now, i have to worry about my retirement going out the window. host: that will be the last word, we are out of time. that is all for today's washington journal. thanks to everyone that watched, called in, or participated on social media. we will be back tomorrow morning 7:00 here on c-span. have a great day. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> line, today on c-span, the vice chair of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral christopher grady talks about global security challenges and evolving threats. he is one of several speakers at

an event at the center for international strategic studies. live coverage at 10:30. then vice president harris shares details about her trip to africa where she visited three countries. that is at 4:20 p.m. you can also watch on our free mobile video app, c-span now, or at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> homework can be hard. but squatting in a diner for internet is even harder. that is why we are providing low income students with access to affordable internet, so homework can just be homework. >> cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy.

welcome back. i am joined by renato mariotti. he is a former assistant u.s. attorney from the northern district of illinois. the former president was charged with 34th felony counts of falsification of business records. what does that actually mean? guest: great question. in new york, unlike other jurisdictions, it is a prime to have false statements in your books and records. the theory is that regulators, for example, and others in the state of new york are going to potentially look at those records and rely on that, rely on the accuracy. that is a misdemeanor under new york law. it becomes a felony under new york law if the false statement

in the business records are done in furtherance of another crime. in the indictment that came out yesterday, there are at least two, potentially three, other crimes referenced. both federal elections -- federal and state election crimes appeared to be included. also, there is references to tax crimes. the allegations are essentially that in the course of making payments to stormy daniels and others, another woman, karen mcdougal, let the former president caused false statements to be made in the books and records of the trump organization and did so in furtherance of these other crimes. host: how strong of a case is

it? how easy or hard will it be to prove those charges? guest: not an easy question to answer. we do not have all the evidence yet. we have an indictment, which is an accusation regarding particular crimes. we do not have all the discovery from the prosecution. we do not know what all their cards are. but i should say that i would suspect that the district attorney's office would not -- they did relays something called a state does release something called a statement of fact in conjunction with the indictment. secondly, the indictment and statement of facts from the district attorney's office are not entirely clear regarding the legal theories and the other

statutes they rely on, which is unfortunate. they do not have to necessarily at this stage, although i think the former president's team will force them to reveal that information by moving for a bill of particulars to get more specificity. we do not know 100% exactly what the d.a.'s evidence is or what their legal theories are, but so far, i think dda has a solid case, but there are issues with it. generally, from my conversations with former manhattan assistant district attorneys, this particular charge, toss vacation of business records, -- falsification of business records, is a fairly straightforward charge to prove. however, that said, there are some unusual things about this case.

the campaign-finance piece is one. it is either going to be a case where the da is focusing on state election law, which potentially, there is an argument that it is superseded by federal law. former president trump was running for federal office. regarding the potential that he was doing this with the intent to commit a federal election offense, there is no question of whether or not the statute in new york can be referencing or done with the intent to commit a federal offense. the da believes it can. the das office in other cases has taken that position, but it has never been tested in order

-- in court. the strongest theory here is a tax theory, because they have some wording in the indictment that this is done in furtherance of tax crimes. what i mean technically is with the intent to commit tax crimes. that is stronger because jurors are going to believe a person will want to pay less taxes. that is more intuitive to a jury. the campaign-finance side is a bit clunky, because i do not think most jurors are going to think of payments to a paramore as a campaign expense. whereas reporting these payments to the paramour as payments

for legal services which may be the intent to get more favorable tax treatment is something more jurors can get behind. host: i will remind our viewers that they can start coming in if they have a question or comment. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also reach us on social media. what is the typical timeline for a case like this? guest: one thing i will say is there is a typical timeline and then the timeline for this case. the typical timeline in manhattan railway color case is -- 480 white collar case is still going to take years to get to trial. and there is a backlog of cases right now. this case appears to be on a slower track.

there is not a court appearance until december of this year. it is interesting and important to note that under our constitution and the laws of the state of new york, the defendant is entitled to a speedy trial. he can try to push for a faster trial. it is worth noting that one politician in the past famously did that and secured a victory against the justice department. that was 700 and statement -- senator ted seaman. under the specifics of new york, it would be difficult to get a trial before the federal election because the speedy trial act in new york is within six months. however, all the time spent making motions and with the judge considering motions is excluded from that time.

i would expect the former president would potentially make motions to reargue motions when new facts develop. we talk about various issues with his case. i do not think he would want to push those issues aside in order to get a faster trial. host: you wrote an opinion in politico about the other cases that are pending against the former president. your headline was the painful lesson donald trump could learn from r. kelly and mike levin already. what is that lesson? guest: it is very difficult to handle criminal cases, multiple, cases. i was a federal prosecutor for over nine years and have also been a defense lawyer. i represent clients across the

country. one of the most challenging things i have done is represent client who have criminal cases in multiple jurisdictions at the same time. the reason it is so hard is because prosecutors in any particular case, let's say this case alvin bragg and his team, they can focus like a laser on proving their case in that particular criminal indictment. for example, alvin bragg's focus is entirely on proving the charges we just talked about. but former president trump and his team cannot just be concerned about that one case. they cannot just be considered about how their words and actions impact that case. they have to be concerned about other investigations that could result in indictment.

we know that in fulton county, georgia, there is a criminal investigation of the president. the grand jury foreperson did not exactly have a poker-faced when she was discussing the recommendation. she will likely recommend an indictment. a special capsule has been appointed with two separate criminal investigation. anyone on trump's legal team, when they are making decisions about motions, evidence, witnesses, positions to take, they need to consider not just how those actions play out in that case, but the other cases as well. you are going to see very soon in the upcoming months a war on multiple fronts for the trump

team, which is a real problem for them. realistically, if this case takes a long time to come to fruition, and the other cases also do, you could have a situation where the former president does not win the 2024 election and will be facing multiple trials. is this all with r. kelly and harvey weinstein, you can mean many in this position, it is a challenging situation. host: you mentioned the 2024 election. what if he does win and he has still got indictments and trials pending? guest: that would pose questions that are so unprecedented that it is hard for me to imagine how we could resolve the inmate the time we have on this program. -- in does resolve them in the

time you have on this program. you have a state government trying to punish the executive officer, the president of the united states. the federalism concerns are there. in a federal case, federal cases are the most problematic for a former president, you would still have a situation where the judiciary is trying to punish the executive. i do not pretend to know exactly how that would play out, but it would be an unprecedented, constitutional crisis. that word gets strung around often. it would be uniquely appropriate in this situation. host: a wrench of people want to talk to you, but i want to ask about michael cohen. and the pluses and minuses of the prosecution resti smuch

of their case on michael cohen's testimony. guest: there is mostly minuses. if i were a prosecutor, i would try to [indiscernible] people who are convicted felons, particularly convicted for crimes involving dishonesty, are always challenging witnesses. to be clear, i often put those witnesses on the stand, because defendants in this criminal cases often are inning involved with working alongside people who are committing crimes, but that is always a challenge. for mr. cohen in particular it is a challenge because not only has he been convicted of lying to congress and committing fraud, both involving dishonesty, but he has his own podcast in which he is critical

of her president trump -- former president trump. he has gained notoriety for that. it would not be hard for mr. trump to try and portray him as someone who has attacked him. host: larry, granbury, texas, independent. caller: i intend to figure out -- i keep hearing stuff on tv about trump and have the money, where it is going and stuff like that. with so much going on in the country right now, why isn't anybody talking about that? all the money that is going out, millions and millions of dollars. the government is taking away from seniors, taking away from people. host: you are talking about

money spent by the government for this case? caller: yes. the money they have made, bragg and all of them, going after trump. what about other people out there? guest: it is always fair to question whether a particular prosecution should have been brought. this is a local governmental body, not the federal government. that there are all sorts of resources that can be deployed by a prosecutor. and there is not a lack in this country. one consideration prosecutors always have his whether this case is worth prosecutorial resources. here, there is sufficient activity to warrant an investigation. there is an open question regarding whether or not this prosecution should have been

brought, but the cost and scope are fairly minor in terms of the overall budget. even the manhattan d.a.'s budget. it is a significant case pulling resources that could have been used on other things. host: hector, san diego, line for democrats. caller: nobody is doing nothing to him, trump. nobody is stopping him. he is breaking the law and nobody is above the law. nobody is doing anything. he has done a lot of damage to the people. -- is in charge, the congress. i do not know. you have to stop this guy who is

running again for president. he is not giving nothing to the people. it is a shame this case running for president again. the people, i this guy is bad. host: any comments? guest: i should think that hector is raising an important point. the former president has done a lot that is controversial, some of that outrageous, some unprecedented. for example, the actions of january 6 were unprecedented. we have never had a mob descend

upon the capitol and we have never had a president try to overturn an election result or stand in the way of the peaceful transfer of power. there are certainly some serious actions that the former president is taking. one thing i have heard in question i have received many times over the past several years is why is trump not being held accountable? why are there no cases against him? now we have the first criminal case. one point and will make and the reason i think it is important is that we are looking at trump 's activities and i do not know of making payments in this fashion is necessarily the most serious thing he has done, but it goes to show how controversial these cases can be. there are more on the horizon. host: what are typical sentences

in cases like this? guest: typically, a defendant would not receive prison time in new york for this sentence. that is something i have spent a lot of time talking to folks about, some my friends and colleagues who handle cases of this type in manhattan. they typically do not get prison time. that is consistent with white-collar cases across the country. i represent white-collar defendants in federal and state was across the country, california, illinois, so on. it is often the case that even for a large fraud case, the defendant will get months, maybe a year or two in prison, but in manhattan, for this type of felony, which is a ghost level in the near system, -- lowest level in the new york system, that is usually no prison time.

host: mary lou says new york has strict financial loss. they have to back. new york city is the financial center of the world. any gangsters have been in prison for financial crimes trump is no better than a mob boss. he, kentucky, republican. -- keith caller: trump's attorney, what are his beliefs for stating about the motion? of the 34 charges

not specific enough. then i believe trump pot legal team themselves talked about filing motions. mr. tacopina and others said so publicly. they are planning to file a motion, other motions. that would be surprising, the kind of thing you would do in a white-collar criminal case. regarding the strength of the evidence, i talked about that. there are arguments, questions that can be drawn about this. there is certainly a significant amount of evidence, if i was on the legal team making these motions, i would have some concerns about the case. host: sheila is in youngstown,

ohio, democrat. caller: good morning. if trump did nothing in the case and is so minor, why did his own federal prosecutors convict michael cohen for the same crime, convicted him of a felony and sent him to jail for three years? they wouldn't even let him see his tax records. they said you have to decide right now, we are going to indict your wife. trump was president when that happened. his own federal prosecutors said, who is donald trump? directed michael cohen to commit the crime. donald trump was the beneficiary of the crime, not michael cohen. the reason that he is a convicted felon is because he lied for trump. if the crime is horrible enough for michael cohen to go to jail, why not trump?

trump was a sitting president in the oval office and he wrote the reimbursement checks to cohen. geoffrey berman, a former u.s. attorney, wrote a book saying that bill barr, the attorney general, asked him to reverse michael cohen's guilty plea after he served prison time. it looks like obstruction and tampering by bill barr. i wish the inspector general would look into this. they sure targeted in on cohen and left him. this is what trump does to everybody. people who are out there thinking they are supporting trump, he will not stand by you. host: let's get a response. guest: very interesting points raised. let me start by saying, i do agree michael cohen went to

prison, in part, because he was convicted of a federal election crime that is similar to the crimes here. here, the crime is falsifying business records under new york law. i think the caller is correct, there is an underlying factual similarity here. cohen was charged and convicted, pled guilty to election crimes related to these payments to stormy daniels. i do want to note, because that was not the only crime that cohen was convicted of. he had his own pre-existing fraud case involving taxes and taxi medallions. he pleaded guilty. i don't know if he would have pled guilty if the only time was that campaign-finance crime. there were some legal issues there, as well.

there are some legal questions about that case, but michael cohen understandably pleaded guilty because he already had that taxi medallion case, also lying to congress case, which the caller is correct to note, was in trump's benefit. one thing the caller mentioned, federal prosecutors during trump's administration, that's true. but it is fair to say that he did not have trouble over those prosecutors in the southern district of new york. i agree there is at least evidence, including the testimony of mr. berman, who was appointed by mr. trump to be the u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york, that there was attempts to interfere with the administration of justice by the southern district of new york. it is rather remarkable that the u.s. attorney appointed by mr. trump has written a book stating that there were attempts to

interfere with the prosecutions in his office. i would not necessarily characterize those as obstruction of justice. there are challenging legal issues given that trump is the president at the time. if true, there are certainly abuses of power, and there is an ongoing congressional investigation. more broadly what i would say is, while i agree that the law, financial crimes at issue are the block and tackle for the manhattan prosecutors. manhattan does have tough financial laws related to financial crimes. it is fair to ask questions about the first ever indictment of a first -- former president. this is not a typical case. it is fair to have questions,

but i think much of the commentary on this, some of the criticism, is often political in nature, rather than looking at the potential legal issues. host: let's talk to karen in alabaster, alabama. republican. caller: i was going to say from the last couple of callers talking about michael cohen. he did plead guilty, so i appreciate you saying that. number two, his own lawyer called the grand jury and said i want to testify. he is lying to you. michael cohen is a liar. that is number two. as far as the indictment is concerned, and bragg was asked this in the press conference, waiting for c-span2 play this, but he says 35 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. that is what they are. itus