>> Tonight, the criminal case against Donald J. Trump after a Manhattan grand jury voted to indict a president for the first time in history, what comes next for the former president the nation?

We break down the case and hear from two Trump insiders.

"MetroFocus" starts right now.

♪ >> This is "MetroFocus," with Rafael Pi Roman, Jack Ford and Jenna Flanagan.

"MetroFocus" is made possible by Sue and Edgar, the Peter G. Peterson Fund.

Bernard and Denise Schwartz.

And by the Ambrose Monell foundation.

♪ Jack: Good evening and welcome to "MetroFocus."

I am Jack Ford.

This has never happened before.

A former American president facing criminal charges.

Donald Trump's indictment over his alleged role in Ping hush money and then covering it up to adult film star Stormy Daniels is an unprecedented moment for the country.

The specific charges against the Former President remain sealed at the time of our Friday morning taping but we do know Mr. Trump is expected to turn himself into authorities and travel to a courthouse in Manhattan for his arraignment and that could happen as early as Tuesday.

There, he will be fingerprinted, there will be a mug shot, and possibly, at some point in the future, an actual trial on these charges.

The NYPD is on high alert.

Every officer has been informed to be in uniform in case of protests.

For his part, Mr. Trump has lashed out at the indictment and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, accusing him of carrying out a political witchhunt.

Tonight, we have reaction and analysis of every angle of this historic moment.

Joining me to discuss this all are Arthur Aidala, a trial attorney and conservative radio host, attorney Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign manager advisor, Barbara Res, a former Trump Organization Vice President and author, and Ellis Henican, if winning journalist and political analyst.

Welcome to all of you.

Thank you for joining us.

There is a lot for us to talk about.

Let me get started with some initial reactions, if I can.

Ellis, I will come to you first.

We have all been watching this carefully and there has been anticipation and a buildup, but all of a sudden last night we hear it is happening, and indictment has been returned.

What was your first reaction?

Ellis: A little bit of guilt.

As a creature of New York's tabloid journalism, I know we did not create Donald Trump but we certainly enabled him over the years and helped him become the man and the president he ultimately did.

As a figure of gossip columns, radio television host and a man about town that learned a lesson that he could do pretty much what he wanted, I think all of us may bear a little responsibility.

That was my first feeling -- guilt.

Jack: Sam, how about you?

You have been in the orbit of his.

You have been following this carefully.

Your first reaction?

Sam: I work for him for over five years and spent many hours with him.

Frustration, frankly.

I think while this may have some legal rationale, it is certainly a legal decision.

Along with Mike Pomerantz, a former investigator, his conduct calling for the prosecution, I do not think this is something that New York City deserves, or frankly America, specifically this indictment and these charges.

Jack: We will come back to that in a moment.

Barbara Res, as I mentioned, you wrote a book about your time working for the Former President.

You spent many years in his immediate orbit.

My question to you is a little bit different, not so much reaction, but I'm asking you for an educated guess based on your knowledge of the Former President -- how do you think you reacted?

We know about the public reaction, but personally?

How do you think you reacted to the news he has been indicted?

Barbara: His initial reaction might have been -- I do not think it would have lasted very long.

He immediately went into, "what can this do for me?"

mode.

And he revved up his base to do whatever he needed them to do for the next step.

I don't think he thinks he will get convicted.

I do not think he believes there is a chance he will get convicted.

Jack: Arthur, that brings us to you.

We will have you be our instructor throughout this session, someone who has lived in the criminal justice world in New York.

First question to you, in the introduction I mentioned an investigation into the payment of hush money in the cover-up for a particular reason -- generally speaking, is it a crime from one person to pay another money and the other person agree to take that money, and in return not to talk about something that happened between them, just that scenario, is that a crime?

Arthur: I certainly hope not because my file cabinet has about six files of me crafting those kinds of agreements.

This is the United States of America, the land of the free -- hopefully -- and it is totally legal to make those kind of agreements.

Confidentiality agreements, nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

Jack: Let's take this a step further.

We have not seen the charges but we think we know the essence of what they might be.

Give us your best sense, from a Prosecutor's perspective, what these charges might say.

How does the prosecution get from paying money, what you say is not a crime, to something subsequent to that but the prosecution alleges is a crime?

Arthur: The scenario I spoke of when I do this privately, none of those documents are filed anywhere other than my file cabinet, literally.

If someone violated the agreement that you take them to court and those documents maybe become public.

But normally, the reason you are paying them money as everyone keeps their mouth shut.

If they open their mouth, they not just have to get the money back would probably give three times back -- triple damages.

The word unique will come out of my mouth a lot today.

There is a unique situation where documents had to be filed regarding the payments to Donald Trump's Moyer at the time, Michael Cohen.

What they are saying is those documents contain false information called filing a false instrument.

That is a misdemeanor charge.

A lower level charge.

There is a part of the law that says if you are filing a false instrument to commit another crime -- here, they are seeing federal election fraud -- then you could elevate the misdemeanor to a felony and extends the statue of limitations so the amount of time that Alvin Bragg had to prosecute this case is extended considerably.

Jack: That is important note, the statute of limitations.

I will come back in a minute and talk about what happened with procedures and get some bigger picture issues.

Sam, let me get back to you.

You said you had frustration.

You said this might not be the right thing for the country at the time.

My question to you is this, given what Arthur has explained to us and what we anticipate the prosecution's allegations are going to be, what is your reason for your sense of frustration, your objection?

Is it because you do not believe these allegations -- if true, we don't know if they are true, they are merely allegations, need to stress that in the Former President is assumed innocent until proven guilty -- but is your frustration because of the fact you do not believe these outlines suggest a real crime or is it because it is being directed at a Former President?

Sam: You have to take a 1000-foot view.

In looking to prosecute Donald Trump, Alvin Bragg ran on prosecuting Donald Trump.

This case, I know for a fact because of my grand jury testimony, is frankly centered around it.

Michael Cohen continues to say he pled guilty to this crime.

Yes, he pled guilty to this crime of making a payment that violated federal election law because it was over the limit.

That is not necessarily mean Donald Trump violated the law.

I know for a fact having worked there for 5.5 years, Barbara would understand this during her time, Donald Trump concerned with extramarital affairs is with his wife.

He does not want to go through a divorce.

That was primarily his concern.

When we get to the Federal election law component that takes this from a misdemeanor to a felony, many people have argued, including the former FEC chairman that if you could show a dual purpose for the payment, which I believe Donald Trump's main motivation was Melania Trump, I don't think he carried about the general public knowing whatever Stormy Daniels was claiming because he was running against Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton at the time, that this would not be a crime he committed to make this a felony.

That is my position.

I am not arguing whether or not Donald Trump did or did not commit a crime vis-à-vis January 6.

I'm not arguing whether or not Donald Trump committed a crime and should be indicted vis-à-vis keeping classified documents at Mar-a-Lago for two years and refusing to give them back.

This specific instance along with Alvin Bragg's prosecutorial policies just stinks.

It smells of political persecution and is an arbitrary decision.

Jack: Ellis, how about this, one of the things we have seen in the past are debates about the best way to select judges.

Should we elect them when they make promises and take partisan positions or should we appoint them?

In New York, we are talking about elections and Sam talked about some things that the Trump camp said that Alvin Bragg said to get into office.

Can you have both?

Can you how politically motivated but still a genuinely based criminal indictment and prosecution?

Can they coexist?

Ellis: Sure, if you have people of integrity doing it.

You make a perfectly good intellectual argument about the benefits of one approach or another.

Maybe we would be better off with some other system but that is not the one we have.

The prosecutor in New York is elected by the people and he needs to run for office and raise campaign funds and at the same time make decisions based on justice, fairness and decency and the kinds of things we want good prosecutors to do.

Jack: Barbara, back to you, if I can.

I am sure we will all recall the trial of former Senator John Edwards.

He was running for president, the primary had not taken place, he was charged with something fairly similar, using campaign funds to hide a personal relationship.

He went to trial.

His defense was I did this to protect my family.

I did this to protect my wife.

I made a horrible mistake.

I was not doing it to get an advantage in a political campaign.

It essentially work for him in the trial.

There were some hung jury questions but he did not get convicted.

He did not have to pay any consequences.

That is a backdrop.

Barbara, to you.

You know the Former President.

What is your sense about if this happened, we know certain facts took place, the real question will be what is the interpretation of those facts, but if it happened, your sense, would he have been doing that solely to protect his family or with Deb and other motivations?

Barbara: Absolutely not.

I do not know if he fooled around before.

There was a witness issue with that trial.

Trump has been cheating on -- I do not know too much about the second wife -- Melania knows how she met him and what the circumstances were and I thought when she stayed in New York for a while when he became president, I thought she was just holding out for a better deal.

To me, Melania is no fo ol and that would not have caused him to have a divorce at all.

Jack: This is something that may well be litigated.

We do not know how things will work out.

Arthur, as our Professor, walk us through what the Former President will quite literally and figuratively be walking through when he comes here for his arraignment, that first court appearance.

Arthur: Let me comment truck quick on what Barbara said.

That is not the art -- let me comment real quick on what Barbara said.

That is not the argument that Trump's lawyers want to hear.

He paid them hush money having nothing to do with politics.

If the jury believes that, he will be acquitted.

Jack: We will get you more of that in the second.

But the prosecution will say and what the defense will say.

It all starts with the arraignment.

Arthur: Here is what will happen.

Let me back up to yesterday.

I know everyone here.

Jack: That is why you are with us.

Arthur: President Trump, when he got the call telling him he was indicted, he was initially in a state of shock and he was very quiet and subdued about the whole thing.

They were told that nothing was going to happen for several weeks.

Out of the blue, they get the phone call from a lawyer who has been told that you will not hear from us for a few weeks and then the phone rings a couple days later in the president of the United States is indicted.

Everyone was in a state of shock, including President Trump.

Sometime later, he was in much more of a combative mood and figuring out a way to turn lemons into lemonade.

He will only have so much control over the process next week at the arraignment.

Typically, he would have no control except maybe to negotiate his surrender date, the exact date when he will surrender, not where, etc.

But because this is so unique, the Secret Service at the highest levels will be involved, coordinating to some degree the NYPD, to a large degree the New York State court officers.

They have to coordinate a way -- all I know is how it would typically work -- the entrance is at 1 Hogan Place.

The Secret Service may set up one of those curtains.

You see them in New York all the time during the United Nations, when heads of state are walking into that of hotels.

.

Setting up a curtain were President Trump get out of the car and you would not see the door opening.

It would be behind a curtain that leads up to the car and go right into the building.

I was there on Wednesday.

There is a corral right across the street.

There will be as much media that can fit in the corral as possible.

Wednesday, when I was there that was supposed to be nothing but took place, there were dozens of cameras for nothing.

I can only imagine what would be there for something.

Donald Trump will go in there, as soon as you walk to the left, there are three or four elevator banks.

He will go to the investigator's office and that is where he will be fingerprinted.

It is no longer a fingerprint where the use ink.

It goes on a piece of glass that is now digital.

He will have the famous photograph that will now trump Frank Sinatra's famous mug shot and this will be the most famous mug shot of all-time.

Jack: Let me interrupt one second.

Will that be made public immediately?

Arthur: We should not even know he has been indicted immediately.

All bets are off.

The mugshots and the fingerprints will take place.

My estimate will be around 8:00 a.m.

They are talking about Tuesday, it could be Wednesday.

President Trump will sit there with the Secret Service agents and with the investigators from the Manhattan DAs office.

There will probably be court officers hovering around outside in the fingerprints on the mugshots get sent to the database in Albany.

The need to make sure Donald Trump is not wanted for any other crimes and there are no outstanding warrants.

They will run his rap sheet so the judge will see who was exactly before him.

Once the documents come back, it will either be right before lunch or right after, which is total malarkey, because they could get this whole process done in two hours.

Within the building on the seventh floor, there is an elevator bank that connects to the courthouse.

He will not have to leave the building to go to the courthouse.

He will enter into the courtroom -- I guess he will not have to wait for other cases to be called, they will be ready for him.

He will be in front of a judge who was the judge who presided over the Trump Corporation trial, I believe that was around the holidays.

That will be, in my opinion, less than a two minute preceding.

They will ask him to waive the official reading of the indictment.

They will ask him his plea.

Usually the attorney says not guilty.

President Trump might want to say himself not guilty.

They will set up 30 days to 45 days for a conference and figure out how to get him out of the building, using the court officers but the Secret Service will be heavily involved.

It is all about safety.

Normally, when I tried the Harvey Weinstein case three years ago, as soon as we walked out, the media was in our face.

Jack: One quick last question, hold on a second, generally speaking, are defendants, at least for some short period of time, handcuffed?

Do you anticipate he would be handcuffed?

Arthur: If I am betting $20, I would bet he would not be handcuffed.

Jack: Ellis, you and I had a same thought about something.

Sometimes, high-profile cases, a judge might step in and impose what is called a gag quarter.

Say to the parties and the lawyers, other than what is said inside this court, I don't want anyone talking.

Ellis, could you imagine if that happens how the Former President would respond?

Ellis: [LAUGHTER] Good luck on that one.

Those of us in the media, we hate those gag orders.

Usually what goes on is the lawyers and defendant will keep whispering in our ears but we cannot use it in public.

It is hopeless.

Everyone has opinions.

The jury, if it comes to that, will have to be questioned carefully about their influence.

If this judge tries, good luck enforcing it.

Jack: Sam, to you, we have about three or four minutes,two questions to you.

One is, we saw the Former President immediately has used this for fundraising.

As soon as that word got out there was an indictment, there was a request for funding.

If you were still advising him, what would you be saying to him about using this notion of being indicted for political purposes, specifically raising funds?

Sam: First I would say if Donald Trump is issued a gag order, he might find that worse than being found guilty.

[LAUGHTER] Sam: The reality of residential politics and campaigns are they depend on fundraising.

It does not pass the saliva test but if I was working for him, I would be issuing campaign solicitations.

You only get a couple shots at the Apple to have these large fundraising days.

I know that might not sound like the answer the people want to hear but that is the political world.

Jack: Barbara, jumped in.

Barbara: This is the man who was going to finance his own campaign.

He will do anything for money.

I just want to go back to one thing that was said.

If a prosecutor is unable to convince a jury that Trump did not do what he did because he was afraid of Melania, than that guy is not very smart.

We knew about every affair.

The big one with what's her name -- Sam: Let me say one thing really quickly.

Melania did not go to the White House and I do not think she stayed in New York.

We also know from reporting that Donald had to renegotiate the prenup.

He could have gone through a divorce if he wanted to.

I know for a fact, he has said to me multiple times, I cannot do another -- Jack: If we see this in some way shape or form playing out during the course of the trial.

Last question, Ellis, I am going to come to you with about one but in 15 seconds.

Let's talk bigger picture, electability.

What impact do you think this might have, either an indictment or finding him not guilty or finding him guilty?

I cannot imagine the Former President would take a plea on this.

What impact do you think this could all have on the question of electability?

Ellis: You have to compartmentalize here, Jack.

It will inflame the base.

More intense than ever.

It will rev up the president into a more emotional and strong-willed state.

I think people in the middle, the three or four swing voters who are left in America -- it is sure hard to find it anymore -- I don't think it helps.

In the end, most Americans probably do not want their president to be a criminal defendant.

Good and bad, who knows how it plays out?

Jack: That is probably a good way to wrap this up, who knows how this will play out in the end.

The four of you have been wonderful helping us all understand this and this will be continued.

We look forward to speaking with all of you down the road as this plays out.

Barbara, Arthur, Sam, Ellis, thank you so much to all of you.

You be well, now.

♪ Thank you for tuning into "MetroFocus."

You can to cover award-winning program wherever you go with "MetroFocus: The Podcast."

Simply ask your smart speaker to play "MetroFocus: The Podcast."

Also available online and on the NPR1 app.

♪ >> "MetroFocus" is made possible by Sue and Edgar.

The Peter G. Peterson Fund.

Bernard Schwartz.

Barbara Zuckerberg.

And by Jody and John.

The Ambrose Monell foundation.

♪