see you. welcome to the beat. i m ari melber. i hope you stay with us. tonight we begin with developments that i think really offer a kind of a contrast in this period of legal reckoning and accountability we have been talking about together because we were thinking about this for tonight s show. if you look at all of the prosecutors and all the investigators and all of the probes that donald trump has faced, including squaring off against big-time experienced investigators like prosecutor and former fbi director mueller, there were crimes found. there were issues that ensnared donald trump s aides. but even as the now-two-year probe of a public insurrection and attempt the coup has grinded on and on and not reached donald trump or most of his top aides, there are more clear signs and steps that show one prosecutor on a different fact pattern, a different case, has proven able to legally get farthest against donald trump and make precedent. i m talking about the new yor
bolster what this d.a. clearly thinks is existing available criminal evidence against trump. that is to say, you don t seek this kind of cooperation unless you have reason to believe that the guy knows something that he can provide. this is the new york times report you see there. and bragg, well, he may be trying to turn over every stone or may think that weisselberg still knows things that could add to the aforementioned criminal case against donald trump. less than two months ago trump was indicted and arraigned in new york. here is donald trump walking in the hallway. let s listen to see if he speaks to reporters. it was trump himself in his own voice pleaded not guilty. we now have it. everything we have been talking about. these are felony crimes in new york state no matter who you are. we cannot and will not normalize serious criminal conduct.
doesn t just lie casually or on the campaign trial. he lied in a fraudulent and criminal manner in more than one way. if you create that pattern for the jury it strengthens your case. what do you think about the concern that if mr. weisselberg had his day in court, did his time, out of rikers, that this looks almost heavy-handed or excessive to go back at him? well, i mean, i think that s a real issue. obviously, it would be a different charge. the charge reported is a potential perjury charge. according to the news reports, related to testimony or depg depositions he gave in the inflated financial disclosure civil investigation. so directly relevant. a new charge. you know, i think it s true that usually when do you your time you think the prosecutors are done with you and they are not going to come back for a second bite at the apple. on the other hand, are from their point of view, weisselberg
that was last month, early april. it s not exactly clear from the new reporting what bragg wants to learn from weisselberg, but even though we live in this very unusual time, we kind of all know that, what we re living through, and the political echoes of this maga era, it is still striking that it was last month we had the first ever indictment of a former president and it is bragg driving this. the times reports that the hush money case is moving ahead cohen as the star witness. bragg has been reluctant to charge trump for his financial statements without weisselberg onboard. so this is a big deal because this is reporting that shows bragg may do something to try to get evidence that could add charges against donald trump. and if it you followed that indictment last month, you may remember there were people, lawyers and just regular people who follow the law, who said
agreement for $130,000. what is your response to them saying try to put forward. it will fail miserably on its face. emilie, when you have a case like this with so much public attention, you tend to get more of it sort of flushed out in public than i think is traditional for at least local d.a. prosecutions. so i wonder as a broader question do you think this times reporting may reflect the people in the office watched the back and forth and thought it would be nice to have something beyond this one witness? it s possible. it s also possible that this information is coming from someone defending trump or weisselberg that they think it will look bad, that the district attorney s office is putting this pressure on, and they are using these to bolster their clients interest. we have seen leaks from the trump camp in other cases and contexts that first seems