have Blanche, who's new to the team. And he's a good trial lawyer as well, former federal prosecutor.

So you have you have a lot of different personalities. And I think that could work well for Mr. Trump. But you have good lawyers on both sides. I hope that it's a well-litigated case. And I hope that it's about the case, and not sort of what we call shenanigans and things that Judge Merchan does not want as part of the case.

Amna Nawaz:

Chuck, given what we now know about the charges and what we have seen so far, we don't want to get ahead of ourselves, but what is the world of potential possible outcomes with these kinds of charges being prosecuted where they are?

Chuck Rosenberg:

Look, there's always the chance, if someone's convicted at trial, that they would go to jail. That seems hard to imagine, certainly, in terms of logistics for a former president.

But there's a range of things that can happen between now and then, right? I mean, we discussed the fact that the defense attorneys could file motions to dismiss. And if Judge Merchan grants motions to dismiss the indictment, the case ends there.

If the case goes to trial, it's heard by a jury of Mr. Trump's peers in Manhattan, they could convict or acquit, or they could return a mixed verdict, acquitting on some counts and convicting on others. So it's really sort of perilous to predict what will happen. This was the first step in what will be a — maybe a painfully long journey for those of us following it closely.

And I'm reluctant to tell you sitting here, what a jury would do. I didn't like to predict it in my own cases. And it's even harder for me to do that in somebody else's case.

Amna Nawaz:

A very, very long case ahead. And we thank both of you for joining us today to walk us through what we do know today.

That is Chuck Rosenberg and Marc Agnifilo. Thank you to you both.

Marc Agnifilo:

Thank you.