Trump Mania at Manhattan Criminal Court

The scene at Manhattan Criminal Court was as if a Batman villain had returned to Gotham for a daring court room heist. Protesters, and counter-protesters, had gathered across the street. A patchwork of police barricades, press vans, and costumed freaks, amassed outside 100 Centre Street like it was the scene of some paranormal calamity. Helicopters hovered like at any moment a giant squid might burst from the court’s art deco pyramid. Though more often synonymous with drunk tankers and street urchins, that day this building was the center of international intrigue. It was the pinnacle of justice itself – either its fearless proliferation, or its shameless corruption, depending on who you asked.

When the crowd reached its peak, the criminal court building opened its doors and the journalists were shepherded inside the building’s ornate green lobby, past an X-ray machine and a metal detector, up to the fifteenth floor, through another metal detector and a bag search, down the corridor past the jet black Secret Service dog named Zander, was the courtroom where Donald J Trump was to be arraigned on New York State felony crimes. Directly across the hall was on overflow room for journalists to watch it on an LCD screen, very large, yet too small.

Inside that room you could hear a pin drop, except for the chopping of police helicopter rotors above – an all-day sound that permeated even these sacred wood-paneled walls and its green marble baseboards. Then at 2:30 PM, the man of the hour entered the screen. Though Trump’s pixelated image was small, it captivated the overflow room as if it actually was that giant squid. He sat with two lawyers on either side – three men, and one woman – very upright in his red tie, with presence perhaps timid, otherwise unremarkable.

Trump was charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. That is, according to the law: when somebody makes a false entry or destroys true entries from a business record – which is a misdemeanor – with the intent to commit or conceal future crimes – upgrading the misdemeanor to a felony.

The substance of the prosecution’s allegations was mostly as rumored in the press before the indictment’s official unsealing – that is, in their words in court: that Trump’s then-lawyer made “covert payments” which Trump reimbursed with “disguised monthly payments” – the misdemeanor – this fraud being done with “intent to commit another crime” – the felony upgrade – that being to “identify and suppress information” in an “illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the 2016 election.”

In the 50 minutes of court session, Trump uttered just ten words – “Not guilty” – “Yes” – “OK, thank you” – “Yes” – “I do” – “Yes” – his voice becoming more hoarse with each terse response.

Though the hearing was largely procedural, it had its clever moments enough to put a smirk on anyone’s face who can put aside their petty partisan preferences for or against Trump.

There was tit-for-tat bickering: the prosecution was not amused by Trump’s “irresponsible social media posts” and blamed Trump for “threatening the city” itself, causing the expensive security spectacle that unfolded. (Realistically, the security show would have happened regardless of any rude tweets.) The defense shot back that Trump had “free speech rights” and was rightfully frustrated by the “grave injustice happening” to him, in the form of “patently unfair” prosecutorial leaks to the press about all manner of details of the case before the defense even received the unsealed indictment.

The judge was not entirely impressed with Trump Team’s characterization of his social media posts – but nevertheless he encouraged both sides to clean up their act – that the prosecution should educate its witnesses not to blab to the media, and that Trump himself should not blab “statements that have the potential to incite violence or civil unrest.”

It was revealed that the prosecution and defense teams were negotiating an order of protection designed to limit Trump’s personal access to discovery materials, in an effort to avoid inflamatory social media posts. The sought order would hold Trump in contempt of court if he were to use the discovery materials – pre-trial evidence – for any purpose except legal defense. Trump may be limited from personally reviewing the materials except when at his lawyers’ office, and may be prohibited from posting the materials on social media or leaking them to the press. The judge stated that he would neither issue, nor consider if requested, a gag order in the case at this time.

There was he-said-she-said gossip: the prosecution raised the concern that one of Trump’s lawyers, Joseph Tacopina, might have a conflict of interest. It was alleged that Stormy Daniels – the porn star at the epicenter of Trump’s legal jeopardy – had privileged communication with Tacopina prior to his representing Trump. Tacopina denied this, insisting that he has never met nor ever spoken with Daniels, and actually he declined to represent her as a client entirely, despite Daniels’s efforts to hire him. He also lamented that, anyway she had waived any claim to attorney privilege on the account that she published a book on the whole affair.

At one point the defense implied that they may seek a dismissal of the charges. The prosecution stated that they wanted a trial date for January of 2024, which the defense countered by suggesting the spring. The prosecution stated that discovery would be complete mostly within 65 days. The judge slated the next hearing for December 4.

In a final bit of irony, the defense suggested that perhaps Trump could be personally excused from attending future court dates, on the account of the security expense to the city involved with Trump’s physical presence. Both the prosecution and the judge were unpersuaded by the notion, which Trump’s lawyer was quick to point out, was just a hypothetical question and not a formal request.

Then as quickly as it began, court was adjourned – there was no audible crack of the gavel – and Trump and his attorneys rose and exited up the aisle, back into the hallway where Zander the dog was.

By the time the overflow emptied back to the street, the protesters from earlier in the day had already began to disperse. An NYPD administrator said that there had been no arrests that day by the time court was adjourned. Though he declined to offer an estimate of the crowd’s size, this reporter estimated it to be one thousand or less at its height – perhaps three parts journalist, two parts Trump supporter, and one part Trump detractor.

In the lead-up to the court hearing, the NYPD had attempted to divide the pro- and the anti- Trump from each other with separate barricaded pens bisecting Collect Pond Park. Though some anti-Trump protesters decided to visit the pro-Trump pen, there were no real tense moments of disagreement suggesting a potential for violence.

Though New York City is known for being principally an anti-Trump town, the Trump supporters outnumbered the Trump detractors significantly. Their ranks represented most racial categories: white, black, Hispanic, Asian, and middle eastern. The anti-Trump rally-goers, though smaller in numbers, also represented a diverse racial makeup.

On the pro-Trump side, the protesters said that the indictment represented a perversion of justice – that Trump’s prosecution was strictly politically motivated. On the anti-Trump side, the protesters said that the prosecution was necessary – that no man, not even a president, is above the law.

A final resolution on this matter may not be decided in the courts for perhaps a year, or years.