Mediaboss Marketing

Two presidential campaigns ago, Donald J. Trump faced a brewing sex scandal that threatened to derail his bid for the White House.

On Thursday, a New York judge ensured that the very same scandal will loom over Mr. Trumps latest run for president, scheduling for March 25 a trial that could jeopardize his campaign and his freedom.

The judge, Juan M. Merchan, rejected Mr. Trumps bid to throw out the Manhattan district attorneys criminal charges against him that stem from a hush-money payment to a porn star in 2016. By setting a trial date for next month, Justice Merchan cleared the way for the first prosecution of a former American president in the nations history, ensuring that Mr. Trump will face at least one jury before Election Day.

The ruling is a crucial victory for the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg. He said he was pleased by the judges decision and was looking forward to the trial, where Mr. Trump is facing 34 felony charges and, if convicted, a maximum sentence of four years in prison.

Justice Merchans decision will reorient the public perception of Mr. Trumps convoluted legal conundrum, drawing the nations bleary eyes to Manhattan. Overall, the former president is facing 91 felony counts across four criminal indictments from prosecutors in Washington, Florida and Georgia, as well as Manhattan, all while he seeks to lock up the Republican presidential nomination. Never before has a former president wrestled with even one criminal indictment.

Until recently, Mr. Trumps federal case in Washington was first on the calendar. That case, in which the former president is charged with plotting to overturn the 2020 election, is widely thought to be the most consequential of the Trump criminal prosecutions. But the Thursday hearing cemented the reality that the Manhattan trial will soon begin.

Mr. Trump portrays the Manhattan case as trivial and too old to be relevant, but it presents a formidable threat. Unlike the federal cases in Washington and Florida, which Mr. Trump could try to shut down should he regain the White House, Mr. Braggs case is insulated from federal intervention. Mr. Trump would not be able to pardon himself or otherwise deploy the presidency as a legal shield.

Justice Merchans ruling also represented a forceful rejection of Mr. Trumps most battle-tested legal strategy: running out the clock. Facing a lengthy legal docket in courtrooms up and down the East Coast, Mr. Trump has sought to turn the calendar to his advantage, pushing for appeals and delays until November, on the assumption that the cases will halt if he is elected.

Mr. Trump attended the Lower Manhattan hearing on Thursday, and was more subdued than usual, sitting quietly with his arms at his sides as the judge scheduled the trial. As the hearing went on, he started blankly ahead, at times looking toward the ceiling, his red tie askew.

His lawyers objected fiercely to the judges decision that jury selection should begin on March 25, noting that the six-week trial would conflict with Mr. Trumps presidential campaign and with other court cases.

One of the former presidents lawyers, Todd Blanche, called the schedule unfathomable, arguing that we are in the middle of primary season, and claiming that the trial would overlap with dozens of Republican primaries and caucuses.

But Justice Merchan was impatient with such arguments. From the beginning of the hearing, the judge bristled at Mr. Blanches opposition to the date, at one point instructing him to stop interrupting me, please. He allowed Mr. Blanche little leeway to filibuster on behalf of his client, as Mr. Trumps lawyers often do.

Justice Merchan was also curt in denying the defenses request to throw out the case. Mr. Trumps lawyers had derided it as discombobulated and marred by legal defects and procedural failures. The judge was unconvinced. He declined to dismiss the charges, without elaborating.

Mr. Bragg last year became the first prosecutor to obtain an indictment of Mr. Trump. The charges accuse the former president of covering up a potential sex scandal involving the porn star Stormy Daniels during and after the 2016 presidential campaign. Mr. Bragg cast his case as an example of Mr. Trumps interfering in an election: Prosecutors argue that he hid damaging information from voters just days before they headed to the polls.

Mr. Bragg had been willing for the Washington election interference case to jump ahead in line, underscoring its historical significance. But appeals from Mr. Trump postponed that trial, which had initially been scheduled for March 4.

The timing of Mr. Braggs trial leaves the door open for Mr. Trumps Washington trial to take place in the late spring or early summer. The fate of that case is now in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Braggs case is best known for its salacious underlying facts: During the 2016 campaign, Ms. Daniels threatened to go public with her story of a tryst with Mr. Trump, who then authorized a $130,000 payoff to keep her quiet.

The case might come down to the word of Mr. Trumps former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, who paid Ms. Daniels just days before voters went to the polls. Once Mr. Trump was elected, he reimbursed Mr. Cohen and that is where the crime occurred, prosecutors say.

Mr. Cohen, the prosecutions star witness, is expected to testify that Mr. Trump authorized his family business to falsely record the reimbursements as legal expenses. And indeed the company described the repayments in internal records as part of a retainer agreement, when in fact no such agreement existed.

Mr. Trumps lawyers had argued that Justice Merchan should throw out the case, calling Mr. Cohen a liar and disputing whether the charges should even be felonies. For falsifying business records to be a felony, Mr. Braggs prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump intended to commit or conceal another crime.

The prosecutors have invoked potential violations of federal election law under the theory that the payout served as an illegal donation to Mr. Trumps campaign as well as a state election law that bars any conspiracy to promote the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means. Justice Merchan endorsed that theory of the case.

Beyond Justice Merchans courtroom, this week is a perilous one for Mr. Trump. On Friday, another New York judge is expected to deliver a final ruling in a civil fraud case against Mr. Trump. The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, is weighing the New York attorney generals request that he penalize Mr. Trump nearly $370 million and effectively oust him from the New York business world.

In the Georgia case, Mr. Trump is accused of seeking to subvert the 2020 election results in that state. On Thursday, at the same time that Mr. Trump was in Justice Merchans courtroom, there was a hearing in Atlanta concerning a romantic relationship between the two prosecutors leading the Georgia case.

But while the other cases remain mired in the pretrial period, at Justice Merchans hearing on Thursday, attention turned swiftly to practical questions about the coming proceedings, including how a jury would be chosen. Prosecutors requested that they be permitted to ask jurors whether they believed the 2020 election had been stolen, arguing that an affirmative answer might suggest they are willing to blindly rely on Mr. Trumps statements more generally. The defense objected, and the judge withheld a final ruling for now.

The defense also lashed out at Mr. Cohen, accusing him as Mr. Trumps lawyers have in the past of having perjured himself at the former presidents recent civil fraud trial in Manhattan. Prosecutors responded only to say that Mr. Cohen could be cross-examined at trial.

Mr. Cohen himself was in New York on Thursday, but was not present in the courtroom. He was in Midtown, helping to promote an Off Broadway musical about Mr. Trump and various women in his life, including Ms. Daniels.

Original post:
Highlights From a Key Hearing in Trump's Manhattan Criminal Case - The New York Times