Judge to start trial for Trump's Criminal Hush-Money case on March 25

Two presidential campaigns ago, Donald J. Trump faced a growing sex scandal that threatened to derail his bid for the White House.

On Thursday, a New York judge ensured that the exact same scandal will emerge over Trump's latest attempt to become president. A trial is scheduled for March 25 that could jeopardize his campaign – and his freedom.

The judge, Juan M. Merchan, rejected Mr. Trump's bid to dismiss the Manhattan district attorney's criminal complaint stemming from a 2016 hush-money payment to a porn star. By setting a trial date for next month, Judge Merchan paved the way for the first prosecution of a former US president in the country's history and ensured that Mr Trump will face at least one jury before Election Day.

The ruling is a crucial victory for District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg. He said he was “satisfied” with the judge's decision and looked forward to the trial, in which Mr. Trump faces 34 felony charges and, if convicted, a maximum prison sentence of four years.

Judge Merchan's decision will refocus public perception of Trump's complicated legal conundrum, drawing the nation's bleary-eyed eyes to Manhattan. In all, the former president faces 91 felonies in four criminal indictments by prosecutors in Washington, Florida, Georgia and Manhattan as he tries to hold on to the Republican presidential nomination. Never before has a former president faced even a single criminal charge.

Until recently, Trump's federal case was first on the agenda in Washington. That case, in which the former president is accused of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, is widely considered the most consequential of Trump's criminal charges. But Thursday's hearing confirmed the reality that the trial in Manhattan will begin soon.

Mr. Trump portrays the Manhattan case as trivial and too old to be relevant, but poses a formidable threat. Unlike the federal cases in Washington and Florida, which Mr. Trump could try to close if he regains the White House, Mr. Bragg's case is insulated from federal intervention. Mr. Trump would not be able to pardon himself or otherwise use the presidency as a legal shield.

Judge Merchan's ruling also represented a strong rejection of Trump's most proven legal strategy: running out the clock. Faced with a lengthy legal role in courtrooms up and down the East Coast, Trump has tried to turn the calendar in his favor by pushing for an appeal and a delay until November, under the assumption that things will stop if he is elected.

Mr. Trump attended the hearing in Lower Manhattan on Thursday and was more subdued than usual, sitting quietly with his arms at his sides as the judge planned the trial. As the hearing progressed, he walked blankly, sometimes looking askance at the ceiling with his red tie.

His lawyers strongly objected to the judge's decision that jury selection would begin March 25, noting that the six-week trial would conflict with Trump's presidential campaign and other lawsuits.

One of the former president's lawyers, Todd Blanche, called the schedule “inscrutable,” arguing that “we're in the middle of primary season” and claiming the process would overlap with dozens of Republican primaries and caucuses.

But Judge Merchan was impatient with such arguments. From the start of the hearing, the judge was angered by Mr. Blanche's resistance to the date, at one point instructing him to “stop interrupting me, please.” He gave Mr. Blanche little leeway to filibuster on his client's behalf, as Mr. Trump's lawyers often do.

Judge Merchan was also curt in denying the defense's request to dismiss the case. Mr. Trump's lawyers had derided it as “illegible” and “marred by legal flaws and procedural errors.” The judge was not convinced. He declined to dismiss the charges without elaborating.

Mr. Bragg last year became the first prosecutor to obtain an indictment against Mr. Trump. The indictment accuses the former president of covering up a possible sex scandal involving porn star Stormy Daniels during and after the 2016 presidential campaign. Mr. Bragg called his case an example of Mr. Trump's election meddling: Prosecutors allege he hid damaging information from voters just days before they went to the polls.

Mr. Bragg had been willing to give the Washington election interference case an edge, underscoring its historical significance. But calls from Mr. Trump postponed that trial, initially scheduled for March 4.

The timing of Bragg's trial leaves the door open for Trump's trial in Washington to take place in late spring or early summer. The fate of that case now rests in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Bragg's case is best known for its salacious underlying facts: During the 2016 campaign, Ms. Daniels threatened to go public with her story about a tryst with Mr. Trump, who then authorized a $130,000 payout to get her to keep quiet.

The case could be thanks to the word of Trump's former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, who paid Ms. Daniels just days before voters went to the polls. Once Mr. Trump was elected, he paid Mr. Cohen back — and that's where the crime occurred, prosecutors say.

Mr. Cohen, the prosecution's star witness, is expected to testify that Mr. Trump allowed his family business to falsely record the reimbursements as legal fees. And indeed, the company described the refunds in its internal records as part of a “retainer agreement,” when in fact no such agreement existed.

Mr. Trump's lawyers had argued that Judge Merchan should dismiss the case, calling Mr. Cohen a liar and disputing whether the charges should even be crimes. For falsifying corporate records to be a crime, Mr. Bragg's prosecutors must prove that Mr. Trump intended to commit or conceal another crime.

Prosecutors have cited possible violations of federal election law — on the theory that the payout served as an illegal donation to Trump's campaign — and a state election law that prohibits any conspiracy to “procure the election of any person to a public legislature.” ' to improve. office unlawfully.” Judge Merchan agreed with that theory of the case.

Outside Judge Merchan's courtroom, this week is a dangerous one for Mr. Trump. On Friday, another New York judge is expected to issue a final ruling in a civil fraud case against Mr. Trump. The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, is weighing the New York attorney general's request to fine Trump nearly $370 million and effectively drive him out of New York's business community.

In the Georgia case, Mr. Trump is accused of trying to undermine the 2020 election results in that state. On Thursday, at the same time Mr. Trump was in Judge Merchan's courtroom, there was a hearing in Atlanta about a romantic relationship between the two prosecutors leading the Georgia case.

But while other pre-trial cases stalled, Judge Merchan's hearing on Thursday quickly turned to practical questions about the coming proceedings, including how a jury would be selected. Prosecutors requested permission to ask jurors whether they believed the 2020 election was stolen, arguing that an affirmative answer could suggest they are willing to “blindly rely” on Mr. Trump’s statements in general. The defense objected and the judge temporarily withheld a final ruling.

The defense also lashed out at Mr. Cohen, accusing him — as Mr. Trump's lawyers have done in the past — of committing perjury during the former president's recent civil fraud trial in Manhattan. Prosecutors responded only by saying that Mr. Cohen could be cross-examined at trial.

Mr. Cohen himself was in New York on Thursday, but was not present in the courtroom. He was in Midtown helping to promote an Off Broadway musical about Mr. Trump and several women in his life, including Ms. Daniels.