>> it is 10:00 p.m. in paris and you are watching france 24. donald trump pleads not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. the republican former president faces indictment charges in a case which threatens to upend the 20 u.s. presidential race. finland has joined nato, doubling the security block's frontier with russia, resulting in a threat from moscow of countermeasures. china has vowed to defend its national sovereignty ahead of a meeting between taiwan's

president and kevin mccarthy. ♪ >> thank you for joining us. donald trump has pleaded not guilty inside a packed new york courtroom as he becomes the first american president to be arrested on criminal charges. it was a spectacle played out on live television with rival protesters rallying outside. the hearing marked a more #a watershed moment. this coming a year before an election in which trump leads the race to be the republican nominee. to help us unpack the proceedings, i am joined by our correspondent in new york.

it has been a day full of expectation and drama. tell me exactly how it unfolded. >> trump plead not guilty to the 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. what we know about this indictment is that the former president has -- intent to defraud, aid and coeal the commission there of -- business records of an enterprise. this news is just coming out. i was not actually in the courtroom, but reporters tell me donald trump was sitting in the front row and that he was expressionless as these charges were read. now he is of course left.

there are some protesters still outside, some trump supporters and an awful lot of media. it has been a zoo outside. with all sorts of very colorful and extreme donald trump supporters holding flags, saying trump or death. some protestersame out to speak out against trump, holding up signs saying lock him up. >> we are seeing live images right now of trump presumably leaving back to mar-a-lago. you mentioned those supporters and reactions, how do you think this has galvanized his base ahead of the republican nomination for president? >> by the sounds of it, his

claims that this is a witch hunt and it is destroying america and it is an attack on his supporters, has led to more campaign contributions for his run for reelection in 2024. so far it seems that actually may be encouraging some supporters to back him in a more staunch way. it is -- to say how this is going to play out. some say trump supporters won't be discouraged by this case against him because they were not discouraged by all the previous cases against him and they will support him no matter what. >> a u.s. judge is saying trump's trial could start in january 2024. how likely is this to affect him

in that race? could that drag on? could we see him potentially not being allowed to run? >> it is too early to say. of course it is going to impact the race but it could also help him in some ways. but, yes. it looks like it is going to drag on. this will go well into the race. that would be around when the primaries are beginning. but if he manages to use it as an opportunity to -- more support, he could benefit from it. it is a little early to say. >> thank you so much, jessica. just outside of the courthouse in manhattan. there has been a lot of reaction from those republican supporters outside the courthouse. very fervor and support of donald trump. let's get some of that reaction from tuesday's hearing.

>> it is really satisfying as a new yorker for him to see a courtroom and face a judge like every other criminal. new yorkers have been watching him run a criminal enterprise for decades. with his father before that. finally, we are going to see an ounce of justice. >> we wanted to show our support for trump. >> what are your thoughts on this historic day? the first president to be indicted criminally? >> i think it is ridiculous. i think it is a sad day for our country. >> we have heard from supporters, let us unpack the legal implications. i am joined by stephen dreyfus. thanks for joining us. in terms of the charges, there is 34.

which ones have stood out for you? >> i have only just seen it and read it. the first thing that happened was trump's lawyers had a news conference and criticized the fact that it was bare-bones. that is the way indictments are, contrary to federal courts that some people are used to. at the same time, there was a 13 page statement of fact that was released by the prosecutor, which in no doubt he will talk about it his next press conference, which made much clearer with the purpose of the payments was and how they were done. the indictment itself just contains 30 odd counts commit each false entry is charged in a separate account. but there is not information there.

the information is in the statement of facts and it seems clearly to allege that the $130,000 was paid to stormy daniels, then was mischaracterized on business records as payments of a retainer to trump's lawyer michael cohen. trump himself signed 12 monthly checks repaying michael cohen for the 100 $30,000 michael cohen advanced. he took a mortgage on his house to do it. that is the essence of the charge, but there will be no doubt much more evidence produced in the event that there is a trial. the next step is going to be motions by the defense to try to dismiss or limit the indictment. but assuming some or all of the charges remain after those motions are decided, the trial

will take place in the beginning of next year. >> as you mentioned, it is a bit early to say what kind of arguments the defense will put up in terms of that rebuttal, but what you expect them to say? >> i think what they will say is that there are all kinds of legal objections. they will say it is barred by the statute of limitations. they will say that it was improper to use a federal charge as the basis for estate indictment. all kinds of technical arguments. but on the merits, i do not know what they will say. there is a lot of documentary evidence that corroborates the allegations of the prosecutor. i suspect of the major defense will be that this was done by people working for trump without his knowledge or direction.

trump, traditionally, has given very cryptic orders to people that are not written down to do various things so that perhaps he can evade responsibility later on. the challenge for the prosecutor will to be -- will be to show that donald trump knew about this scheme and consented to it. they will certainly be able to show that he knew he was paying the money back to cohen. but whether he knew about the original plan to conceal the characters of these payments to make them seem like payments to a lawyer rather than payments to a born star remains to be seen. i expect factually that would be the major defense that will be raised at trial. >> in terms of an arrest and ultimately seeing trump in the jail, how likely is that? >> he has been arrested and he

has been released on his own recognizance under new york law. this kind of a charge would not permit somebody to be kept in jail pending trial. the question will be whether the prosecution will be able to convince a jury of 12 people unanimously to convict him of these charges. what the sentence might be after conviction is a whole other discussion. the biggest issue will be, are they able to convict them? it will be up to a jury of 12 new yorkers from manhattan. this is only the county of new york, which is manhattan, to decide whether his guilt has been proved. >> it is 12 people and it almost makes a man who was at the apex of power in the world, it almost makes him seem more human that it is 12 jurors who will be

determining his future. what kind of legal precedent do you think this sets for the offices of the president? >> i do not think it sets any president. -- precedent. one thing you can say about donald trump is that he has broken the mold of what presidents were up until he arrived. there was never a prohibition for indicting a president after he is out of office. there is simply an internal policy at the department of justice that they do not bring federal indictments against the president while he or she is in office. because the sole remedy should be impeachment of a sitting president. for a president out of office, there is no limitation. there never has been, they are just has not been yet somebody who justified it. i see the prosecutor is arriving at the podium, perhaps you want to go to him. >> we have alvin bragg now, the

da. >> a new york supreme court indictment returned by a manhattan grand jury on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. under new york state law, it is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud and intend to conceal another crime. that is exactly what this case is about. 34 false statements made to cover up other crimes. these are felony crimes in new no matter who you are. we cannot and will not normalize serious criminal con duct. dependent -- the defendant repeatedly made false statements and also caused others to make false statements.

the defendant claimed he was paying michael cohen for legal services performed in 2017. this simply was not true. defendant made month after month in 2017. april, may, june, and so on, through threst of the year. for nine straight months, the defendant held documents in his hand containing this key lie, that he was paying michael coleman -- michael cohen for legal services performed in 2017. he personally signed checks for payments to michael cohen for each of these nine months. in total, the grand jury found there were 34 documents with this critical false statement. why did donald trump repeatedly make these false statements?

the evidence will show that he did so to cover up crimes relating to the 2016 election. donald trump, ecutives at the publishing company american media inc., mr. cohen and others agreed in 20 to a catch and kill scheme. that is a sche to buy and suppress negative information to help mr. trump's chance of winning the election. as part of this scheme, donald trump and others made three payments to people who claims to have negative information about mr. trump. to make these payments, they set up shell companies and they made yet more false statements, including in ami business records. one of the three people they paid to keep quiet was a woman named stormy daniels. less than two weeks before the

election, michael cohen wired $130,000 to stormy daniels lawyer. that payment was to hide damaging information from the voting public. the participants scheme was illegal. the scheme violated new york election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. the $130,000 wire payment exceeded the federal payment contribution cap. and the false statements in ami 's books violated new york law. that is why mr. trump made false statements about his payments to mr. cohen. he could not simply say that the payments were a reimbursement for mr. calvin's payments to stormy daniels. to do so, to make that through -- that a true statement with to

have been a crime. instead, mr. trump said he was paying mr. cohen for fictitious legal services in 2017, to cover up actual crime committed the prior year. in order to get michael cohen his money back, they plant one last false statement. in order to complete the seme, they planned to mischaracterize the payments to mr. cohen as income to e new york state tax auorities. the contact i just described, and that which was charged by the grand jury, is felony criminal conduct in new york state. 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. that is why we have a history in the manhattan das office of

vigorously enforcing white-collar crime. my office, including the talented prosecutors you saw arraignments today, have charged hundreds of felony falsify business records for next records. this charge is the bread and the fraud presents itself in all different forms here in manhattan. we have charged falsifying business records for those who violated federal bank secrecy laws. we have charged falsifying business records for those seeking to cover up sex crimes. we have brought this charge for those who committed tax violations. at its core, this case today is one with allegations, like so many of our white-collar -- allegations someone lied again and again to protect their interests and evade the laws to which we are all held accountable. as this office has done time and

again, we today uphold our solemn responsibility to ensur that everyone stands equal before the law. no amount of money and no amount of power changes that enduring american principal. i will now take questions. >> we are going to take a limited number of questions. [indiscernible] >> we conducted a thorough and rirous investigation. i have been doing this for 24 years. i am no stranger to rigorous, complex investigations.

i have -- already. having now conducted a rigorous, thorough investigation, the case was be ready to brought. >> [indiscernible] >> let me say this. the indictment does not specified because the law does not so required. in my remarks i mentioned a couple of laws which i will highlight again. the first is new york state election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. i further indicated a number of unlawful means including false

statements, statements primed to be made to tax authorities. i also noted the federal election law cap on contribution limits. >> [indiscnible] >> i am not going to go into our deliberative process on what brought the charge. the evidence and the laws the basis for those decisions. >> [indiscernible] >> i am not going to go chapter and verse into the thinking. within the time period you have been talking about, i have been in -- i had been in office for a couple of months. the investigation was not concluded into the conduct in particular that is the basis for the charges today.

since that time, we have had more evidence made available and opportunities to meet with additional witness. as iaid earlier, i have been doing this for 24 years. i do not bring cases prior to a thorough and rigorous investigation. now having done so, the case has been brought. >> your predecessor took a hard look at this case and decided not to charge it. federal prosecutors did -- decided not to charge it. do you believe you have new evidence that led you to decide to crge this? why now? >> as i mentioned, we had available to the office additional edence that was not inhe office's possession prior to my time here. as to the part of your question about the federal, we have a distinct a profound independent interest in new york state. this is the business capital of the world. we regularly do cases involving false business statements.

the bedrock, the basis for business integrity in a well-functioning business marketplace is true and accurate record keeping. that is the charge bought -- brought here. violating state. >> [indiscernible] >> i am not going to go beyond the plain language in the statemenof fact. it speaks for itself. >> [indiscernible] >> the charge is falsifying business records. the charge requires, as i

specified, criminal conduct that was concealed. one of the concealed crimes we allege is new york state election law. i went through our stement of facts, which many of you have in front of you. it goes through things including text, emails, contemporaneous phone records, multiple witnesses. all of that will be a, as you saw, born out in a public courtroom in downtown manhattan. >> [indiscernible] >> it is -- i am glad you put your finger on that. it is not just about one payment, it is 34 business records, 34 false statements on

business records that were concealing criminal conduct. the earlier question about new york state election law, when we talk about conspiracy to promote a candidacy by unlawful means, those unlawful means, we allege, include the conduct set forth in the statement of fact, which is additional false statements separate apart from the charged ones. planned false statements to tax authorities. it is not just the one 130 $1000 payment. thanks so much for -- thanks so much. >> stephen dreyfus, please can we get your first response to that press conference from the district attorney's office? >> it was very interesting. one of the legal issues that is

likely to be raised by the trump side is that the indictment relies on a federal crime as the crime that the false records were designed to advance or cover-up. what he has done here is made clear that there are several new york state crimes that are alleged and that would totally negate that basis to challenge the indictment. he pointed out that under the new york state election law, it is a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. he alleges that the false records that he is talking about constituted such unlawful means. he also talks about false statements to the tax authorities, presumably the new york state tax authorities. that also would be a crime.

he has not charged those stage crimes, but has laid out a basis to say this crime of false business records was for the purpose of either committing or covering up those other crimes. that is enough to make it a felony under new york state law. i think a lot of it was addressed to those legal issues. and then he makes the point that it is not just the $130,000 payment to stormy daniels he is talking about, but there are other false records that he says are alleged in the indictment. the indictment is bare-bones. the defense lawyers are criticizing him for that, but that is all that has to be under state law. it simply has to make the allegations, in the dude -- they did produce the statement of facts which includes a lot of detail about the underlying facts. as one would expect, and he is

required to do, mr. bragg limited himself and his public statements to what is alleged in the indictment and what is laid out in the statement of facts without going any further about mr. trump, whose name he did not even mention, or about any answers to mr. trump's claims about political motivations. he is playing it straight and narrow, as he often took. we will see what the response is. >> that is an important point you made on that federal difference. we have obviously her the likes of florida governor ron desantis saying he wouldn't cooperate or help in the process of arresting donald trump in florida. has that now reached a new level of significance, those statements? >> not really. i am getting my own opinion, but that was grandstanding. he has a constitutional obligation to produce somebody,

had there been an arrest warrant issued by the state of new york. every other state has to recognize it. he could not have actually prevented it, but he wanted to take a position that showed that he was on trump's side.

04/04/23 04/04/23 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] amy: from new york, this is democracy now! it is history in the making as donald trump prepares to be arraigned on over 30 counts, making him the first former u.s. -- u.s. president to be first criminally charged. we will speak to pulitzer prize winning journalist david cay johnson who has been reporting on trump for decades. then voters are heading to the polls for a mayoral election in chicago and for a critical supreme court election in wisconsin.