Mediaboss Marketing

Geoff Bennett: History was made in New York City this week when for the first time in our nation's history a former American president was indicted, arrested and arraigned on criminal charges. Former President Donald Trump was charged in a Manhattan courtroom with 34 felony counts for falsifying business records in a hush money scheme during the 2016 election. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.

After Mr. Trump's arraignment, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg emphasized the seriousness of the charges.

Alvin Bragg: True and accurate business records are important everywhere. To be sure, they are all the more important in Manhattan, the financial center of the world.

Geoff Bennett: At that night, Mr. Trump responded in a defiant and embittered speech at Mar-a-Lago, his Florida home, criticizing the case and its presiding judge, Juan Merchan.

Donald Trump: This fake case was brought to interfere with the upcoming 2024 election. I have a Trump-hating judge with a Trump-hating wife and family.

Geoff Bennett: Judge Merchan and his family have received dozens of violent threats since the arraignment. The Biden White House has largely avoided commenting on the active case, but White House Spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre responded to news of those threats.

Karine Jean-Pierre: I am not going to speak to an ongoing case. We condemn any type of attacks on any judge.

Geoff Bennett: Joining us to talk about this and more, Jacqueline Alemany, Congressional Investigations Reporter for The Washington Post, Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent for The New York Times, Francesca Chambers, White House Correspondent for USA Today, and Hugo Lowell, Reporter at The Guardian. Thanks to all of you for being with us.

Let's start our conversation tonight where we started this historic week, Donald Trump pleading not guilty on Tuesday to 32 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Jackie, if this case goes to trial, it likely won't happen until the New Year, what happens between then and now in this case and how I the Trump team preparing?

Jacqueline Alemany, Congressional Investigations Reporter, The Washington Post: A very good question, Geoff. There are sort of two prongs two this answer. There is the process part of it and then sort of the political strategy part of it.

From a process perspective, as Hugo and I both heard in the courtroom in New York this week during the arraignment, prosecutors sort of laid out a schedule. Trump and his lawyers and the prosecution need to come to an agreement on a protective order that was laid out during the arraignment. So, that needs to be set before anything else can really happen. That has not yet been agreed to.

From there, there is going to be different stages of the discovery that prosecutors laid out. That's going to take up to a week depending on when the protective orders are agreed to, and then up to 65 days. And then by the end of August, potentially, Trump's legal team will have all of the discovery that Alvin Bragg's team has put together. And then by the end of the year, maybe we will see them in court again for sort of a conference. But, as you noted, we are not going to see them all together back in that courtroom in New York on trial until potentially sing of 2024, as Todd Blanche, Trump's newest lawyer, asked for Judge Merchan on Tuesday.

Geoff Bennett: Yes. And, Hugo, if you read the indictment's statement of facts, the D.A.'s office seems to have the payments pretty well-documented. But New York law says that prosecutors have to prove it was part of another crime in order to bump that misdemeanor up to a felony, and the charging documents don't specify which laws Mr. Trump allegedly broke. And Alvin Bragg is basically saying, I don't have to show my cards.

Hugo Lowell, Political Investigative Reporter, The Guardian: Right, no. Under New York law, Alvin Bragg, doesn't have to lay out the particulars. That comes in the bill of particulars. And that's why in the statement of facts, you basically get the narrative and it seems to be the kind of information that they got in the grand jury investigative phase. And the key question is going to, what is that second crime? And there seemed to be multiple paths that were laid out there.

One was, of course, the hush money payments and the potential campaign finance violence. The second, tantalizingly, was the element about mischaracterizing the payments for tax purposes. And then the third was about filing these sorts of documents to other entities, potentially to the FEC, potentially to other government entities. And so I think there are multiple paths that were have laid out, all of them pretty chargeable. I mean, there's a lot of discussion about whether you can have a state prosecutor use a federal crime in conjunction with an underlying state crime. And under New York law, that seems to be pretty permissible.

Geoff Bennett: And, Peter, there are two ways, I think, to read former President Trump's reaction to all of this, his furious reaction. One, it sort of fuels his particular brand of grievance politics. On the one hand, it's not all surprising. But on the other hand, it could be read as him acknowledging his vulnerability, not just in Manhattan but the three other ongoing cases.

Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent, The New York Times: Well, that's the thing, exactly. If this were the last thing we were going to see as a legal challenge to former President Trump, that will be one thing, because people would make their judgments about it. They say they won't see a trial until next year and they may have to decide, well, it's laundry (ph), it's not all that pretty a picture, but on the other hand, is it disqualifying for a president?

We went through this 25 years ago, by the way, with bill Clinton. We had the exact, very similar conversation, about whether lying about sex in an official proceeding is disqualifying for a president or not. Republicans and Democrats have different views today than they once did. But it's not the last thing we are going to see.

We are going to see some kind of resolution, if not, an indictment from three other cases. And when you start to build them up one after the other after the other, and you have all of these other legal issues he has got, he is on a trial for what amounts to rape in three weeks with E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit in a civil court in New York and he's got another civil case from Letitia James in New York. He is going to be in a courtroom, or his lawyers will, all year long. And it's going to be -- the cumulative effect of that, we don't know.

Geoff Bennett: Well, Francesca, in the meantime, former President Trump's goal seems to be crystal clear, which is to turn his legal problems into political gain.

Francesca Chambers, White House Correspondent, USA Today: And he has raised quite a bit of money off of this so far. But when you look at the rest of the expected Republican field our current Republican field, they are banking on exactly what Peter just said, is that the cumulative effect of all of this will start to wear down his numbers. So, while you are seeing a jump now in his numbers and his popularity, that you'll see that dip back down. But as you were saying, the question really remains as to whether one of them can also break out in that sort of environment and permanently beat him in this race.

Geoff Bennett: Yes. Who can take us behind the curtain of Trump world? How are they really feeling about this beyond the spin and the bluster?

Jacqueline Alemany: Well, I think that actually Trump's performance on Tuesday night at Mar-a-Lago after the arraignment was pretty telling. At the top of his mind, what he kept going back to was the classified documents case.

It wasn't -- he did attack Bragg, he attacked Judge Merchan in violation of that protective order and of the warning that the judge -- not of the protective order but the warning that the judge had given to him that day, saying you really need to tamp down the rhetoric out of concern for the safety of the officials involved in these proceedings and also for Judge Merchan. But he was fixated on the classified documents case as well.

And so I think that is fairly telling that there are, as Peter judge laid out, a number of potential avenues for criminal exposure down the line that have potentially more grave consequences than what he is facing in New York. And even just looking at his face in that courtroom -- I was in the overflow room, so I didn't see him firsthand, but you could see up on the live stream of him, and he was downcast, dour and did not look like someone despite a lot of bravado and fundraising appeals who wanted to be there.

Geoff Bennett: Yes. And, Hugo, to Jackie's point, I mean, legal analysts have always said that the mishandling of the classified documents, if you're going to compare the cases, that one is more of a slam dunk.

Hugo Lowell: Yes. I think that -- look, the documents case is complicated, right, because you have espionage elements and then you have obstruction elements. And, actually, I think a lot of recent reporting seems to suggest that the special counsel is looking towards an Espionage Act charge.

All these questions to witnesses in the grand jury about what were the kinds of documents that Trump was throwing around, was there stuff about Milley, the former joint Chiefs of Staff, was there stuff about like math that he was showing to donors? Those are the kinds of questions that strike me you would ask if you are instructing espionage case.

And I think the espionage case comes in conjunction with the obstruction case. I don't think you can do one without the other. Because to basically say Trump willfully retained documents and to prove that willfulness, the easiest way to do that is to say, well, he obstructed the investigation. And there you go, that's the willfulness.

Geoff Bennett: Peter, the New York case strikes me. The thing that makes that case difficult is that prosecutors have to prove intent, which is notoriously hard to do. Ask anybody who was involved in the John Edwards case, which he was acquitted about that. What do you see as the historical analog there between that case and the Trump case?

Peter Baker: Well, that's an interesting case. So, John Edwards, of course, was a United States senator who ran for president and then was on a vice presidential ticket and he covered up, in effect, an affair with money that was construed by lawyers as an illegal campaign or an unreported campaign contribution. He went to trial. He was acquitted on one charge. There was a hung jury on the other. The prosecutors took away from that a lesson that this doesn't work because it is kind of a novel definition, the hush money counts as campaign contribution, right? We had not thought of it that way in the past and that was a new way of looking at it.

Now, a lot of people are saying that means this one is in trouble for the same reason, that the logic may not work. I think it is a little different. First of all, the judge in that case and the other's case did let it go to trial, okay? And it was the jury who decided, okay, we're not sure about this particular case, they weren't judging on the law, the jury (INAUDIBLE) the facts that they were presented to them. The jurors in this case assumed that the judge lets it go to trial, again, judge the facts as they're presented.

And the facts are pretty remarkable. We have known this for six or seven years, right, because the reporting in The Wall Street Journal gave us a lot in advance, Michael Cohen told a lot of this event (ph). But if you would read the statement of facts for the first time, you had never seen this before, there a remarkably powerful recitation of the evidence there.

And I think the intent comes through pretty clearly that he wants to cover this up before an election. And that is at the heart of the case. Are you trying to taint an election by preventing the public from having information that they otherwise would have?

Geoff Bennett: Francesca, one criminal prosecution is onerous enough. Trump has not been charged in any of the other cases. And we should say he is innocent until proven guilty in the New York case. But they are facing this multi-front defense across multiple cases and it further disrupts his ability to dictate his political schedule and really control his own political destiny. That is what a political candidate does not want, this sort of lack of control.

Francesca Chambers: But it is complicating the entire field's ability to dictate their schedule as well. You had Asa Hutchinson announce his presidential bid. And you saw him try to get in there right before Trump was indicted. And then he has his formal announcement later in a month.

And I think that is a challenge that's facing the GOP field but also President Joe Biden as well, as he tries to figure out when he should get in this race as well. And you have any numbers. You're talking about court cases that could come up. So, it makes the entire election cycle unpredictable. If that unpredictability, though, that again is giving opponents of the former president the sense of an opportunity here where they might just be able to sneak by him.

Geoff Bennett: Let's talk about the Republican reaction, because Republican lawmakers, to include Mitt Romney, who twice voted for impeachment, in various different ways, are coming to Donald Trump's defense. Only Asa Hutchinson, who you mentioned, suggested that he should step down, get out of the presidential race now that he is under indictment.

Francesca Chambers: Well, the difficulty for them is that when you have Donald Trump, who is taking up so much of the oxygen in the GOP field, it is very evident that you need to win Trump's voters while differentiating themselves.

And I've heard from a number of campaigns that they believe that there will be a favorable contrast drawn between their own candidates and also between President Biden and what's going on right now as well.

Geoff Bennett: Peter, for Republicans who are looking to break away from Donald Trump, a number of them say that privately, the former president keeps giving Republicans off-ramp after off-ramp after off-ramp, unintentionally so, and yet the party is not taking any of these exits.

Peter Baker: No, they really haven't, right? They haven't from the beginning. I mean, they didn't after Access Hollywood, they didn't after Charlottesville, they didn't after January 6th, they didn't after last year's midterms, and everybody most recently thought, well, that's it for him, he's done. They don't want to do it for all the reasons Francesca just said. They are afraid of his voters or they want or covet his voters or think they cannot succeed without his voters.

So, their logic comes down to what Mitch McConnell's court is saying about my colleagues, John Martin and Alex Burn, in their book last year saying, we will let the Democrats take care of him for us. He was talking about that in the context of the second impeachment. But broadly speaking, that's their thought right now. We are going to let the Democrats/prosecutors/Justice Department/judges take care of him for us. We won't have to do it.

Geoff Bennett: Hugo, one more potential problem for Donald Trump. We learned this week that former Vice President Mike Pence will not appeal a judge's ruling that orders him to testify before a grand jury in connection to the January 6th investigation. What kind of story would Mike Pence, the former V.P., be able to give this grand jury?

Hugo Lowell: I think, overall, this is a win for the special counsel. He gets Pence in the grand jury. And Pence can testify to the entirety of November through January 6th. And he was there. He saw a lot. He had a lot of discussions with a lot of people.

But I actually am more of a skeptic about the order than I think other people because there is a speech or debate clause protection that was baked in, in that order. And if that is basically going to cover him for all his preparations as president of the Senate on January 6th, then that would include his discussions about what sort of electors he could throw out while he's presiding as president on the Senate. There were discussions at the White House December 21 with the Republican members of Congress, the discussion he had with Trump on January 5 and January 6 about he was going to preside.

Those are the black holes that the January 6th committee never actually managed to fill because they couldn't get Pence and they couldn't get the members in. And it doesn't strike me that the special counsel is going to be able to get those either because Pence will just claim speech or debate.

Geoff Bennett: And here again, history made this past week. Never before in American history has a vice president been summoned to appear in court to testify about the president with whom he served. What is your reporting suggests the impact of this might be?

Jacqueline Alemany: Yes. I was actually joking with some of Trump's legal team that last week would have been -- or this past week, geez.

Geoff Bennett: All the days were blending together.

Jacqueline Alemany: It would have been a great time for Pence to have snuck in and testified before the grand jury with little fanfare.

But I do tend to agree with Hugo here, that it is sort of a performative win for the special counsel's office, but we will see how much information and how helpful he can be. And at the end of the day, he already had some of his top advisers, people like Marc Short, Greg Jacob, testify to the committee. And they have been dealing with the special counsel's office as well and have given them all the information they have with regards to Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the election.

Geoff Bennett: Let's talk about how the White House is handling this. Because, Peter, you wrote a piece for The Times recently and the headline caught my eye. Biden has the Oval Office but Trump has the center stage. And I would say, The White House seems to be perfectly fine with that. President Biden is not trying to compete for attention with the former president who is brought up on criminal charges.

Peter Baker: Yes. It's the old saying, of course, when your opponent is busy shooting himself, don't get in the way, and they don't want to get in the way. And they want this next election to be -- if Trump is going to run, they want it to be a rerun of 2020, in which Biden may not be a favor guy, you might not be happy about it, inflation or Afghanistan or all the other different issues that he people aren't happy with him about, but he is not Trump.

And so the more that Trump is out literally getting his fingerprints taken and appearing in court rooms, they're going to let that stand. You played the tape of Karine Jean-Pierre, they are not going to comment. They don't want to look what like they are doing what Trump says they are doing, which is orchestrating this. But they're not going to try to compete either because this is not going to anyway.

Geoff Bennett: Yes.

Francesca Chambers: Literally, the White House press briefing started on time that day when Trump's indictment happened, so, to your point, maybe not even trying to compete at all that day with the split screen.

But when it comes to the White House, they say that he is just going to continue to focus on his agenda. And they do believe that that benefits him here, both when it comes to comparing himself to the former president of the United States but also what's going on with the GOP in Congress, where now you see them zeroing in on this Manhattan district attorney and spending their time focused on this as well.

Read more:
Republicans rally around Trump following his historic indictment and ... - PBS

Its probably fair to say Democratic members of Congress were already skeptical of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Its also fair to say those concerns reached a new level last week, after they saw ProPublicas report on the far-right jurist spending the last couple of decades accepting gifts and luxury trips from a Republican megadonor, which Thomas failed to disclose.

Some Democrats called for the justices resignation, while a few raised the specter of impeachment. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, added in a written statement, The Pro Publica report is a call to action, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will act.

As for Republicans, whove long pointed to Thomas as a judicial hero, the justices latest ethics scandal hasnt generated much in the way of discussion. GOP officials have largely overlooked Thomas other controversies, and its likely the party is content to wait for this story to fade from the headlines.

On Saturday, however, Sen. John Cornyn published a message to Twitter that caught my attention. The Texas Republican, paraphrasing a piece from The Wall Street Journals editorial board, wrote:

The left is furious it lost control of the Supreme Court, and it wants it back by whatever means possible. The latest effort is a smear on Justice Thomas.

At this point, we could spend some time challenging the idea that the left lost control of the Supreme Court, which is dubious in part because its been more than a half-century since a majority of the justices were appointed by Democratic presidents, and in part because of the unprecedented abuses Cornyn and his GOP colleagues have engaged in.

We could also spend some time marveling at the idea that the left wants to seize control of the high court by whatever means possible. In this context, even if Thomas scandal were to force him from the bench a fanciful notion, to be sure and even if the Democratic White House and Democratic-led Senate were to confirm a successor, the rights majority on the high court would remain secure.

But what stood out as especially notable was the use of the word smear.

As a rule, when those in the political or legal arena are being smeared, it means theyre facing false and ugly allegations that tarnish their reputations. This certainly happens, and it can be awful for the targets.

But in this instance, ProPublica appears to have published an accurate report on Thomas dubious behavior. The justice released a 146-word written statement in response to the controversy, but at no point did Thomas challenge or contest a single detail of the revelations.

In other words, the story appears to be true. Thomas, several years after joining the Supreme Court, forged close ties with real estate magnate Harlan Crow, whos repeatedly been excessively generous toward the conservative jurist. Thomas, in turn, spent years failing to disclose the benefits of his friendship with the Republican megadonor.

If stating these uncontested facts constitutes a smear, that says more about Thomas than those concerned about his conduct.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

Read the rest here:
The glaring flaw in the Republicans defense of Clarence Thomas - MSNBC

A day after filing charges against Donald J. Trump, the Manhattan district attorneys office wrote a letter criticizing three influential congressional Republicans for their efforts to interfere in the investigation into the former president.

The letter was addressed to three committee chairmen who had demanded that the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, provide them with communications, documents and testimony related to the inquiry into Mr. Trump.

The offices letter noted that before being indicted, Mr. Trump had used his social media platform to denigrate Mr. Bragg, and had threatened death and destruction if he were to be charged.

You could use the stature of your office to denounce these attacks and urge respect for the fairness of our justice system and for the work of the impartial grand jury, Leslie Dubeck, the general counsel for the district attorneys office, wrote.

Instead, you and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trumps efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges, Ms. Dubeck wrote, describing as unfounded the three members allegations that the investigation was politically motivated.

The letter, addressed to Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio, chairman of the Judiciary Committee; James R. Comer of Kentucky, chairman of the Oversight and Accountability Committee; and Bryan Steil of Wisconsin, chairman of the Administration Committee, repeated portions of an earlier one Ms. Dubeck had sent them, calling the Republican request for confidential information about the investigation unprecedented.

Like any other defendant, Mr. Trump is entitled to challenge these charges in court, she wrote, adding, What neither Mr. Trump nor Congress may do is interfere with the ordinary course of proceedings in New York State.

Ms. Dubeck and the Republicans have traded two letters apiece since Mr. Trumps arrest prediction on March 18, which prompted his political allies to rush to his side.

Responding to news of the indictment on Thursday evening, Mr. Jordan tweeted one word: Outrageous.

The back-and-forth highlights the politically charged nature of Mr. Trumps indictment, which has thrown the 2024 presidential race into new territory and threatens to test national and state institutions and the rule of law.

The Republican effort to influence Mr. Braggs investigation mimics Mr. Trumps own efforts, while he occupied the White House, to tar law enforcement officials as partisan actors motivated solely by politics.

Mr. Trump continued that line of attack on Thursday. In a statement, he called Mr. Bragg a disgrace and said this Witch-Hunt will backfire massively on Joe Biden, who defeated him in the 2020 presidential race, has had nothing to do with the district attorneys investigation and has not commented on the indictment.

Concluding her letter, Ms. Dubeck urged the congressional Republicans to withdraw their demand for information about the investigation and let the criminal justice process proceed without unlawful political interference.

But she said that the office was willing to meet with the chairmen or their staffs, and asked for a list of questions for Mr. Bragg and a description of the types of documents they were requesting.

Read more from the original source:
Braggs Office Criticizes Top Republicans Over Trump Investigation - The New York Times

Minnesota's already complicated relationship with Donald Trump just got more fraught.

The businessman came closer than any Republican in decades to flipping the state red in 2016. Four years later, he decisively lost his re-election bid in Minnesota to Joe Biden.

Now, as he seeks the presidency in 2024 freshly mired in a historic criminal indictment Minnesotans must again confront the question of how they feel about Trump.

"I think he did a lot of stuff he wasn't supposed to be doing," said Hibbing resident Ron Molick, who described himself on Friday as "on the fence" about Trump and the indictment. He's voted for him twice, but doesn't think he would again.

The grand jury's decision didn't change how Jon Bukovich sees Trump. The 45-year-old, who lives outside of Hibbing, said he didn't follow politics until 2016 when he said Trump opened his eyes to political corruption.

Bukovich wasn't surprised by news of the indictment, and he's not worried about it either. He thinks the former president will be found not guilty of wrongdoing and forge ahead.

"They keep trying to hammer Trump and nothing sticks," he said, laughing. "I swear the guy is Teflon."

The Trump question is most immediate for Minnesota Republicans, who voters cast out of power in St. Paul and are trying to find their way back in 2024. The candidate at the top of their ticket next year for president will define the overarching message of the campaign.

"Whenever we're talking about Donald Trump, that really seems to hurt Republicans in Minnesota," said Andy Brehm,an attorney and GOP political operative.

While Brehm said he's worried about the precedent the indictment sets for the criminal justice system, he wants his party to move on from Trump and focus on attacking one-party control and the Democratic agenda at the State Capitol.

"To win elections, we're working really hard to rebrand ourselves. The way we've been selling our ideas hasn't been working," Brehm said. "Continuing to have Trump in the headlines is a distraction from that work."

Hours after the news broke, top Minnesota Republicans largely cast the case as a "politically motivated" attack. Former Minnesota Republican governor candidate Scott Jensen said the indictment will inspire blowback from voters.

"If [Manhattan district attorney] Alvin Bragg and his team want to make a martyr out of President Trump, I think he may rue the day he chose to do that," Jensen said.

Trump's indictment makes Republicans likely to rally to his defense, said Amy Koch, a GOP operative and former state Senate majority leader.

"He wants an enemy, he wants a fight, because in a fight, his people demand allegiance," Koch said. "I think this strengthens him in a very, very strange way."

Republicans have so far only offered broad statements about the indictment, with many saying it raises concerns about fairness in the judicial system. They've avoided commenting on the allegations of hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels at the center of the case. The specific criminal charges against Trump won't be unsealed until he is arraigned, which is expected Tuesday.

For Matt Huschle, chair of the Clearwater County Republicans,Trump's stance against abortion rights is more important than the indictment, citing the former president's appointments of Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade.

"That's the most lasting impact for me," Huschle said. "I can see what he has done for the country, and compared to what Biden is doing, it's hands-down Trump."

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, a Republican who was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations for part of Trump's presidency, is his main opponent for the GOP nomination so far. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is widely expected to run as well and is gaining popularity in the party.

"In the minds of voters, is anybody's calculus on this going to change?" Minnesota conservative talk radio host Jon Justice said on his show Friday. "Individuals who may have been looking at other candidates and waiting for the full field for Republican candidates in 2024 to emerge, they may see this and it might change their calculus."

Chad Heuer, a 49-year-old Shakopee resident who works at Canterbury Park, thinks Democrats and investigators are putting unfair scrutiny on Trump. Heuer said he voted for Trump in 2020 and always votes Republican, but added he plans to vote for a different Republican in 2024 adding that it's not due to the indictment.

"It's time for a new person to come in," Heuer said.

How this all affects Trump's chances in 2024 could come down to independent-minded voters.

"It's going to depend on the independents and undecided voters and the kind of people who, frankly, don't pay very much attention," said Kevin Parsneau, a political science professor at Minnesota State University Mankato. "What is their gut reaction? What will their impressions be?"

Democratic voters were happy about the indictment news, even if they were far from certain anything would come from it.

Carlos Gomez, a 32-year-old clothes salesman from Shakopee, said that even major public officials should have to suffer the consequences of violating the law. But he didn't think Trump's supporters would abandon him.

"He already has his cult following that will vote for him no matter what," he said.

Kristin Dillon and Alexis Akervik, both Democrats who live in the Twin Cities area, said they were joyous about the indictment when they heard the news Thursday while walking through the Mall of America.

"Two thumbs up. It's great, now let's see him actually go to jail," said Akervik, a graphic designer. "Let's call it a day on this guy."

She was cautious about whether there would be any long-term repercussions for Trump, but she thought Minnesotans might be more willing to reject him after the indictment.

"If any state with GOPers is going to be like, 'You know what? That's enough,' it's going to be here," Akervik said.

Dillon, her companion, was far less confident. Trump, she said, "literally said he could shoot someone on Sixth Avenue and get away with it, and it seems like maybe it's true."

Staff writers Louis Krauss and Ryan Faircloth contributed to this report.

More:
Minnesota Republicans, Democrats are polarized by Trump indictment - Star Tribune

Republican leaders in Congress lamented the moment as a sad day in the annals of United States history. Conservative news outlets issued a call to action for the partys base. One prominent supporter of Donald J. Trump suggested that the former presidentsmug shot should double as a 2024 campaign poster.

Even Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, widely viewed as Mr. Trumps leading potential presidential primary rival, rushed to condemn the prosecutor who brought the Manhattan case that led to the historic indictment of the former president on Thursday. While not naming Mr. Trump, Mr. DeSantis said Florida would not play a role in extraditing him.

The weaponization of the legal system to advance a political agenda turns the rule of law on its head, Mr. DeSantis said on Twitter.

Up and down the Republican Party, anger and accusations of injustice flowed from both backers and critics of the former president, even before the charges had been revealed. Many said Mr. Trump could benefit from a wave of sympathy from across the party, with a base of supporters likely to be energized by a belief that the justice system has been weaponized against him.

The unprecedented indictment of a former president of the United States on a campaign finance issue is an outrage, former Vice President Mike Pence told CNN.

In some quarters, there was a darker reaction. On Fox News, the host Tucker Carlson said the ruling showed it was probably not the best time to give up your AR-15s.

The rule of law appears to be suspended tonight not just for Trump, but for anyone who would consider voting for him, Mr. Carlson said. One of his guests, the conservative media figure Glenn Beck, predicted that the indictment would cause chaos in the years ahead.

How the indictment affects Mr. Trumps bid to remain the nations top Republican and capture the partys 2024 presidential nomination may remain unclear for weeks, if not months. The Manhattan inquiry is one of four criminal investigations involving Mr. Trump, and the outcomes and cumulative political effects of those cases remain to be seen.

But David McIntosh, the president of the Club for Growth, a conservative anti-tax group seeking a replacement for Mr. Trump as the face of the Republican Party, said the indictment had already generated sympathy for the former president. Mr. McIntosh compared the case to the old Soviet show trials and argued that many Americans would view it similarly.

Were crossing the Rubicon here by mixing politics and law enforcement, he said in an interview. Its a huge, huge mistake and a threat to our democratic process. People can disagree about who our leaders should be, but we have a long tradition of not turning it into a criminal process.

The race begins. Four years after a historically large number of candidates ran for president, the field for the 2024 campaignis starting out small and is likely to be headlined by the same two men who ran last time: President Biden and Donald Trump. Heres who has entered the race so far, and who else might run:

Donald Trump. The former president is running to retake the office he lost in 2020. Though somewhat diminished in influencewithin the Republican Party and facing several legal investigations he retains a large and committed base of supporters, and he could be aided in the primary by multiple challengers splitting a limited anti-Trump vote.

President Biden. While Biden has not formally declared his candidacy for a second term, and there has been much hand-wringing among Democratsover whether he should seek re-election givenhis age, he is widely expected to run. If he does, Bidens strategyis to frame the race as a contest between a seasoned leader and a conspiracy-minded opposition.

Marianne Williamson. The self-help author and former spiritual adviser to Oprah Winfrey is the first Democrat to formally enter the race. Kicking off her second presidential campaign, Williamson called Biden a weak choice and said the party shouldnt fear a primary. Few in Democratic politics are taking her entry into the race seriously.

Mr. Trump and his allies also believe the criminal charges carry political upside, at least in a primary race. The former president has spent much of the past two weeks on social media and his speech on Saturday in Texas at the first major rally of his 2024 campaign trying to amplify the outrage among his supporters. He had also sought to influence the ultimate decision by Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, on whether to bring charges.

This is Political Persecution and Election Interference at the highest level in history, Mr. Trump said in a statement on Thursday.

Mr. Trumps protests of an unfair justice system come after he repeatedly threatened or sought to employ his presidential powers to pursue his real and perceived enemies. He has also long sought to use the existence of investigations into political rivals as a cudgel against them, including in 2016, when he ran television ads declaring Hillary Clinton unfit to serve after being crippled by the investigation into her emails.

And he has spent years persuading supporters to internalize political and legal threats to him as deeply personal attacks on them.

In the last month, Mr. Trump improved his standing by 11 percentage points in a hypothetical primary field, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday. The poll found that Mr. Trump was favored by 54 percent of Republican voters, up from 43 percent last month.

Its the craziest thing, Mr. Trump said Saturday at his rally in Waco, Texas. I got bad publicity and my poll numbers have gone through the roof. Would you explain this to me?

On CNN, Mr. Pence, who is considering a 2024 presidential bid, said the indictment had no bearing on his own decision about whether to run. He was one of the few prospective or official candidates to comment.

How Times reporters cover politics.We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.

But the political effects for Mr. Trump could be determined in part by his response to the charges. His recent attempt to fight his legal battle on a political playing field has reignited the kind of behavior that tends to turn off moderate Republicans and independents. The defection of these voters from Mr. Trump, and from his preferred candidates and causes, has resulted in three consecutive disappointing election cycles for the party.

Some Republicans, including former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, have said there are limits to the political benefit of an indictment.

A Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday found that 57 percent of Americans said that criminal charges should disqualify Mr. Trump from seeking office again, while 38 percent disagreed.

On Thursday, Mr. Trump absorbed the news from Mar-a-Lago, his South Florida resort, after being informed by his lawyers, according to two Trump associates briefed on the matter.

Even though the former president had incorrectly predicted he would be arrested nine days ago, the indictment caught his team off guard, according to several people close to the former president.

Trump aides had believed reports by some news outlets that the grand jury in Manhattan was not working on the case on Thursday. Some advisers had been confident that there would be no movement until the end of April at the earliest and were looking at the political implications for Mr. DeSantis, who has not yet announced a campaign.

Mr. Trumps allies see the New York case as the most trivial, and had spent several days adamant that it was falling apart, without explaining why they believed this beyond faith in a defense witness.

Even the indictment will become the kind of spectacle Mr. Trump often seeks. His legal travails are likely to further suck up media oxygen and blot out other coverage of the presidential race, at a time when his closest prospective rival, Mr. DeSantis, is still introducing himself to voters around the country.

I believe this will help President Trump politically but its horrible for our country and the judicial system, Pam Bondi, a former Florida attorney general and Trump ally, said in an interview.

Mr. Trump has been briefed on the process he will now go through, and is expected to surrender next week, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Conservative news networks were brimming with conversations about the mechanics of the indictment after it was announced and what it meant for the presidential campaign.

Alan Dershowitz, an emeritus Harvard law professor, said during an interview on Newsmax that a mug shot of Mr. Trump could serve as a campaign poster.

He will be mug-shot and fingerprinted, Mr. Dershowitz said. Theres really no way around that.

On War Room, a podcast hosted by Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trumps former chief strategist, Sebastian Gorka, a former Trump administration official, called for supporters to peacefully protest.

We are going to see who are the politicians, who are the grifters, and who are the America First patriots, Mr. Gorka said. This is a time of sorting.

On Fox News, the host Jesse Watters said that the country is not going to stand for it, adding: And people better be careful. And thats all Ill say about that.

Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia wrote on Twitter that arresting a presidential candidate on a manufactured basis should not happen in America.

In Washington, Republicans continued to circle the wagons in defense of Mr. Trump.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California said Mr. Bragg had irreparably damaged our country in an attempt to interfere in our presidential election.

As he routinely frees violent criminals to terrorize the public, he weaponized our sacred system of justice against President Donald Trump, Mr. McCarthy wrote on Twitter. The American people will not tolerate this injustice, and the House of Representatives will hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account.

Representative Elise Stefanik, a top supporter of Mr. Trump and a member of the House Republican leadership, called for people to peacefully organize, a notable statement after Mr. Trump urged his supporters to protest ahead of an indictment. That call prompted concerns about echoes of the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, by a pro-Trump mob.

Mr. Trump did not reiterate his call for protests in his statement on Thursday.

Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, took the extraordinary step last week to involve Congress in an open investigation by sending a letter, along with two other House Republican chairmen, demanding that Mr. Bragg provide communications, documents and testimony about his investigation.

After the indictment was announced, Mr. Jordan tweeted one word in response to the news: Outrageous.

Reporting was contributed by Ken Bensinger, Jonah E. Bromwich, Charles Homans, Luke Broadwater and Katie Robertson.

The rest is here:
Republicans Erupt in Outrage Over Trump Indictment, Defending the Defendant - The New York Times