New York Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg have successfully brought charges against Donald Trump, and Bragg's trial will begin before April. Meanwhile, the Justice Department has stalled.
Speaking to MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace, former prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, lawyer and professor Maya Wiley, and MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin walked through the specifics that make the case just different enough to garner traction.
"I think one of the reasons I'm prepared for anything, and everything is because state courthouses are fundamentally different animals than federal courthouses," Rubin explained. "In almost every sense of the word. But in this one critical way: cameras cannot even enter the Southern District of New York. They are not only welcome at 100 Center Street."
ALSO READ: 'Hound them': Supreme Court faces flood of protests over Trump immunity case
The case will be tried in Center Street, and Trump can hold his press conferences outside the courtroom. It's something she noted Trump has frequently taken advantage of in his other cases. Rubin said that Trump will treat it like "a briefing room."
Weissmann said that the hush money case was discovered during Robert Mueller's investigation. He said that while working on the DOJ team, they passed it off to the Southern District of New York. SDNY was happy to indict Michael Cohen, but they stopped there.
"As we know, Bill Barr had a hand in that. That the case would not go any further," said Weissmann, recalling the charging documents that clearly referred to Donald Trump. Trump loyalists lobbied to have any mention of him removed and ultimately settled for only his name being taken out.
"The second part is, you know, a less-flattering answer with respect to the current Department of Justice administration because there was nothing that prevented the current DOJ from picking that case back up," Weissmann said of the hush money case. "In the same way that you and I and others have talked about Merrick Garland being slow to take up the January 6th case until really stepping on the gas, only after the January 6th congressional hearings. So a lot of what we're dealing with now doesn't excuse what the Supreme Court is doing."
He explained that there were other players around to blame but that not having the "moxie" to follow the facts wherever they lead regardless of the political hit is "part of the story for why we are where we are."
"And I don't think you saw that either with D.A. Vance, to be fair to him, as well, and D.A. Bragg, and with Tish James — I think they basically did their jobs as good public servants," he continued. "And there's a real contrast in looking at what they did compared to other people."
Wallace noted that they face equal threats but, in some cases, "more brutal and crude ones with less security infrastructure."
Wiley pointed to the move in the past several years that allowed for the "normalization of criminal activity, even the claim of criminal activity against someone who is seeking to hold the reins of the most powerful position in the country." Normally, she said, it would be a big deal to denigrate the importance of that case. The fact that it isn't "is something we should worry a lot about."
See the discussion in the video below or at the link here.
Why the New York prosecutors can get Trump and the Justice Department struggleswww.youtube.com
