it is good to be with you. i'm geoff bennett joined by my friend ayman. and now, today, the president is getting an upclose look at the

sheer horror and heartache of this sheer disaster. overnight, three more bodies pulled from the rubble, a mother and her two daughters ages 4 and 10. but shortly the rescue efforts halted over the stability of the rubble pile, and the part of the tower that is still standing. we will have much more throughout the hour on that, and now i want to kick it over to you, ayman with the breaking news in new york. >> yes, we as geoff reported moments away from the indictments unsealed against the trump organization, and the chief financial officer alan weisselberg, and as we learn what is happening with the indictments, we have a powerhouse panel to take you through every step of the process. we will bring in ken delainian, and daniel gold, attorney for the southern district of new york, and the lead counsel for

democrats in the first impeachment trial for president trump in barbara quaid of the first district of new york, and thankfully for us, a msnbc legal analyst. and ken, i will begin with you, what we have learned so far about these charges are based on what the attorneys representing alan weisselberg, and certainly from the trump organization side, so, you don't know what is coming out of the indictments when we see them, but lay out for us some of the charges that we are expecting to see. >> that is a terrific point that you are making, ayman. you don't know, but from our colleague tom winter who is in the courtroom, we believe that the charges are in part, a tax avoidance scheme by the trump organization which is a scheme to pay the employees lavish

benefits in lieu of a salary. so now they are asking for documents of tuition paid on behalf of a grandchild of alan weisselberg, and a leased mercedes-benz, and the charges are almost never brought as a criminal matter, but almost always a civil matter between the taxpayer, and the irs, and that seems to be accurate, but as the legal experts will tell you, it is not a legal defense, but if they can prove a crime here, that is all that matters. >> so, barbara, to ken's point, it is such a high profile case, and this is not any company that we are talking about here, and cy vance is going after one of the businesses of the former president, and explain this for us, and what are the chances that the fringe benefits are the only thing that we will hear about today, or is there something bigger at play that we just don't know about?

>> as ken says, the reporting is tax avoidance scheme providing the fringe benefits without declaring them for tax purposes, but we also know that cy vance stated in court filings some months ago that he was investigating the trump organization for bank fraud and insurance fraud, and michael cohen said that the trump organization would routinely devalue the assets for income tax purposes and inflate them for loan purposes, and so it could be that the prosecutors are holding back on some of those things to continue to use them for leverage to induce people to cooperate or possible that the leads did not pan out. it is one of the things they am going to be looking for when the indictments are unsealed. >> i want to keep everyone informed that we have a pool reporter inside of the courtroom

providing us with updates, and we will bring them to you as we get them. we have the first one that the proceeding is on time at 2:15 p.m., and we are 10 minutes before that is under way. we have our own reporter tom winter there in the courtroom, and when we bring that to our viewers and get legal analysis from the team. and dan, you said that the company would be usually indicted at the end of the investigation, but we don't expect the prosecutors to speak after the hearing, because they say that the investigation continues. from your legal expertise, what do you make from the first set of charges are against the organization and allen weisselberg? >> well, it is unusual for an organization or company to be charged in the middle of an ongoing investigation, and this is the last step, because there is no leverage to be used

against a organization because there is no jail time for the organization. that is primarily the incentive that prosecutors use for leverage to get people to cooperate. on the same token the charges against alan weisselberg don't carry any jail time if any in new york state, and so to the extent that they were trying to use, they being the manhattan d.a.'s office to use potential charges as leverage against him, and if you don't have jail time to hold over someone, it is very hard to get them to cooperate. so, i think that this is maybe a situation where they tried to leverage alan weisselberg, and he called their bluff, and he said, i will not cooperate, and now they are charging him. and they are charging the company for similar conduct that they would have charged alan weisselberg, because it is going to be out in the open.

i will be paying close attention to dates of the conduct, and whether the indictment includes any misconduct by the trump organization even if it is not charged, because, a, there is a statute of limitations that cy vance has to consider, and you to determine if the conduct is persistent and evasive over a number of year, and what we are hearing about this trump organization is whether it is avoiding payroll taxes to its employees under alan weisselberg if there is conduct outside of the statute of limitations or an equitable reason why cy vance is charging the trump organization.

>> and about eight minutes on the floor of the manhattan courthouse, we expect that hearing to be under way. barbara, you were one of the top prosecutors in the country, and i don't want to tell you how much you hate to lose or spend tax money on a case that does not produce a result, so if the charges are a way to get weisselberg to flip on donald trump, and he does not flip, what are the chances that this is it, and after two years that cy vance who you can see entering the courtroom or that building a short time ago, what he can prove if anything at all? >> i think that the prosecutors have discussed this strategy trying to flip weisselberg as a potential co-op ray or the as someone in the higher sctum of the trump organization. and they have to realize that he won't, and go ahead to charge him. but they have this ability at the end of his case, whether he

is convicted or acquitted, he no longer has a fifth amendment right against recrimination. so they can use a grand jury subpoena to compel him to testify and ask him what he knows, and there is some recourse even if he refuses to cooperate. >> okay. we are getting started on a busy thursday afternoon, and ask you to stick around as we read through these documents throughout the hour, and first we send it is back to my colleague geoff bennett. >> yes, thank you, ayman. i am here in florida where the president and the first lady are speaking with those who have lost or have still missing loved ones here in the building in surfside. and meanwhile, the hundreds of first responders who are look g ing for survivors or remains.

and the death toll now includes two children 4 and 10, and they are sisters. at least 145 people are still unaccounted for. joining us now is news correspondent ellison barber, and now the president is meeting privately with the families of the victims, and we didn't want him to be at the site, because the white house did not want him to divert law enforcement resource, but he is coming on the day where the officials are suspending the search and rescue effort, and tell us more about that decision. >> yeah, they are saying it is a temporary pause, but we don't know when it is going to be a paudz, because rescuers are saying that they had to stop work because of the fear of the rest of the building the parts that are still standing could collapse. there are three main areas of concern according to the fire officials, because they noticed movement in a debris pile on the south side of the structure, and

also movement in the concrete floor slab on the north and the south corner of the building to cause additional failure tofr -- of the building, and the big point of concern is that there is a big column hanging from a structure that is still standing, and it had moved 6 to 12 inches and if it were to fall, it could bring the rest of the building down, so structural engineers told the rescues to stop working and evacuate the area, and so that is what they did. again, no timetable right now in terms of when they might be able to go back out there and continue the work, but for the families of those who were still unaccounted for, this is a devastating setback. geoff. >> yeah, it is heartbreak on top of heartbreak. ellison, what can you tell us

about the three new victims, the mother and two daughters aged 4 and 10. >> yes, the heartbreak of those that have been found is an entire family that is initially rescuers found marcus, and then they found his wife, annalee, and then lucia and she was just 10 years old -- >> excuse me, i have to interrupt and send it back to ayman. >> you are looking at the cf to, of the trump organization who is coming into the courthouse, and he is handcuffed heading to the 11th floor of the courtroom, and we are seeing those pictures as we see pictures of cy vance and new york attorney general making their way into the courtroom, and according to the pool reporter taking their way into

the courtroom. and that arraignment is expected to start on time at 2:15. crossing over to the panel, barbara, what do you make of that, because there was some analysis of how the district attorney in the morning when alan weisselberg came in and surrendered himself to the court at 6:00 a.m., there was not a lot of attention or media there, and perhaps that is the message communicated to weisselberg about respect, and perhaps not wanting to put him in the spotlight, but this is a different story, and the media there, and as you saw, handcuffed visible to anyone in the building. >> yeah, i think that sometimes people think of the decision to arrest or not arrest or to bring someone in custody as, you know, giving someone good treatment or respect, but in fact, what the prosecutors do is to make a decision of whether or not an arrest is necessary to bring someone in, because you are concerned that they are violent, that they might flee or destroy

evidence or that you are conducting a search simultaneous with the arrest or take a shot with questioning him, and with alan weisselberg, there is no expectation of flight, and he is not violent, and they did not intend to execute a search warrant, and because he is represented by council, it is fruitless to prosecute him, so they are bringing resources required and the danger that someone could get injured, they would rather have someone self-surrendered and that is likely the calculus behind this, but it is one of the disparities of the criminal justice system. and it is not intended, but it has a disparate impact on those who commit the street crimes are and asked to come in to surrender. >> and you can see him brought into the manhattan courthouse handcuffed and brought into

members of law enforcement, and we will continue with that and until that arraignment is under way. back to you, geoff. >> we were talking about the suspended search and rescue command. and you have been assisting in the search and rescue effort from the start, and can you help us to understand how perilous this situation is where the ongoing operation had to be halted, because of the concerns of the remaining tower might fall. >> this morning as you probably know, the operation was stopped during a few reasons. the main reason why the rescue team heard the noises and felt movements, and we had a few indicated that shows that the pile is no longer safe for the rescuers and the commanders of

the operation decided to stop it, but we were commended after a few inspections that we have made to keep on going with the operation, and now we are waiting to decision to get it, get them back now. >> is that a decision to be made today, within hours? >> potentially, yes. >> earlier we were ug taing the about the families who have been worried about the loved ones, and that the operation can continue, and have you talked to families ark anded what is your takeaway. >> the israeli operation is to speak to the families twice a day. and it is the local organization and the police department and fire department, and we brief them in the morning, afternoon, and noon, and the phase of the

operation, and fully ininvolved in what we do to have the most information that we can about the loved ones. and according to that, we have been able to map of the exact locations of the people. >> you said that there was in haiti, the child who emerged from the rubble after eight days, and he survived it. are you hopeful that is the case here? >> yes, israel we have indicated that we are treating all of those trapped, we are hoping to have a chance to find lives. >> earlier we heard miami-dade rescue where they thought they had a situation to hear a female

voice, but ultimately the sound stopped. can you tell us what you know about that? >> i was not there on the pile of the place where it occurred, but former events, indude, when we hear voice, and we have heard a few days to dig through the bodies. thank you for your time and all of your efforts. >> thank you. and much more ahead in the rescue efforts, including a doctor who knows some of the missing. back to you, ayman in new york. we are minutes away in the start of the arraignment against the trump courtroom. and when we come back, alan

eisenberg's daughter will join us. eisenberg's daughter will join us. [ "me and you" by barry louis polisar ]

♪ me and you just singing on the train ♪ ♪ me and you listening to the rain ♪ ♪ me and you we are the same ♪ ♪ me and you have all the fame we need ♪ ♪ indeed, you and me are we ♪ ♪ me and you singing in the park ♪ ♪ me and you, we're waiting for the dark ♪

this is moments ago and also

entering the courtroom according to the pool reporter is everyone going over the indictments, and now joining us is ken delainian, and also chief legal correspondent ari melber and barbara mcquade and ken mcquaid. so, now as the indictments are unsealed, and we are getting the reports from the pool reporter and we understand that the lawyer for allen weisselberg are going over the indictments right now, and we have a sense that the hearing is moving along on schedule, and what should we be anticipating? >> we talked about how this is a lavish tax evasion scheme, but i am going to be looking for the aspects to this investigation that have not been mentioned as much in recent days, but we know that part of the manhattan

d.a.'s investigation of hush money payments to women who alleged affairs with donald trump and other bank issues, and we don't know if this is charged today, but we know that these were lines of inquiry in the manhattan d.a.'s investigation, and so the question is arising, is that continuing or did the lines fade away, and we may not get an answer today, but that is what i am looking for, ayman? >> and as far as the timing, the court proceeding, and the arraignment is under way. barbara, some other people were expecting more serious charges from this investigation, and we will couch it to see what the indictment carries, but what are you waiting for the fact that where we are starting out seems to be from at least from some legal experts a small starting point. >> i agree that it is a small

starting point in light of the types of investigations that ken referred to that can bring other significant penalties, but that is how the prosecutors work with a small methodical fashion of starting with the evidence and the following the money, and reported that jennifer weisselberg, the former wife of jerry weisselberg, and daughter of allen weisselberg is giving them some information, and as the ed grows, they can show it others to hope to flip them as well. we know that allen weisselberg has not flipped to date, but sometimes once a defendant sees his name on that indictment, kit change his mind. we saw it with rick gaetz who was a co-defendant with paul manafort and deputy chairman for the trump campaign, and he refused to flip, and then when he was indicted, he changed his mind. so those things can happen, and

then provide the benefits for prosecutors in terms of additional information. >> and ari, how serious are these charges from not providing fringe benefits to somebody on a job, and are we paying attention to something that is not as significant given who the defendant and the target are? >> well, it ranges on the amount, the conduct, the intent, and these are all things that now mr. weisselberg is indicted and marched through there in cuffs will be litigated in a courtroom, but asking most americans, and you say, can you get away with dodging 100,000 or 200,000 in taxes, and people don't make that much money, and so financially, this could be viewed as very serious by a jury, and years in prison or as pointed out, you might end up with a civil resolution, and things that happen in tax case, and lit hurt him that he is a

financial expert, and a chief financial officer in a company, and if somebody is to know the darn rules and not break them, it is him. so nothing small or minor about being the cfo and being in charge of potentially hundreds of thousands of employees and then routinely, and repeatedly and habitually being treated on your own. and we saw mr. weisselberg going in today and went in with a rich and no mask and hands free, and walked in there with his lawyers and he turned moments ago into this, wearing a mask because of rules and he was told to, hands behind his back, and cuffed like a routine defendant, and in a place for arraignment, and i know that it is not smelling good in the place, and doesn't feel good, and if you have been through there, it is not a

sobering experience, and i take no delight in that, or a shot, but i am saying what happens to people who go through that, and if you not been through that, it is an eye-opener, and what is happening to him, and this is the first day of in the rest of his life, and he is going to process this and decide what to do about it, and as a legal adjustment, he is presumed innocent and he may be emboldened by this and want to maintain his innocence and he could feel angered and want to cut a deal, and so we with are going through unchartered precipice to the first indictments. >> and so to your point, the psychology of this, and from the legal perspective, when you are looking at somebody who is sitting at the top of the organization like the former

president donald trump, and going after somebody like the chief financial officer allen weisselberg who is somebody who knew the organization, and as you said an expert on documents and data or at least is supposed to be, what is the connection between the cfo and the person usually above him when it comes to the charges that we are hearing? >> for me? >> yes, ari. >> the connection there is did you go rogue? did you do this by yourself or were you acting on behalf of the company? because we have seen multiple reports, and something that we reported as a legal after knew on the beat as corporate beat that is going to what the executives did on behalf of the company is a corporate crime, and the link that the investigators are looking at is that donald trump has all of the defenses available to him, and no indication that he is going to be directly charged today, but he is the founder, namesake and leader of the company

charged, and so this is very darn close to donald trump, and the link that you raise is that if the cfo were convicted of a crime, and today's indictment is a big deal, and if he were indicted, the question becomesk is he the only one in on that, the cfo and co-conspirators and other agents of the company or doing it the behest of leader, and by the way, in court, if you were involved in a criminal conspiracy, and it is someone else's evidence, and you have an out or if you don't, and it goes up the line, then it would be hard generally at a privately held family business like this to engineer long-term tax fraud if proven without the boss being in on it, and the question is going to be if allen were convicted, mr. weisselberg were convicted and acting alone or at the behest of the founder, and can he prove it? that is where the intent goes,

and all accounts say that the investigators are wanting the know if the he is going to cooperate, and that is if he made it up, and if the founder is in on it, and if not, then absolve the founder, and if the founder was in on it, tell the truth, and investigate that. >> so this is what we have so far. we understand that allen weisselberg has been charged with grand larceny of the second degree. i will get your expertise of what that means, and part of what was shared by the pool note inside of the courtroom, and this the second assistant district attorney kerry dunn saying it was orchestrated by the most executive officers, and that he avoided taxes of $1.7 million and he called it a sweeping and audacious illegal

payment scheme, and this case is not about politics, and this investigation which is on going is proper. so we will continue to get more details inside of the courtroom, but your thoughts daniel and barbara on the charge that we are reporting grand larceny in the second degree, and what does that mean in layman's terms? >> it looks to me like the maximum penalty for a non-violent class c felony is up to 15 years but as low as probation. so that is suggesting that it is a serious crime, and $1.7 million is a significant amount of money, and if we failed to pay our taxes to that tune, there would be criminal repercussions to that, and these are portrayed as not the most serious charges in the world, but that sounds pretty serious to me. >> and the pool said that allen weisselberg has pleaded not guilty to those charges.

and what are you -- and for the first time we are hearing a value number, $1.7 million is what he is accused overnot paying. >> that is right. in new york state, there is no bank fraud charge. so grand larceny is what they use. and for better or for worse, it is a much lower penalty than a federal bank fraud charge would have. i think that what happened here is that the manhattan d.a.'s office took their best shot to get allen weisselberg to cooperate, and i expect that everything they have against him is included in the indictment, and $1.7 million if that is actual tax avoidance and if that is 10% of what he got is jail time, but if that is the total amount that he siphoned away without paying attentions then you take 10% of that as the loss amount which is about $170,000 and that would be a very low

jail sentence, and if that is the top charge against him, then he may have made the calculus that i may not go to jail at all, so i am not going to cooperate, but i don't expect to see a superseding indictment against donald weisselberg, because this investigation has been going on for two years, and they have had them for six months or so, and i would expect that this is the only indictment against allen weisselberg and they have put everything in there that they have. i don't think that this is going to be a serial indictment process against him. now, it is possible that there are further indictments against the trump organization for conduct that allen weisselberg is not charged with, and maybe that is because they want to round out all of these charges, and include them all at once while they are going to investigate other things, but again, that is unlikely, too, and i really genuinely believe

they took a run at allen weisselberg, and without his cooperation, and without the cooperation of the small company, the cfo who is the person who controls all of the accounting, the financial measures, there is really no one else who has as much information as he does, and once he did not cooperate, there is not really anywhere else to go, so they put in the charges now, and i would not expect him to cooperate if grand larceny in the second degree for $1.7 million is the top charge. >> everyone stick with me from inside of the courthouse. allen weisselberg's attorney is speaking out saying that on behalf of the client mr. weisselberg they object to the facts as they were recited. we understand that the manhattan district attorneys said they will supply bank records and other business records and move

for protective order for any discovery and we will break down the process and what that means, but i want to bring in the conversation tgs former d.o.j. spokesperson matt miller and former u.s. attorney chuck rosenberg. check, let me get your thoughts for a slightly better picture of what is playing out in the courtroom and the charges and the dollar value of what is at stake here, and your initial reaction as to how all of this has played out, and what we are seeing in the last couple of as expected. we know itt is a financial fraud case and we have a number attached to it, $1.7 million which may be the total loss to the state or it might be the aggregate of the perks or the benefits that weisselberg received. i have to read the indictment to figure it out, but it is a class c felony and punishable up to 15

years in prison. so it is not a trivial matter, and it may not result in jail time, but for white collar criminals, it is not the most important thing, but as the chief financial officer, he may be licensed or regulated in certain ways that may cost him his ability to do business, and he could lose his job, and he has the stag ma, perhaps, perhaps if he is convicted of a felony charge with him for the rest of his life. and so, it is not an enormous charge, and it is not one that sort of takes your breath away at first blush, but again, we need to read the indictment, but it is a felony, and that is a big deal. >> matt miller, i want to get your thoughts on the intersection of the law and politics here, because this is an organization that catapulted the former president to fame, riches and ultimately to the white house, and now the chief financial officer, a man who by all accounts was the innermost circle, and in the innermost

circle of the president is facing as we are hearing from the experts some legal challenges, and what does this mean for the organization, and what does this mean for the former president? >> i think that the bigger issue for the organization is not allen weisselberg's indictment, but the indictment that going to be returned for the trump organization itself, and if they are convicted very serious ramiications on the ability to do business if banks won't lend to them, and that has been a challenge already, and with respect to the former president himself, the respect of the investigation, do the manhattan prosecutors have another route to get to former president donald trump. i tend to agree with dan, if this is all of the charges they have against allen weisselberg, so it is not kind of thing to make him flip and testify against somebody who he has worked for decades. if you been involved with the organization and not represented as a lawyer, but organizations who have gone through the

investigation, and seen people who have had to make decisions of cooperating with the government or not, and it can be a psychic break for a person to make. and it can be for somebody who is facing many years of jail, and if he is not looking at a significant jail sentence, and he is 73 years old, i wonder who they would investigate who would look at things differently than weisselberg who doesn't have the same long-term relationship with the former president, because barring that, i am not sure that this investigation is going to go where the prosecutors were hoping to get when they launched it several years ago. >> and according to the team inside of the courtroom, they have asked to secure his passport as terms of the release, and he is prepared to surrendered his passport to the

prosecutors and this does not bar him from traveling overseas, but he is going to have to ask the court's permission if he does. and so, chuck, tell us about the notion to hook a bigger fish, because perhaps to get somebody higher than allen weisselberg, and somebody who is fierce loyalty to the organization and his tenure it to, what kind of conversations do you have with it and his lawyers and what kind of conversations with weisselberg's lawyers having with him about his psychology about whether or not he should cooperate with law enforcement. >> and matt mill ser making a good point, because for many people, it does require a psychic break. but generally, having been a federal prosecutor for a long time, and most people, and not all, but most people facing legal jeopardy coooperate. many do it before they are charged.

obviously mr. weisselberg did not do it before he was charged. some do it after they are charged and etch a few, and i have had it happen in my own cases, they will co-op after they are convicted, so there are more off-ramps for him. the greater the leverage and the more charges against someone, the more likely they are to cooperate, and not everyone does, and by the way, let me be clear about what flipping is. normally, when we use that term, there is no precise definition, but we mean somebody with some criminal exposure cooperating against others typically higher in the chain. the prosecutors and the agents like to work up the ladder and not down the ladder, but you can cooperate sideways or up, and the key is that if you are going to cooperate, you have to be entirely truthful, and so if he has been debriefed and he lied or he takes the stand in his own defense and lies, then he is not particularly useful.

that is something that we saw happen with michael cohen, and remember at first he said that he would take a bullet for the president, and he refused to cooperate, and then he could not be more eager to cooperate, and then the varying stories, and then he could not be trusted. so those who want to cooperate, they have to be truthful, and about anything that they are asked and a number to do it, before, during or after a criminal conviction. >> all right. let me bring you up to speed, that we have word that the arraignment is over, and you can see allen weisselberg now leaving without the handcuffs that he was wearing when he made his way into that courtroom by some estimates about 40 minutes ago, and we have an update that he has been released on his own personal recognizance that he is free to go as we saw there. and daniel goldman, i want to come back to you for a moment, and to pick up on what we are

hearing from matt miller in terms of the big picture, and i ask you this because you were heavily involved in first impeachment of the former president donald trump, and this is one more legal challenge that the president through his organization and the empire is going to face. i want you to taukt that. the significance of what this means today for the trump organization for the former president. >> it is a interesting question, ayman, and somebody like allen weisselberg and an entity like the trump organization. and with allen weisselberg, with the loss amount, it is a small amount of jail time, and the trump organization cannot go to jail, but what can happen to the organization that is indicted is that every business partner, and every insurance company, and every bank that lends them money is going to re-evaluate their relationship with that

organization. some of those agreements may have out clauses if there is a criminal indictment. now, the trump organization is a very complex web of entities, and it appears as if the organization was charged here, the overall umbrella organization, the trump payroll corporation which is probably handling eloyee payments, and as well as weisselberg, so it may be that the entities who have the loans or get the insurance or own the real estate or the golf courses, they are not charged here and so they may not be actually suffering any consequences. but the risk for an organization or a corporation like this is that they in theory, they could have to sever all of their relationships with their lenders and insurance companies, and in a worst case scenario, they could go out of business. i don't think that is going to happen right away here, but that is the worst case scenario, and that is what the ultimate risk

is for the trump organization. >> something else to your point, dan goldman, and this is from the notes of the pool team in the courtroom, and they were using quotation marks about what was said to the assistant district attorney kerry dunn that the illegal activity was orchestrated by the most senior executives of the organization, and that would certainly imply more than one individual was involved in what the manhattan district attorney's office is alleging here. and barbara, i want to read part of the statement that was put out by the trump organization in defense of allen weisselberg saying that allen weisselberg is a loving and devoted husband and grandfather who has worked at the trump organization for 48 years, and he is being used by the manhattan district attorney as a pawn.

and he is being brought in for employee benefits that neither the irs or any district attorney would ever think of bringing. this is not justice, but this is politics. analyze that for us. is there any truth to this, that any other district attorney would not be going after employee benefits in this way. >> i don't know that you can say that or not say that, and there is no denial of the conduct. and try telling the police officer that everybody else is speeding and nobody else has been stopped, and why are you pulling me over. it is not going to work in that situation or in this one either. so to try to go to the court of public opinion and try to portray this as a witch hunt in the way that donald trump typically defends himself in charges of misconduct. so that is not going to add up

to much of anything when it comes to a legal defense in court. >> so to update everyone, the legal proceedings are over, and we just saw latish james -- let's crossover. >> every person on the planet will tell you have a gift. many of the experts if not all of them told us. so these charges are unprecedented. they are unique. people across the country we believe have heard of corporate departments and corporate cars and all of this is on the books of the company, and that is how they know about it. and so, it's in my view, my personal view, it is not appropriate. and quite frankly, it sets a precedent. i think that in 244 years, we have not had a local prosecutor

go after a former president of the united states or his employees or his company. and that is a significant line to cross. and quite frankly not just as a lawyer, but as a citizen, we are very concerned about that. so that in the future, if some prosecutor in a different political jurisdiction in a red state or a red county desides to take aim at a federal official or people close to them, and then the rest of the country complains, well, this case is setting that precedent. so, we have looked at this so carefully, and these cases are always resolved in a civil context, and the irs has never made a case like this. we cannot find where the irs has ever made a case like this, and we are all aware, all of you, and all of us are aware of the

very significant financial crimes that have occurred by large financial institutions where this office did not take them on, did not prosecute them going back to 2008 with the financial collapse of the united states. many of the firms that were involved in those events are located in manhattan, and we did not see, this office go after those firms and drag them into court. those companies into court, and we are talking about a trillion dollars in lost value to homeowners across the united states. so just that those are my thoughts, and i think that it is a improper precedent. the office knows this. i am not saying anything to you all that they are not aware of, but i believe that the political forces driving today's events are just that. it is politically driven and notwithstanding the statements

by my colleague at the d.a.'s office in court today. >> it is $1.7 million and that is a lot of money, and what is mr. trump going to have to say about that, even though he is not your client? >> the allegations in the indictment are just that, they are allegations, and they have to be proven. this is, these kinds of cases are typically resolved in the civil context. why? because the law on compensation, on fringe benefits is murky. it is difficult. it is complex. you can have experts disagree. so these charges are going to be vigorously contested, and they are going to be vigorously contested by people who are experts in the field and know this wall very, very well. >> what about mr. trump about his personal -- in the beginning of what is a more thorough -- >> the district attorney can say and announce whatever they would

like to say and announce. we have no concerns going forward, and that is all i can say on the matter. >> what about the $1.7 million and the indictment -- >> the indictment the question is, what is it about? it's about a corporate apartment. it's something a properly -- an expense of the company. and these are complex questions. never charged in a criminal case and they shouldn't have been here, quite frankly. [ inaudible question ] >> all civil cases, i have been a lawyer a long time. my wonderful colleagues, all civil cases, people get into a room. they talk about it.

often they resolve things. . what can i say? your own human experience tells you the answer to those questions. [ inaudible question ] >> all i can tell you is our common experience will tell you that civil cases people usually get in a room. they figure out what the issues are. [ inaudible question ] >> the company is very, very optimistic. and we're certainly hopeful that there will not be a significant effects. i do remund you all that there are large financial institutions in this -- in new york city. very well known financial institutions. that were the subject of criminal prosecutions and that are regulated entities. we're talking banks.

we're talking large financial institutions. and they've all survived very, very well. what i would tell you all and something that isn't reported, is that what is the company? the company is about 3500 employees worldwide. many of those are in the united states at these properties. and hotels and golf clubs. and i visited some of those. and the people that are employed are waiters and they're bellmen and they're bus boys. and they clean the rooms and they fix the meals. they are people if all walks of louvre, from every country on the planet. and they are good, hard-working people. and so those are the people that really are behind this company. you should know that. >> please tell us -- based on

what you have told us, do you think -- [ inaudible question ] >> i would answer that by saying that certainly given the nature of the charges, that certainly -- that's the reason they were brought. okay? is it if the name of the company was something else, i don't think these charge was have been brought. in fact, i am fairly certain they would not have been brought if the name was a different name. the answer is no. i'm finished. i appreciate you all. but those are -- that's what i have to say and to talk about this afternoon. thank you. >> futerfas, allen. >> i just have a few comments to

make. >> all right. the you were lus ening to allen futerfas, the lawyer representing the trump organization. making the case that they believe the charges are politically motivated. we have now received the indictment. we're combing through that. we'll bring you details of it as we continue to analyze it. and piece it together. i do want to cross over now to tom winter who was inside the courtroom during that arraignment. >> so i want to go quickly to the indictment. i think i can lay out what's been charged here. exactly what prosecutors allege has been done wrong here. violation of law. particularly they say that in the scheme, beginning from 2005 and continuing to june 30th, 2021, that would be yesterday, the defendants and others

devised and operate aid scheme to defraud federal new york state and new york city tax authorities. the purpose of the scheme according to the indictment, was to compensate trump organization executives in a manner that was off the books. the beneficiaries of the scheme received substantial portions of their income through indirect and disguised means with compensation that was unreported or misreported you about the trump corporation or trump payroll corporation to it tax authorities. now they say one of the largest individual beneficiaries of the defendant's scheme was allen wise willberg. during the operation of the scheme, the defendants arrange ford weisselberg to receive compensation from the trump organization and the proximate of $1.76 million. they say that weissselberg to avoid reporting it to the tax authorities and did not result in the withholding of income tax by the corporate defendants. they say he concealed his compensation from his tax

preparer and intentionally omitted it from the return. we're still going through it. they say that weisselberg evade 5d $56,000 in federal taxes, $106,000 plus in state taxed and approximately just under a quarter million in new york city taxes. weisselberg when led into court was wearing a gray suit with a light blue shirt. not wearing a tie. he was led in handcuffs. a court security officer unhandcuffed him before proceedings began before the judge. he pleaded not guilty. the trump organization also pleaded in the guilty to all the charnls against them. on top of that, weisselberg has to surrender the passport. he has to petition the court in order to be able to do so. he was released on what is called ror, basically personal recognizance, personal guarantee the next time he needs to be in court he'll show up again. the next time we're in court, september 20th. it's going to be a 9:30 a.m.

that will be a status hearing. at that time they set up a motion schedule. we don't have a trial date at this point. >> the greatest city and greatest democracy in the world should not have occurred. it is a sad day in new york this occurred. thank you, i'm no the answering any questions. >> you had a chance to look over. it is multiple pages. what has stood out to you so far from what you've been able to gather? >> yeah. they have thrown the kitchen sink at the trump organization.

the d.a. has taken an aggressive tact indicting the entire trump organization. the if you were the company hoping to pin this on the employee or get out of it as far as the da is concerned, game over. there they're going after the whole company. that ensures that donald trump and others will be drown out to fight this. this is 15 counts. this is not one or two counts we were covering initially the verbal oral testimony and statements coming out of the lawyers in court today. now we have 15 counts. they are taking what the da argues was a conspiracy to intentionally and defraud the government, steal money. and pay people off the books. that is the language of the indictment. they're alleging that went on for 15 years. and mr. weisselberg, if they're

wrong and overreaching and 15 is seen as a stretch, that may change things. number three on page 14, i can tell you what we're talking about today, tonight and tomorrow. room reference to co-conspirator number one. who is unindicted co-conspirator one? many people would like to know. this is brand new breaking news. reading it for the first time on air. we'll be digging into that. finally, as i know we have to hand off the hour, i'll say the account here in the indictment argue this is is more than just compensation. this was an off the book scheme p there were ingredients and pieces of evidence that showed it was not just a corporate car

here or there but a multiyear elaborate and agreed upon conspiracy. >> ari, luckily for you we get to keep the coverage going. we're in the 3:00 p.m. hour. i'll continue that coverage right now on all of the breaking news stories that we've been following involving this arraignment. i want to bring in the conversation while we keep the legal team here, jennifer weisselberg, the former daughter-in-law of allen weisselberg. i know that you have not yet read the indictment. i'm not going to ask you specifically about that. can you tell us a little butt more about what the testimony -- that you shared with investigators has been about now that this indictment is public? >> i would like to know what it says. i'd like to confirm or deny if i believe it's true. i heard, from you know, the producer at msnbc