Bragg’s case is Trump’s Watergate
It is all but certain that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump, starting March 25, will be the first of the four Trump criminal cases to go to trial. The conventional wisdom that the Manhattan DA’s criminal prosecution is the weak stepsister of the pending Trump criminal prosecutions is misguided. What gives this case its killer gravitas is the DA’s overwhelming evidence against Trump on the crimes charged and Trump’s motive for committing those crimes.
Trump’s motive mimics former President Richard Nixon’s playbook in covering-up the Watergate scandal. As presidential candidates, both concealed from the voting public the unsavory facts that each knew spelled certain defeat in their presidential races. To facilitate that concealment, Nixon engaged in the federal crime of obstruction of justice, and Trump perpetrated the state crime of falsifying business records.
In June 1972, nearly five months before the presidential election, five men were arrested during a break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. Their mission, directed by Nixon’s Committee to Reelect the President, had been to steal information from the Democratic opposition.
In response to those arrests, Nixon orchestrated an unlawful scheme to prevent law enforcement, and in turn, the voting public from learning about his connection to the burglary. To buy their silence, Nixon authorized the payment of $1 million in “hush money” to the arrested burglars.
Similarly, the Manhattan indictment alleges that Trump “orchestrated” “with others” an “unlawful scheme,” which “hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.” The motive was “to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him [Trump] to suppress its publication and benefit [his] electoral prospects.”
The negative information Trump sought to suppress was not a burglary to steal information but rather an effort to bury information about his sexual exploits with adult film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal.
Trump knew that such bombshell disclosures prior to the 2016 election would torpedo his electability; particularly coming on top of the “Access Hollywood” tape (“grab them by the ...”) and claims of sexual impropriety by multiple women. To buy their silence, Trump arranged for “hush money” to be paid to Daniels and McDougal.
In another plot twist taken from the Nixon-Watergate story line, both men were captured on tape directing their cover-ups. In a March 21, 1973, tape recorded conversation, Nixon tells John Dean, his White House counsel, “John — and you had the right plan, let me say, I have doubts about the right plan before the election. And you handled it just right. You contained it.”
Forty-three years later, in a September 2016 tape recorded conversation between Trump and his lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, they discuss elements of the illegal plot to contain the public release of Daniels’ and McDougal’s salacious stories. They speak about “how to reimburse” David Pecker, then owner of the National Enquirer, for the “one-fifty” [$150,000] payment to McDougal on Trump’s behalf.
Trump and Cohen also acknowledge “the need to open a company for the transfer” of the funds that were paid to Daniels, and the assistance of Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg in facilitating the payments.
In another history repeating itself moment, the details of both presidents’ cover-up plots were ultimately disclosed by their lawyers, Dean and Cohen, after being confronted by law enforcement. Not surprisingly, both Nixon and Trump continued to lie and viciously attacked their lawyers once they began cooperating with government prosecutors. Both lawyers pleaded guilty and served jail time.
As with the Watergate cover-up trial, Cohen, like Dean, will not be the only star witness with direct incriminating testimony against his former boss. Pecker, who met with and spoke to Trump and Cohen to facilitate the cover-up, will testify against Trump. From the jury’s perspective, Cohen’s and Pecker’s testimony will not only support each other, but their testimonies will be further substantiated by that of other witnesses, business records and most significantly Trump’s own words on the tape.
Based on the totality of this evidence, Trump is facing almost certain conviction. Unlike Nixon, Trump cannot receive a presidential pardon because his convictions in Manhattan will be for state, not federal, crimes.
Despite what the pundits are saying about the efficacy of the Manhattan prosecution, their minimizing of the seriousness of the Manhattan indictment is destined to be relegated to the dustbin of history along with the Nixon White House’s failed attempts to distance itself from Watergate by calling it just “a third-rate burglary.”