Trump's Trials - After Trump's criminal sentence, 'a new era of American history'

Episode Date: January 12, 2025

This episode: Scott Detrow talks about the legal and political implications of Donald Trump's sentence in the New York hush money case with NPR senior political editor and correspondent Domenico Montanaro and University of Baltimore Law Professor Kim Wehle. Plus: what we could learn from special counsel Jack Smith's report that may soon be released in the wake of his resignation from the justice department. Support NPR and hear every episode sponsor-free with NPR+. Sign up at plus.npr.org.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

You're listening to Trump's Terms from NPR. I'm Scott Detro. We will have really great strong people. Donald Trump is unstoppable. Make America healthy again. The future is going to be amazing. Not too long ago, this podcast was called Trump's Trials. We shifted focus late last year when President Trump's election win all but ended those legal troubles, but just for today, we are returning our attention to that story for what may be its final chapter. Because this week in a Manhattan courtroom, the former and future president was sentenced

on 34 felon accounts of falsifying business records to conceal payments to an adult film star. We will break down the legal and political implications with NPR political editor Domenico Montanaro and law professor Kim Whaley, two regulars on the old podcast, right after this. Donald Trump is officially formally a felon, and he's also, of course, about to become president of the United States. Ten days ahead of the inauguration, the one completed criminal case against Trump came to a formal end when New York judge Juan Marchand sentenced Trump to an unconditional discharge eight months after Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records. That sentence means

no jail time or penalties, but the conviction stays on Trump's record. Trump spoke briefly, remotely during the hearing. I'm totally innocent. I did nothing wrong. Given the conclusion for now of Trump's various criminal cases, it made sense to get the Trump's Trials podcast team back together and talk it through with NPR senior political editor and correspondent Domenico Montanaro. Hey, Domenico.

Hey, Scott. And University of Baltimore law professor, Kim Whaley. Hey, Kim. Kim Whaley Hi there. Adam L. D'Amico Kim, I wanna start with you and just your basic reaction to the sentencing. Kim Whaley Well, I think the sentencing needs to be looked at in connection with the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling on Thursday, basically refusing to stay the process. And they said in that ruling that the unconditional discharge,

the trial court's stated intent to impose that unconditional discharge is justification for not postponing it. So I really think when Judge Marchand said that it's the only option, it was the only option. Because if Trump had managed to delay the sentencing past inauguration, that immunity ruling would have kicked in and he would have said, I'm now a sitting president, you can't touch me even for sentencing.

And we'd be four years from now on the entire thing in the dustbin of history. Is it fair to say the presidency is stronger and much more immune to the rule of law based on what happened over the lastbin of history. Is it fair to say the presidency is stronger and much more immune to the rule of law based on what happened over the last couple of years with these various cases in the Supreme Court rulings? Oh, absolutely. I mean, the Supreme Court essentially amended the United States Constitution this summer

in response to January 6, 2021 and Trump's actions on that day. The Constitution does not create immunity for presidents, it creates immunity for members of Congress, so the framers knew how to do that if they wanted to. And in Article 1, which outlines Congress's powers, it says that in a case of an impeachment of, and presumably a president, there can be a criminal prosecution. So the court held the opposite. Essentially, there cannot be a criminal prosecution. So the court held the opposite. Essentially, there cannot be a criminal prosecution of official acts. But I don't think anyone would argue that you don't impeach for official acts. So I think the Supreme Court really

did enhance the belt and suspenders of the power of the Oval Office potentially to points that are quite dangerous moving forward. And that was in direct response to Donald Trump's alleged criminal activity. I feel like this is a coda or a conclusion to sort of the Watergate era. You know we didn't really get a lot of conclusion to the constitutional crises that were presented when Richard Nixon was in office because Nixon wound up resigning and having the Supreme Court weigh in on a lot of this, we've gotten more clarity on the fact that the highest court in the land wants to essentially give far more ability for a president to do kind of almost whatever they want as long as it's within their official

capacity. They've essentially created, ironically, a kind of pseudo king. I want to come back to what all of this means for the second Trump term that begins in less than 10 days in a moment. But Dominic, I just want to ask you about the politics of it at this moment now that the New York case has concluded and the federal cases are by and large gone right now and the Georgia case seems all but dead. You know, we've had several months since the election to think about what happened to take a look at what the voters were telling us. What do you make of the argument

that I feel like picked up steam after Trump won that all of these cases put together and really the New York case specifically really helped Trump consolidate Republican support and maybe helped him return to the White House? Trump obviously was able to consolidate power in a primary, certainly, and he was able to insulate himself to be able to say, these are all, quote unquote, witch hunts, these are political prosecutions. And the New York case was the only one that we have a conclusion to is pretty surprising, frankly.

I don't know that if none of these cases are brought that Donald Trump loses the election. I think that we have a very divided country politically. And Trump was certainly able to insulate himself, like I said, and able to get people on the right to say that they think that these things were all politically motivated. Anyway, I don't know that that's the reason that he won, but it certainly helped him through the primary. Kyle Siversen Kim, I mean, the the lawfare phrase that you had people in Trump's orbit talking about, like the idea that the justice system was being used as warfare politically against Trump, I do

feel like it's hardened and I've heard more and more as Trump returns to power, regardless of whether or not you feel like that is a fair characterization, which I feel like you don't. The fact that that has really become a mainstream Republican view, what questions does that raise for how the Trump's Department of Justice starts acting again in fewer than 10 days? Well, law at the end of the day is about incenses and disincentives. We have laws and constraints to disincentivize bad behavior, but those constraints don't mean anything if there's no consequences.

So the Supreme Court through this process has removed any consequences for committing crimes using official power. That's the scary stuff, right? It's not the unofficial private power that is going to lead to some real abuses against individuals. It's the power of the Justice Department, it's the power of the FBI, the IRS, the CIA, the military. It's the stuff that Donald Trump will have

at his fingertips that no one else on the planet has. That's the power that needs to be disincentivized to abuse, and that's gone. So we really are moving into a new era of American history and American law. Last question to both of you. I was framing the sentencing in New York as the conclusion to all of these legal cases. I think that's true, but there might be one more coda in the next week.

There's the possibility that a report from special counsel Jack Smith gets released to the public, at least a redacted version of it that's being fought over in the courts right now. Don't really know at this point if we're going to see it or not. But I'm going to ask each of you, Kim, what's the biggest question? Is there anything you think in that report you want to know more about or you might learn from? Or do you think that will be the generally the facts that we've been talking about for a year or so at this point? Well, according to Donald Trump's lawyers, there is more information, which is why he's

they work so hard to keep it from the public. But I'm interested in the Mar-a-Lago case. I'm interested in understanding where the classified information went. There were empty folders that the FBI found. Who got it? Is there a threat to national security that was created in that scenario? I don't think those questions have been debated, let alone answered in a meaningful way. You know, I'm going to be looking for politically what kind of declarations that Jack Smith makes in this

that are easily digestible for people, what he believed Trump might have been guilty of, and what the evidence was that they were following. Shortly after we taped this conversation, the Department of Justice announced that Special Counsel Jack Smith had resigned. That was University of Baltimore law professor Kim Whaley, as well as NPR's Domenico Montanaro. And before we wrap up, a thank you to our NPR Plus supporters, who hear each show without sponsored messages, and of course, who help protect independent journalism. If you are not a supporter yet, you can visit plus.npr.org to find out how you can get a ton of podcast perks across dozens of NPR shows, like bonus episodes, exclusive merchandise

and more. Again, that's plus.npr.org. I'm Scott Detro. Thanks for listening to Trump's Terms from NPR.