September 16, 2024: Date Scheduled For Judge Merchan’s Ruling Concerning Presidential Immunity. According to MSNBC, “Trump’s lawyers cited the ruling in seeking to push the Sept. 18 sentencing. Merchan had previously set Sept. 16 to rule on Trump’s motion to overturn his guilty verdicts based on the immunity ruling, and his lawyers signaled to the judge that if he rules against them on that motion, then they’ll immediately appeal prior to sentencing.” [MSNBC, 9/6/24]
September 26, 2024: Deadline For The Special Counsel To File A Brief Detailing Why Trump Was Not Immune From Criminal Charges Over Trying To Overturn The 2020 Election. According to Politico, “Special counsel Jack Smith and Donald Trump will be trading high-stakes legal filings — some potentially jammed with new and explosive evidence related to Trump’s effort to subvert the 2020 election — in the weeks leading up to Election Day. A federal judge has given the special counsel’s team until Sept. 26 to detail what his team says will be a ‘comprehensive’ slate of evidence detailing Trump’s alleged conspiracies to subvert the 2020 election.” [Politico, 9/5/24]
Late September 2024: Trump’s Response Brief Due Before The 11th Circuit. According to Politico, “Under the standard timeline outlined by the appeals court, Smith would file his opening brief by Aug. 27 — though nothing would prevent him from filing it earlier. Trump’s brief would follow 30 days afterward, and Smith would have an opportunity to reply three weeks after that. If all briefs are filed on their due date, briefing would be complete by mid-October, with oral arguments to a three-judge panel of the appeals court likely to follow several weeks or months later.” [Politico, 7/25/24]
November 18, 2022: The Department Of Justice Appointed Jack Smith As Special Counsel Over The Mar-a-Lago And January 6 Insurrection Investigations. According to CNN, “Attorney General Merrick Garland on Friday appointed a special counsel to oversee the criminal investigations into the retention of national defense information at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and parts of the January 6, 2021, insurrection. […] Jack Smith, the former chief prosecutor for the special court in The Hague, where he investigated war crimes in Kosovo, will oversee the investigations.” [CNN, 11/18/22]
May 2022: Grand Jury Subpoenaed Documents With Classified Markings. According to the Washington Post, “Of particular importance to investigators in the classified-documents case, according to people familiar with the probe, is evidence showing that boxes of documents were moved into a storage area on June 2, just before senior Justice Department lawyer Jay Bratt arrived at Mar-a-Lago with agents. The June 3 visit by law enforcement officials was to collect material in response to the May 2022 grand jury subpoena demanding the return of all documents with classified markings.” [Washington Post, 5/25/23]
May 2022: Trump Attorney Little Allegedly Told The Special Counsel’s Team That She Had Warned Trump That If He Failed To Fully Comply With A Subpoena For Classified Documents While Claiming He Had Complied That It Would Be A Crime. According to ABC News, “One of former president Donald Trump's current attorneys told special counsel Jack Smith's team that, within days of the Justice Department issuing a subpoena last year for all classified documents at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate, she ‘very clearly’ warned Trump that if he failed to fully comply -- but then swore he did – ‘it's going to be a crime,’ according to sources familiar with the matter. Sources said the lawyer, Jennifer Little, told investigators Trump ‘absolutely’ understood the warning, which came during a pivotal meeting at Mar-a-Lago with Trump and another attorney, Evan Corcoran, who had recently joined Trump's legal team.” [ABC News, 11/29/23]
Little Allegedly Told Investigators That Trump “Absolutely” Understood The Warning. According to ABC News, “Sources said the lawyer, Jennifer Little, told investigators Trump ‘absolutely’ understood the warning, which came during a pivotal meeting at Mar-a-Lago with Trump and another attorney, Evan Corcoran, who had recently joined Trump's legal team.” [ABC News, 11/29/23]
May 2022: Trump Was Warned By His Lawyer Corcoran That If He Did Not Comply With A Subpoena For All The Classified Documents In Trump’s Possession, The FBI Might Search Mar-a-Lago. According to ABC News, “In May of last year, shortly after the Justice Department issued a subpoena to former President Donald Trump for all classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, Trump's then-lead attorney on the matter, Evan Corcoran, warned the former president in person, at Mar-a-Lago, that not only did Trump have to fully comply with the subpoena, but that the FBI might search the estate if he didn't, according to Corcoran's audio notes following the conversation.” [ABC News, 9/6/23]
June 3, 2022: DOJ Lawyer Bratt And FBI Agents Visited Mar-A-Lago To Collect Subpoenaed Materials. According to the Washington Post, “Of particular importance to investigators in the classified-documents case, according to people familiar with the probe, is evidence showing that boxes of documents were moved into a storage area on June 2, just before senior Justice Department lawyer Jay Bratt arrived at Mar-a-Lago with agents. The June 3 visit by law enforcement officials was to collect material in response to the May 2022 grand jury subpoena demanding the return of all documents with classified markings.” [Washington Post, 5/25/23]
August 8, 2022: The FBI Searched Mar-a-Lago For Classified Documents From The White House. According to the Associated Press, “The FBI searched Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate as part of an investigation into whether he took classified records from the White House to his Florida residence, people familiar with the matter said Monday, a move that represents a dramatic and unprecedented escalation of law enforcement scrutiny of the former president.” [Associated Press, 8/9/22]
The FBI Recovered Over 100 Classified Documents From Mar-a-Lago In The Search. According to the Washington Post, “After months of trying, according to government court filings, the FBI has recovered more than 300 classified documents from Mar-a-Lago this year: 184 in a set of 15 boxes sent to the National Archives and Records Administration in January, 38 more handed over by a Trump lawyer to investigators in June, and more than 100 additional documents unearthed in a court-approved search on Aug. 8.” [Washington Post, 9/6/22]The Search Warrant Cited Possible Violations Of The Espionage Act. According to the New York Times, “The warrant said the agents would be searching for material as they investigated potential violations of the Espionage Act, which outlaws the unauthorized retention of defense-related information that could harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary — a standard that was written by Congress before the creation of the modern classification system.” [New York Times, 8/12/22]
Eight Search Warrants And Affidavits Were Filed In The Classified Documents Investigation. According to NBC News, “Eight search warrants and affidavits were filed in connection with the federal case involving former President Donald Trump's mishandling of classified documents that resulted in a slew of criminal charges against him, according to recently unsealed court motions. The motions were filed in connection with the ongoing efforts by media organizations, including NBC News, to obtain access to much of the information in the search warrant served on Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Fla., last year.” [NBC News, 7/25/23]
Summer 2022: Federal Prosecutors Suspected Trump Might Have Classified Documents At His Bedminster Club Within Weeks Of The FBI Search Of Mar-a-Lago. According to the Guardian, “Federal prosecutors investigating Donald Trump’s retention of national security material were examining evidence within weeks of the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago last year that he might have handled classified documents at his Bedminster club in New Jersey, according to two people close to the matter. The indications of classified documents at Bedminster so alarmed prosecutors that they focused part of the investigation on whether Trump might have transported the materials or disclosed their contents there in addition to refusing to return them to the government, the people said.” [Guardian, 6/22/23]
September 2022: After The FBI Mar-a-Lago Search, Prosecutors Gave Trump Another Chance To Turn Over Any Relevant Materials. According to the New York Times, “One thing, however, is for certain: Even after the F.B.I. searched Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Bratt and his team remained concerned that Mr. Trump was still holding on to classified documents in violation of a subpoena for them that the government had issued three months earlier. So prosecutors contacted Mr. Trump’s representatives in September — one month after the Mar-a-Lago search — to give the former president yet another chance to return any relevant material, according to sealed court papers described to The Times.” [New York Times, 6/27/23]
Fall 2022: Trump Rejected Lawyer Kise’s Idea Of Negotiating With The Justice Department To Avoid Being Charged In The Classified Documents Investigation. According to the Washington Post, “One of Donald Trump’s new attorneys proposed an idea in the fall of 2022: The former president’s team could try to arrange a settlement with the Justice Department. The attorney, Christopher Kise, wanted to quietly approach Justice to see if he could negotiate a settlement that would preclude charges, hoping Attorney General Merrick Garland and the department would want an exit ramp to avoid prosecuting a former president. Kise would hopefully ‘take the temperature down,’ he told others, by promising a professional approach and the return of all documents. But Trump was not interested after listening to other lawyers who urged a more pugilistic approach, so Kise never approached prosecutors, three people briefed on the matter said. A special counsel was appointed months later.” [Washington Post, 6/14/23]
Trump Ignored The Advice Of His Own Lawyers And Advisors And Instead Listened To Judicial Watch Head Tom Fitton. According to the Washington Post, “Trump time and again rejected the advice from lawyers and advisers who urged him to cooperate and instead took the advice of Tom Fitton, the head of the conservative group Judicial Watch, and a range of others who told him he could legally keep the documents and should fight the Justice Department, advisers said. Trump would often cite Fitton to others, and Fitton told some of Trump’s lawyers that Trump could keep the documents, even as they disagreed, the advisers said.” [Washington Post, 6/14/23]
October 2022: Draining The Pool At Mar-a-Largo Resulted In The Flooding Of A Room Where The Servers Containing The Surveillance Video Logs Were Kept. According to CNN, “An employee at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence drained the resort’s swimming pool last October and ended up flooding a room where computer servers containing surveillance video logs were kept, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.” [CNN, 6/5/23]
Late October 2022: A Hearing Was Scheduled Over A Motion To Compel Trump To Comply With The Original Subpoena. According to the New York Times, “The government responded by filing a motion to compel compliance with the original subpoena, and a hearing was scheduled for late October in front of Judge Beryl A. Howell, who was then the chief judge in Federal District Court in Washington.” [New York Times, 6/27/23]
December 8, 2022: A Federal Court Of Appeals Overturned The Appointment Of A Special Master Who Was Charged With Overseeing Documents Seized By The FBI. According to Politico, “Former President Donald Trump’s quest for outside supervision of the Justice Department’s investigation into sensitive White House records seized at his Mar-a-Lago estate came to an end Thursday, after he failed to challenge an appeals court ruling rejecting such oversight. Trump had a week to contest the issue before the full bench of the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals or at the Supreme Court, but he did not. The appeals court formalized its ruling Thursday afternoon ending the so-called ‘special master’ process a lower judge established in September.” [Politico, 12/8/22]
December 9, 2022: Judge Howell Declined To Hold Trump In Contempt For Failing To Certify Documents Were Fully Turned Over. According to CNN, “A federal judge declined to hold former President Donald Trump in contempt of court in a closed-door hearing on Friday, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN. The sources also told CNN that Chief Judge Beryl Howell instead pressed the Trump team and the Justice Department to work together to find a mutually agreeable resolution. ABC News first reported the judge had urged the teams to resolve the matter themselves. The contempt proceedings for Trump ended after almost 90 minutes behind closed doors on Friday afternoon at a Washington, DC, courthouse. CNN observed prosecutors, including the Justice Department’s counterintelligence chief Jay Bratt, and attorneys for Trump exiting the courthouse just before 3:30 p.m. ET. The two legal teams had gathered in the chambers area for Howell, who was set to consider whether to hold Trump in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena ordering him to turn over classified records, according to CNN’s reporting. […] The DOJ sought to hold Trump and his office in contempt for not fully complying with the subpoena following the search of his Mar-a-Lago resort in August. Being held in contempt over subpoenas for documents has become a feature of the former president’s court tangles since he left office.” [CNN, 12/9/22]
December 12, 2022: Judge Cannon Dismissed Trump Attempt To Impose Special Master. According to CNN, “The special master review of evidence seized from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate is no more. Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday formally dismissed the case, which Trump brought to challenge the Mar-a-Lago evidence collection and in which she appointed special master Raymond Dearie, another judge, to make recommendations on whether prosecutors could access evidence.” [CNN, 12/12/22]
December, 2022: Trump Lawyers Found Box Of White House Schedules With Some Marked Classified After Junior Aide Transported The Box Of Schedules From Secondary Office To Mar-A-Lago. According to the Guardian, “Donald Trump’s lawyers found a box of White House schedules, including some that were marked classified, at his Mar-a-Lago resort in December because a junior aide to the former president had transported it from another office in Florida after the FBI completed its search of the property. The former president does not appear to have played a direct role in the mishandling of the box, though he remains under investigation for the possible improper retention of national security documents and obstruction of justice. This previously unreported account of the retrieval was informed by two sources familiar with the matter.” [The Guardian, 2/24/23]
December 2022: Trump Lawyer Parlatore Testified Before The Classified Documents Grand Jury. According to ABC News, “A top attorney for former President Donald Trump gave previously undisclosed testimony before a grand jury late last year regarding efforts by Trump's team to locate any classified documents that remained in Trump's possession after the FBI's unprecedented August search of his Mar-a-Lago estate, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News. The Dec. 22 testimony from attorney Timothy Parlatore was ordered after months of wrangling between Trump's attorneys and officials in the Justice Department, who had grown increasingly concerned that Trump still continued to hold onto classified documents after more than 100 were discovered in the August 8 search, sources said.” [ABC News, 3/23/23]
January 23, 2023: The Special Counsel Subpoenaed The National Archives. According to CNN, “In her letter, Wall says that NARA began searching for relevant records after receiving a subpoena from Smith’s team on Jan. 23, 2023. The Archives found 104 unclassified documents that matched what federal prosecutors had requested.” [CNN, 5/17/23]
January 2023: Trump Lawyer Corcoran Testified Before A Federal Grand Jury Over Trump Classified Documents. According to the New York Times, “Through witness interviews, subpoenas and other steps, Mr. Smith has been moving aggressively since being named to take over the inquiries nearly three months ago, seeking to make good on his goal of resolving as quickly as possible whether Mr. Trump, still a leading contender for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, should face charges. […] His prosecutors have brought a member of Mr. Trump’s legal team, M. Evan Corcoran, before a federal grand jury investigating why Mr. Trump did not return classified information kept at his Mar-a-Lago residence and private club in Florida. Justice Department officials have interviewed at least one other Trump lawyer in connection with the documents case.” [New York Times, 2/12/23]
January 2023: Trump Lawyer Bobb Appeared Before A Grand Jury Investigating Trump’s Classified Documents. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Two lawyers for Donald Trump appeared before a grand jury last month as part of the special counsel investigation into the handling of classified documents and other records discovered at the former president’s South Florida residence and private club, according to people familiar with the matter. Christina Bobb and Evan Corcoran, lawyers who have represented Mr. Trump in dealings with the Justice Department over the classified documents, made their appearances in the early weeks of January as the special counsel, Jack Smith, ramped up his investigation, the people said.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/11/23]
January 2023: Trump Lawyer Habba Appeared Before The Federal Grand Jury For Classified Documents. According to CNN, “Alina Habba, an attorney for former President Donald Trump, appeared last month before a federal grand jury investigating the mishandling of classified documents from his time in the White House, two sources familiar with the investigation told CNN. Habba is the third Trump lawyer known to have been brought before the DC-based grand jury, which is investigating obstruction in addition to criminal violations of government records laws.” [CNN, 2/14/23]
February 9, 2023: Special Counsel Smith Subpoenaed Former National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien In Both The 2020 Election And Classified Documents Probes. According to CNN, “Former national security adviser Robert O’Brien has been subpoenaed by special counsel Jack Smith in both his investigation into classified documents found at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and the probe related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to a source familiar with the matter.” [CNN, 2/9/23]
February 10, 2023: Folder And Document With Classified Markings, As Well As A Trump Aide’s Laptop, Was Turned Over To Investigators. According to ABC News, “Former President Donald Trump's legal team turned over a folder with classification markings found last month at his Mar-a-Lago resort to federal agents, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News. It is unclear what type of classification markings the folder had or what material had previously been inside. In addition to the folder, one document with classification markings was also turned over to investigators, the sources said. Additionally, sources tell ABC News that a laptop belonging to a current aide of the former president was also provided to federal agents.” [ABC News, 2/10/23]
March 16, 2023: At Least Two Dozen Mar-A-Lago Staff Were Subpoenaed To Testify Before A Federal Grand Jury In The Classified Documents Investigation. According to CNN, “At least two dozen people – from Mar-a-Lago resort staff to members of Donald Trump’s inner circle at the Florida estate – have been subpoenaed to testify to a federal grand jury that’s investigating the former president’s handling of classified documents, multiple sources familiar with the investigation told CNN.” [CNN, 3/16/23]
March 16, 2023: Trump Communications Aide Martin Testified Before The Grand Jury. According to CNN, “On Thursday, Trump’s communications aide Margo Martin, who worked in the White House and then moved with Trump to Florida, appeared before the grand jury in Washington, DC. One of special counsel Jack Smith’s senior-most prosecutors was involved in the interview.” [CNN, 3/16/23]
March 17, 2023: Federal Judge Partially Ruled Trump Lawyer Cororan Must Testify Before A Grand Jury Into Trump’s Possession Of Classified Documents. According to the Washington Post, “A federal judge has at least partially granted a request from U.S. prosecutors to force an attorney for Donald Trump to testify before a grand jury about the former president’s possession of classified documents after leaving office, according to two people briefed on the decision. The lawyer, Evan Corcoran, had refused to answer investigators’ questions about his interactions with Trump, invoking attorney-client privilege — a principle of U.S. legal practice that says lawyers must keep confidential what they are told by their clients.” [Washington Post, 3/17/23]
March 17, 2023: Former Chief Federal Judge Howell Ruled That Prosecutors Presented Compelling Evidence That Trump Knowingly And Deliberately Misled His Own Attorneys About Retaining Classified Documents. According to ABC News, “Prosecutors in the special counsel's office have presented compelling preliminary evidence that former President Donald Trump knowingly and deliberately misled his own attorneys about his retention of classified materials after leaving office, a former top federal judge wrote Friday in a sealed filing, according to sources who described its contents to ABC News.” [ABC News, 3/21/23]
March 17, 2023: Judge Howell Ordered Corcoran To Comply With Grand Jury Subpoena Over Six Lines Of Inquiry. According to ABC News, “In her sealed filing, Howell ordered that Evan Corcoran, an attorney for Trump, should comply with a grand jury subpoena for testimony on six separate lines of inquiry over which he had previously asserted attorney-client privilege.” [ABC News, 3/21/23]
March 17, 2023: Judge Howell Ordered Corcoran To Produce Records. According to ABC News, “Sources added that Howell also ordered Corcoran to hand over a number of records tied to what Howell described as Trump's alleged ‘criminal scheme,’ echoing prosecutors. Those records include handwritten notes, invoices, and transcriptions of personal audio recordings.” [ABC News, 3/21/23]
March 17, 2023: Judge Howell Ordered Trump Attorney Little To Testify On All But One Topic Where Little Sought To Assert Privilege. According to ABC News, “As ABC News has previously reported, investigators sought to compel the testimony of Corcoran and another Trump attorney, Jennifer Little, as part of their probe, citing the crime-fraud exception, which allows for attorney-client privilege to be pierced in cases where it is suspected that legal services were rendered in the commission of a crime. Sources told ABC News that Howell ordered Little's testimony as well, with the exception of one of the topics for which she sought to assert attorney-client privilege.” [ABC News, 3/21/23]
March 22, 2023: Three Judge Panel Of D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals Declined Trump’s Request To Stay Judge Howell’s Ruling. According to Politico, “Trump’s bid to appeal Howell’s ruling unfolded with extraordinary speed on Tuesday and overnight into Wednesday. After setting middle-of-the-night deadlines for filings in the dispute, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday afternoon declined Trump’s request for a stay of Howell’s ruling, ordering attorney Evan Corcoran to provide records to a Washington-based grand jury assigned to the special counsel’s probe.” [Politico, 3/22/23]
March 24, 2023: Trump Lawyer Corcoran Testified For About Three Hours Before The Grand Jury In The Mar-a-Lago Documents Investigation. According to the Washington Post, “A key lawyer for Donald Trump appeared Friday before a federal grand jury investigating whether the former president sought to keep top-secret documents in his home — testimony that capped an ultimately losing effort by Trump’s legal team to prevent prosecutors from reviewing the lawyer’s notes and other documents in the case. Shortly before 9 a.m., Evan Corcoran strode into the federal courthouse in D.C., where judges had previously ruled he could not use attorney-client privilege to shield his material from investigators. He left about 12:20 p.m. Both Corcoran and his lawyer, Michael Levy — who accompanied his client to the courthouse but is not allowed to enter the grand jury room with him — declined to comment to waiting reporters.” [Washington Post, 3/24/23]
April 2, 2023: New Evidence Suggested Trump May Have Obstructed Investigation Into His Taking Of Classified Documents. According to the Washington Post, “Justice Department and FBI investigators have amassed fresh evidence pointing to possible obstruction by former president Donald Trump in the investigation into top-secret documents found at his Mar-a-Lago home, according to people familiar with the matter.” [Washington Post, 4/2/23]
Evidence Suggested Trump Looked Through The Contents Of Some Of The Boxes At Mar-A-Lago After Receiving A Subpoena To Find Things He Wanted To Keep. According to the Washington Post, “In the classified documents case, federal investigators have gathered new and significant evidence that after the subpoena was delivered, Trump looked through the contents of some of the boxes of documents in his home, apparently out of a desire to keep certain things in his possession, the people familiar with the investigation said.” [Washington Post, 4/2/23]\
Investigators Believed Boxes Were Moved At Mar-A-Lago After Receiving The Subpoena. According to the Washington Post, “Investigators now suspect, based on witness statements, security camera footage, and other documentary evidence, that boxes including classified material were moved from a Mar-a-Lago storage area after the subpoena was served, and that Trump personally examined at least some of those boxes, these people said. While Trump’s team returned some documents with classified markings in response to the subpoena, a later FBI search found more than 100 additional classified items that had not been turned over.” [Washington Post, 4/2/23]
Investigators Asked Witnesses If Trump Showed Classified Documents And Maps To Political Donors. According to the Washington Post, “As investigators piece together what happened in May and June of last year, they have been asking witnesses if Trump showed classified documents, including maps, to political donors, people familiar with those conversations said. Such alleged conduct could demonstrate Trump’s habits when it came to classified documents, and what may have motivated him to want to keep the papers. The Post has previously reported that Trump told aides he did not want to return documents and other items from his presidency — which by law are supposed to remain in government custody — because he believed they belonged to him.” [Washington Post, 4/2/23]
Investigators Asked Witnesses If Trump Had A Particular Interest In Material Relating To Joint Chiefs Of Staff Mark Milley. According to the Washington Post, “Investigators have also asked witnesses if Trump showed a particular interest in material relating to Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, people familiar with those interviews said. Milley was appointed by Trump but drew scorn and criticism from Trump and his supporters after a series of revelations in books about Milley’s efforts to rein in Trump toward the end of his term. In 2021, Trump repeatedly complained publicly about Milley, calling him an ‘idiot.’ The people did not say whether investigators specified what material related to Milley they were focused on. The Post could not determine what has led prosecutors to press some witnesses on those specific points or how relevant they may be to the overall picture that Smith’s team is trying to build of Trump’s actions and intent.” [Washington Post, 4/2/23]
April 7, 2023: Secret Service Agents Connected To Trump Were Subpoenaed And Were Likely To Testify Before The Grand Jury In The Classified Documents Probe. According to Fox News, “Several U.S. Secret Service agents connected to former President Trump have been subpoenaed and are expected to testify before a Washington, D.C., grand jury likely on Friday this week. The grand jury appearances are related to Special Counsel Jack Smith's probe into the handling of classified documents at Trump's personal estate, Mar-a-Lago. A source familiar with the probe did not give a definitive number of agents involved, but confirmed the April 7 scheduled testimony.” [Fox News, 4/3/23]
April 14, 2023: Federal Prosecutors Asked Witnesses Who Either Worked For Trump Of Had Legal Representation Provided By Trump Whether Their Attorneys Tried To Influence Their Testimony To Protect Trump. According to CNN, “Federal prosecutors investigating former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents are pressing multiple witnesses for details about their attorneys, including whether any of them have attempted to influence testimony in order to protect the former president, multiple sources tell CNN. Investigators have focused these questions toward a group of witnesses who either work for Trump or are represented by lawyers provided by him. In some instances, prosecutors have asked how witnesses found their lawyers and if they know how they were compensated during grand jury sessions.” [CNN, 4/14/23]
April 15, 2023: Trump Lawyer Corcoran Recused Himself From Representing Trump In The Classified Documents Case. According to the Washington Post, “One of former president Donald Trump’s top lawyers on the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case is no longer working on the matter after he appeared before a federal grand jury last month, according to people familiar with the move. Evan Corcoran is still representing Trump in other cases, such as special counsel Jack Smith’s probe into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information they are not authorized to disclose.” [Washington Post, 4/15/23]
April 20-21, 2023: Trump Advisor Epshteyn Interviewed By The Special Counsel’s Office. According to ABC News, “After meeting with special counsel Jack Smith's office for multiple hours Thursday, top Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn is expected to continue his interview today, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.” [ABC News, 4/21/23]
April 26, 2023: A Letter From Trump’s Attorneys To The House Intelligence Committee Said That Classified Briefings Of Phone Calls With Foreign Leaders Were Among The Documents Returned To The National Archives In January 2022. According to CNN, “Two of Donald Trump’s defense lawyers now believe that classified briefings of phone calls with foreign leaders were among ‘all manner of documents’ in 15 boxes that Trump returned to the National Archives a year after he left the presidency, according to a new letter his lawyers sent to Congress.” [CNN, 4/26/23]
April-May 2023: Questions About Handling Of Footage And Response To DOJ Request Prompted Another Round Of Subpoenas To Top Trump Employees. According to CNN, “Prosecutors for special counsel Jack Smith have been asking questions in recent weeks about the handling of surveillance footage from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort after the Trump Organization received a subpoena last summer for the footage, according to multiple sources familiar with the investigation. The handling of the footage, and how employees within the Trump Organization responded to the Justice Department’s demand for it, have prompted a new round of grand jury subpoenas to top Trump employees in the last few weeks, the sources told CNN.” [CNN, 5/4/23]
April-May 2023: Almost Everyone Who Worked At Mar-a-Lago Was Subpoenaed. According to the New York Times, “In the past few weeks, at least four more Mar-a-Lago employees have been subpoenaed, along with another person who had visibility into Mr. Trump’s thinking when he first returned material to the National Archives, according to people briefed on the matter. Two people said that nearly everyone who works at Mar-a-Lago has been subpoenaed, and that some who serve in fairly obscure jobs have been asked back by investigators.” [New York Times, 5/4/23]
Prosecutors Subpoenaed The Software Company That Handled All The Surveillance Footage At Mar-a-Lago After Gaps In The Footage Were Found. According to the New York Times, “Prosecutors have also issued several subpoenas to Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, seeking additional surveillance footage from Mar-a-Lago, his residence and private club in Florida, people with knowledge of the matter said. While the footage could shed light on the movement of the boxes, prosecutors have questioned a number of witnesses about gaps in the footage, one of the people said. But hoping to understand why some of the footage from the storage camera appears to be missing or unavailable — and whether that was a technological issue or something else — the prosecutors subpoenaed the software company that handles all of the surveillance footage for the Trump Organization, including at Mar-a-Lago.” [New York Times, 5/4/23]
May 4, 2023: Trump Organization COO Matthew Calamari And Trump Organization Director Of Security Matthew Calamari, Jr. Expected To Testify Before The Grand Jury Concerning Handling Of Surveillance Footage At Mar-a-Lago. According to CNN, “Longtime Trump Organization executives Matthew Calamari Sr. and his son Matthew Calamari Jr. are expected to appear Thursday before the grand jury investigating possible mishandling of classified documents brought to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, sources said. Prosecutors are expected to ask them about the handling of the surveillance footage and Trump employees’ conversations following the subpoena, according to the sources. Calamari Sr., the executive vice president and chief operating officer of the Trump Organization, has primarily overseen security operations for Trump and his properties during his decadeslong career working for Trump. His son, Calamari Jr., is director of security for the Trump Organization.” [CNN, 5/4/23]
Federal Prosecutors Obtained Confidential Cooperation Of A Person Who Worked For Trump At Mar-a-Lago. According to the New York Times, “Federal prosecutors investigating former President Donald J. Trump’s handling of classified documents have obtained the confidential cooperation of a person who has worked for him at Mar-a-Lago, part of an intensifying effort to determine whether Mr. Trump ordered boxes containing sensitive material moved out of a storage room there as the government sought to recover it last year, multiple people familiar with the inquiry said.” [New York Times, 5/4/23]
Mid-May 2023: Trump IT Worker Taveras Testified Before The Grand Jury About His Dealings With Trump Aide Nauta And Mar-a-Lago Head Of Maintenance Deoliveira. According to the New York Times, “Two weeks ago, the latest of these employees, an information technology worker named Yuscil Taveras, appeared before a grand jury in Washington, according to two people familiar with the matter. Mr. Taveras was asked questions about his dealings with two other Trump employees: Walt Nauta, a longtime aide to Mr. Trump who served as one of his valets in the White House, and Carlos Deoliveira, described by one person familiar with the events as the head of maintenance at Mar-a-Lago.” [New York Times, 5/31/23]
May 16, 2023: The National Archives Informed Trump That It Would Be Turning Over 16 Records To Smith Showing Trump And His Top Advisors Were Knowledgeable Of The Correct Declassification Process. According to CNN, “The National Archives has informed former President Donald Trump that it is set to hand over to special counsel Jack Smith 16 records that show Trump and his top advisers had knowledge of the correct declassification process while he was president, according to multiple sources. In a May 16 letter obtained by CNN, acting Archivist Debra Steidel Wall writes to Trump, ‘The 16 records in question all reflect communications involving close presidential advisers, some of them directed to you personally, concerning whether, why, and how you should declassify certain classified records.’” [CNN, 5/17/23]
Federal Prosecutors Subpoenaed The Trump Organization For Information On Its Foreign Business Dealings Since He Became President. According to the New York Times, “Federal prosecutors overseeing the investigation into former President Donald J. Trump’s handling of classified documents have issued a subpoena for information about Mr. Trump’s business dealings in foreign countries since he took office, according to two people familiar with the matter. The subpoena — drafted by the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith — sought details on the Trump Organization’s real estate licensing and development dealings in seven countries: China, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, according to the people familiar with the matter. The subpoena sought the records for deals reached since 2017, when Mr. Trump was sworn in as president.” [New York Times, 5/22/23]
May 23, 2023: Trump’s Lawyers Wrote A Letter To Attorney General Garland Requesting A Meeting Over The Special Counsel’s Investigations Into Trump. According to the Washington Post, “Former president Donald Trump’s legal team fired off a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland on Tuesday asking for a meeting to discuss what they call the ‘unfair’ treatment of their client by special counsel Jack Smith.” [Washington Post, 5/23/23]
Prosecutors Had Evidence That Trump Kept Classified Documents In His Office Where They Were Visible. According to the Washington Post, “Prosecutors in addition have gathered evidence indicating that Trump at times kept classified documents in his office in a place where they were visible and sometimes showed them to others, these people said.” [Washington Post, 5/25/23]
Prosecutors Had Evidence That Trump Showed Classified Documents To Others. According to the Washington Post, “Prosecutors in addition have gathered evidence indicating that Trump at times kept classified documents in his office in a place where they were visible and sometimes showed them to others, these people said.” [Washington Post, 5/25/23]
May 2023: Trump Lawyer Corcoran Reportedly Said He Was Told Not To Search Trump’s Office At Mar-a-Lago For Classified Documents. According to the Guardian, “Donald Trump’s lawyer tasked with searching for classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after the justice department issued a subpoena told associates that he was waved off from searching the former president’s office, where the FBI later found the most sensitive materials anywhere on the property. The lawyer, Evan Corcoran, recounted that several Trump aides had told him to search the storage room because that was where all the materials that had been brought from the White House at the end of Trump’s presidency ended up being deposited. Corcoran found 38 classified documents in the storage room. He then asked whether he should search anywhere else but was steered away, he told associates. Corcoran never searched Trump’s office and told prosecutors that the 38 papers were the extent of the material at Mar-a-Lago.” [Guardian, 5/30/23]
The Special Counsel Questioned A Mar-a-Lago Employee Over A Government Demand For Surveillance Footage In The Summer Of 2022. According to the Washington Post, “A Mar-a-Lago employee who helped move boxes of documents last June has been questioned about his conduct weeks later related to a government demand for surveillance footage from Donald Trump’s property, according to a person familiar with the federal probe of the former president’s handling of classified material. The employee’s actions in June and July have caught the attention of special counsel Jack Smith’s investigators as they try to determine whether Trump or people close to him sought to obstruct justice in the face of a grand jury subpoena to return all documents marked classified, or lied about what happened, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive investigation.” [Washington Post, 5/30/23]
The Special Counsel Obtained A July 2021 Recording Of Trump Acknowledging He Held Onto A Classified Pentagon Document Concerning A Potential Attack On Iran. According to CNN, “Federal prosecutors have obtained an audio recording of a summer 2021 meeting in which former President Donald Trump acknowledges he held onto a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran, multiple sources told CNN, undercutting his argument that he declassified everything.” [CNN, 5/31/23]
In Responding To A Subpoena, Trump’s Attorneys Said They Could Not Find The Classified Iran Document. According to CNN, “Attorneys for Donald Trump turned over material in mid-March in response to a federal subpoena related to a classified US military document described by the former president on tape in 2021 but were unable to find the document itself, two sources tell CNN. Prosecutors issued the subpoena shortly after asking a Trump aide before a federal grand jury about the audio recording of a July 2021 meeting at Trump’s golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey. On the recording, Trump acknowledges he held onto a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran.” [CNN, 6/2/23]
June 5, 2023: Trump Attorneys Rowley, Trusty, And Halligan Met With Special Counsel Smith And Other Justice Department Officials To Convince Them Not To Charge Trump In The Classified Documents Investigation. According to NBC News, “Attorneys for Donald Trump met with officials at the Justice Department on Monday morning, the week the grand jury investigating the former president's handling of classified documents is expected to meet again. NBC News has confirmed that part of Trump's legal team met with special counsel Jack Smith and others at Justice Department headquarters in Washington on Monday, according to a person familiar with the matter. Three of Trump's lawyers — James Trusty, John Rowley and Lindsey Halligan — were at the Justice Department and met with the group of Justice Department officials, which included at least one other career prosecutor; the meeting did not include Attorney General Merrick Garland or Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. Trump's team was first spotted by CBS News and then was seen emerging from the building just before noon.” [NBC News, 6/5/23]
May-June 2023: The Special Counsel Sought Testimony Before A South Florida Grand Jury. According to the Wall Street Journal, “In recent days, Smith’s prosecutors have also sought testimony related to the documents probe before a grand jury in southern Florida, in what some people familiar with the process said appeared to be an effort to tie up several loose ends.” [Wall Street Journal, 6/5/23]
Mark Meadows Testified Before The Grand Jury. According to the New York Times, “Mark Meadows, the final White House chief of staff under President Donald J. Trump and a potentially key figure in inquiries related to Mr. Trump, has testified before a federal grand jury hearing evidence in the investigations being led by the special counsel’s office, according to two people briefed on the matter.” [New York Times, 6/6/23]
Former Trump Chief Of Staff Meadows Testified Before The Grand Jury After Being Granted Immunity. According to ABC News, “Former President Donald Trump's final chief of staff in the White House, Mark Meadows, has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith's team at least three times this year, including once before a federal grand jury, which came only after Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, according to sources familiar with the matter.” [ABC News, 10/24/23]
Meadows Told Investigators That He Repeatedly Told Trump That Allegations Of Fraud In The Presidential Election Were Baseless. According to ABC News, “The sources said Meadows informed Smith's team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump's prolific rhetoric regarding the election.” [ABC News, 10/24/23]
Meadows Told Investigators That Trump Was “Dishonest” For Declaring Victory On Election Night. According to ABC News, “According to the sources, Meadows also told the federal investigators Trump was being ‘dishonest’ with the public when he first claimed to have won the election only hours after polls closed on Nov. 3, 2020, before final results were in. ‘Obviously we didn't win,’ a source quoted Meadows as telling Smith's team in hindsight.” [ABC News, 10/24/23]
Meadows Told Investigators That He Had Not Seen Any Evidence Of Fraud That Would Have Changed The Results Of The Presidential Election Despite Claiming Otherwise In His Book. According to ABC News, “ABC News has identified several assertions in the book that appear to be contradicted by what Meadows allegedly told investigators behind closed doors. According to Meadows' book, the election was ‘stolen’ and ‘rigged’ with help from ‘allies in the liberal media,’ who ignored ‘actual evidence of fraud, right there in plain sight for anyone to access and analyze.’ But, as described to ABC News, Meadows privately told Smith's investigators that -- to this day -- he has yet to see any evidence of fraud that would have kept now-president Joe Biden from the White House, and he told them he agrees with a government assessment at the time that the 2020 presidential election was the most secure election in U.S. history.” [ABC News, 10/24/23]
Meadows Told Investigators That On January 6, Trump Told Kevin McCarthy The Rioters “Are More Upset Than You Are.” According to ABC News, “Portions of what Meadows told investigators appear to align with broader testimony that other top White House aides, including former Meadows assistant Cassidy Hutchinson, provided to the House committee, describing a president seemingly hesitant to take decisive action to stop the violent mob on Jan. 6, 2021. Sources said Meadows confirmed that at one point, as the riots were unfolding, Trump got on a call with then-House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, and told McCarthy, ‘I guess these people are more upset than you are.’” [ABC News, 10/24/23]
June 7, 2023: Director Of Trump’s Super PAC Budowich Testified Before The Miami Grand Jury. According to CNN, “Taylor Budowich, who has worked as a spokesman for Donald Trump, has arrived at the federal courthouse in Miami to appear before a grand jury as part of special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the former president’s handling of classified documents. Budowich and his attorney, Stanley Woodward, declined to answer questions as they arrived. Still aligned closely with the former president, Budowich now runs a super PAC backing Trump called MAGA, Inc.” [CNN. 6/7/23]
A Former White House Official Told Federal Prosecutors That Trump Knew The Proper Process For Declassifying Documents. According to CNN, “A key former White House official was interviewed earlier this year by special counsel prosecutors investigating the handling of classified materials by both former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, CNN has learned. […] Speaking to CNN on condition of anonymity, the former official said he told federal prosecutors that Trump knew the proper process for declassifying documents and followed it correctly at times while in office.” [CNN, 6/8/23]
Trump’s Defense Team Turned Over Multiple Recordings Of Interviews Trump Gave To Non-Government Sources To The Special Counsel. According to CNN, “Donald Trump’s legal team turned over multiple recordings of the former president’s interviews with members of the media and book authors to federal prosecutors during their investigation, according to sources familiar with the matter. Special counsel Jack Smith disclosed in a court filing Wednesday that investigators had more tapes of interviews with Trump conducted by non-government entities and recorded with his consent but did not say what the tapes said or how they were obtained.” [CNN, 6/22/23]
May 2023: Trump Was Informed He Was A Target Of The Classified Documents Investigation. According to the New York Times, “Federal prosecutors have informed the legal team for former President Donald J. Trump that he is a target of their investigation into his handling of classified documents after he left office, according to two people familiar with the matter. The notification to Mr. Trump’s team by prosecutors from the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, was the clearest signal yet that the former president is likely to face charges in the investigation.” [New York Times, 6/7/23]
Trump Said His Lawyers Informed Him That He Has Been Indicted In Classified Documents Probe. According to NBC News, “In a post on Truth Social, Trump said his lawyers were informed he's been indicted. ‘The corrupt Biden Administration has informed my attorneys that I have been Indicted, seemingly over the Boxes Hoax,’ Trump wrote on Truth Social.” [NBC News, 6/8/23]
Trump Was Charged With 37 Counts
Trump Was Charged With 37 Counts. According to CNBC, “The criminal indictment against Donald Trump over his handling of classified government records was unsealed Friday. The 37-count indictment was made public a day after the former president was charged in the case by a grand jury in U.S. District Court in Miami.” [CNBC, 6/9/23]
Trump Faced The Possibility Of Years In Prison And Disqualification From Public Office. According to Bloomberg, “A conviction for willfully concealing or destroying government records carries a penalty of disqualification from office, however legal experts are in disagreement about whether that applies to the presidency. Violating the Espionage Act by retaining national defense information can carry up to 10 years in prison, and obstructing justice can carry up to 20 years behind bars, although Trump would be unlikely to face maximum penalties.” [Bloomberg, 6/8/23]
Trump Was Charged With 31 Counts Of “Willful Retention Of National Defense Information.” According to the indictment in United States v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta, “COUNTS 1-31 Willful Retention of National Defense Information (18 U.S.C. § 793(e)) […] 77. On or about the dates set forth in the table below, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, having unauthorized possession of, access to, and control over documents relating to the national defense, did willfully retain the documents and fail to deliver them to the officer and employee of the United States entitled to receive them; that is-TRUMP, without authorization, retained-at The Mar-a-Lago Club documents relating to the national defense.” [Indictment, “United States v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta,” United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:23-cr-80101-AMC, filed 6/8/23]
Willfully Retaining National Defense Secrets Is A Violation Of The Espionage Act. According to the New York Times, “The Justice Department on Thursday took the legally and politically momentous step of lodging federal criminal charges against former President Donald J. Trump, accusing him of mishandling classified documents he kept upon leaving office and then obstructing the government’s efforts to reclaim them. Mr. Trump confirmed on his social media platform that he had been indicted. The charges against him include willfully retaining national defense secrets in violation of the Espionage Act, making false statements and a conspiracy to obstruct justice, according to two people familiar with the matter.” [New York Times, 6/9/23]
Trump Was Charged With One Count Of Conspiracy To Obstruct Justice
Trump Was Charged With One Count Of Conspiracy To Obstruct Justice. According to the indictment in United States v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta, “COUNT32 Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1512(k)) […] 79. From on or about May 11, 2022, through in or around August 2022, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, DONALD J. TRUMP and WALTINE NAUTA, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other and with others known and unknown to the grand jury, to engage in misleading conduct toward another person and corruptly persuade another person to withhold a record, document, and other object from an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(A), and to corruptly conceal a record, document, and other object from an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(l).” [Indictment, “United States v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta,” United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:23-cr-80101-AMC, filed 6/8/23]
The Penalty For Conspiracy Was Up To 5 Years In Prison. According to the New York Times, “Conspiracy Charges It is a crime to agree with another person to break a law. Prosecutors would need to show that Mr. Trump and some other person had a meeting of the minds about committing a specific crime and that one of them took some step toward that goal. The penalty can be up to five years.” [New York Times, 6/9/23]
Trump Was Charged With One Count Of Withholding A Document Or Record
Trump Was Charged With One Count Of Withholding A Document Or Record. According to the indictment in United States v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta, “COUNT33 Withholding a Document or Record (18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(A), 2) […] 83. From on or about May 11, 2022, through in or around August 2022, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, DONALD J. TRUMP and WALTINE NAUTA, did knowingly engage in misleading conduct toward another person, and knowingly corruptly persuade and attempt to persuade another person, with intent to cause and induce any person to withhold a record, document, and other object from an official proceeding; that is-(1) TRUMP attempted to persuade Trump Attorney 1 to hide and conceal documents from a federal grand jury; and (2) TRUMP and NAUTA misled Trump Attorney 1 by moving boxes that contained documents with classification markings so that Trump Attorney 1 would not find the documents and produce them to a federal grand jury. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(b)(2)(A) and 2.” [Indictment, “United States v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta,” United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:23-cr-80101-AMC, filed 6/8/23]
Trump Was Charged With One Count Of Corruptly Concealing A Document Or Record
Trump Was Charged With One Count Of Corruptly Concealing A Document Or Record. According to the indictment in United States v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta, “COUNT34 Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record (18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(l), 2) […] 85. From on or about May 11-, 2022, through in or around August 2022, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, DONALD J. TRUMP and WALTINE NAUTA, did corruptly conceal a record, document, and other object, and attempted to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding; that is-TRUMP and NAUTA hid and concealed boxes that contained documents with classification markings from Trump Attorney 1 so that Trump Attorney 1 would not find the documents and produce them to a federal grand jury. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(c)(l) and 2.” [Indictment, “United States v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta,” United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:23-cr-80101-AMC, filed 6/8/23]
Trump Was Charged With One Count Of Concealing A Document In A Federal Investigation
Trump Was Charged With One Count Of Concealing A Document In A Federal Investigation. According to the indictment in United States v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta, “COUNT35 Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation (18 u.s.c. §§ 1519, 2) […] 87. From on or about May 11, 2022, through in or around August 2022, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, DONALD J. TRUMP and WALTINE NAUTA, did knowingly conceal, cover up, falsify, and make a false entry in any record, document, and tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, and influence the investigation and proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of a department and agency of the United States, and in relation to and contemplation of any such matter; that is-during a federal criminal investigation being conducted by the FBI, (1) TRUMP and NA UTA hid, concealed, and covered up from the FBI TRUMP' s continued possession of documents with classification markings at The Mar-a-Lago Club; and (2) TRUMP caused a false certification to be submitted to the FBI. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1519 and 2.” [Indictment, “United States v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta,” United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:23-cr-80101-AMC, filed 6/8/23]
Trump Was Charged With One County Of Scheme To Conceal
Trump Was Charged With One Count Of Scheme To Conceal. According to the indictment in United States v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta, “COUNT36 Scheme to Conceal (18 U.S.C. §§ lO0l(a)(l), 2) […] 89. From on or about May 11, 2022, through in or around August 2022, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, DONALD J. TRUMP and WALTINE NAUTA, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the judicial branch and executive branch of the United States government, did knowingly and willfully falsify, conceal, and cover up by any trick, scheme, and device a material fact; that is-during a federal grand jury investigation and a federal criminal investigation being conducted by the FBI, TRUMP and NA UTA hid and concealed from the grand jury and the FBI TRUMP's continued possession of documents with classification markings. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections lO0I(a)(l) and 2.” [Indictment, “United States v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta,” United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:23-cr-80101-AMC, filed 6/8/23]
Trump Was Charged With One Count Of False Statements And Representations
Trump Was Charged With One Count Of False Statements And Representations. According to the indictment in United States v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta, “COUNT37 False Statements and Representations (18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(2), 2) […] 91. On or about June 3, 2022, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the judicial branch and executive branch of the United States government, did knowingly and willfully make and cause to be made a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation.” [Indictment, “United States v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta,” United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:23-cr-80101-AMC, filed 6/8/23]
Making False Statements To Law Enforcement Was Punishable With Up To 5 Years Per Offense. According to the New York Times, “It is a crime to make a false statement to a law enforcement officer about a fact material to the officer’s investigation. Such crimes carry a penalty of up to five years per offense. Mr. Trump is not known to have directly made substantive statements to the government, but prosecutors could charge him if they can show that he conspired with or induced another person to lie to the Justice Department about there being no further documents responsive to the subpoena. Or, if prosecutors can show that he induced his lawyers to unwittingly lie to the Justice Department, they could charge Mr. Trump directly for causing the false statement even if he himself did not commit the offense himself. The law says that ‘whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.’” [New York Times, 6/9/23]
Trump Pleaded Not Guilty To All Charges. According to CNN, “Former President Donald Trump has pleaded not guilty to 37 charges related to alleged mishandling of classified documents.” [CNN, 6/13/23]
Trump Asked For A Jury Trial. According to CNN, “Trump’s lawyers asked for a jury trial during the former president’s arraignment Tuesday at a federal courthouse in Miami.” [CNN, 6/13/23]
Trump’s Legal Team Was Informed He Was A Target Of An Investigation By Federal Prosecutors Into His Handling Of Classified Documents After Leaving Office. According to the New York Times, “Federal prosecutors have informed the legal team for former President Donald J. Trump that he is a target of their investigation into his handling of classified documents after he left office, according to two people familiar with the matter.” [New York Times, 6/7/23]
Trump’s Lawyers Met With The Special Counsel At The Department Of Justice To Keep The Federal Government From Prosecuting Trump Over Handling Of Classified Documents. According to the Washington Post, “Attorneys for Donald Trump went to the Justice Department on Monday morning to make their case that the government should not charge the former president in connection with his possession of classified documents after leaving office, according to people familiar with the matter. Trump lawyers Lindsey Halligan, John Rowley and James Trusty spent about two hours at the Justice Department and left without speaking to reporters. They met with Justice Department personnel including special counsel Jack Smith and a senior career official, but not Attorney General Merrick Garland or Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, said people familiar with the matter, who like others interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a closed-door proceeding.” [Washington Post, 6/5/23]
Trump’s Lawyers Spent About Two Hours At The Department Of Justice. According to the Washington Post, “Trump lawyers Lindsey Halligan, John Rowley and James Trusty spent about two hours at the Justice Department and left without speaking to reporters.” [Washington Post, 6/5/23]
August 17, 2023: The D.C. Grand Jury Completed Its Work. According to Politico, “In an apparent bid to assuage any continuing concerns by Cannon about a grand jury hundred of miles away working on matters related to the case she is handling, Smith’s team informed her that the D.C. grand jury officially completed its work Aug. 17.” [Politico, 8/22/23]
June 9, 2023: The Case Was Assigned To Judge Aileen Cannon. According to ABC News, “The summons sent to former President Donald Trump and his legal team late Thursday indicates that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon will be assigned to oversee his case, at least initially, according to sources briefed on the matter.” [ABC News, 6/9/23]
June 9, 2023: Trump Aide Walt Nauta Charged With Six Felonies In Connection To Trump’s Mishandling Of Classified Documents. According to NBC News, “Walt Nauta, an aide to Donald Trump, has been indicted on federal criminal charges connected to the former president's alleged mishandling of classified documents. Nauta was hit with six charges including conspiracy to obstruct, withholding a document or record and scheme to conceal, according to the federal indictment that was unsealed Friday afternoon. Nauta, Trump's butler and body man — whose legal bills are being paid by a Trump political organization — had come under scrutiny by investigators over his shifting accounts of whether he moved boxes of documents at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida at his urging.” [NBC News, 6/9/23]
June 13, 2023: Trump Pleaded Not Guilty To All Charges. According to CNN, “Former President Donald Trump has pleaded not guilty to 37 charges related to alleged mishandling of classified documents.” [CNN, 6/13/23]
Trump Asked For A Jury Trial. According to CNN, “Trump’s lawyers asked for a jury trial during the former president’s arraignment Tuesday at a federal courthouse in Miami. ‘We most certainly enter a plea of not guilty,’ Trump attorney Todd Blanche told the judge.” [CNN, 6/13/23]
Trump Was Ordered Not To Discuss The Facts Of The Case With Any Witnesses Or His Co-Defendant Nauta. According to the Washington Post, “Flanked by his lawyers, Blanche and Christopher Kise, the former president listened impassively as U.S. magistrate judge Jonathan Goodman said he planned to order the former president not to have any contact with witnesses in the case — or his co-defendant Waltine ‘Walt’ Nauta — as the case proceeds. He did not speak at all except to whisper to Blanche, seated to his right, and Kise, seated to his left. […] The judge relented somewhat, saying that Trump should not speak to Nauta or witnesses about the facts of the case. As to which Trump employees might be affected by the restriction, the judge instructed the prosecution team to provide a list. Trump finished signing the bond paperwork at about 3:31 p.m., after it appeared it had to be returned to the defense table twice more because he and his lawyers didn’t sign or initial every line needed. ‘Third time’s a charm,’ Goodman said.” [Washington Post, 6/13/23]
June 15, 2023: Judge Cannon Ordered All Lawyers In The Classified Documents Case To Contact The Justice Department About Obtaining Security Clearances. According to Politico, “U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon took one of her first substantive steps Thursday in Donald Trump’s prosecution for amassing military secrets at his Mar-a-Lago estate. In a brief order, Cannon required all attorneys in the case — for Trump as well as his longtime valet, Walt Nauta, who is charged alongside him as an alleged co-conspirator — to contact the Justice Department about obtaining security clearances. The same instructions apply to any ‘forthcoming’ attorneys, the judge said.” [Politico, 6/15/23]
June 19, 2023: Trump Lawyers Informed The Judge That They Had Begun Process Of Obtaining Security Clearances. According to the New York Times, “Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump have told the judge overseeing his documents case that they have started the process of obtaining security clearances, the first step of what is likely to be a major fight over classified evidence before his trial.” [New York Times, 6/19/23]
June 19, 2023: The Judge Ruled That Trump Could Not Retain Or Publicize Evidence Provided In Discovery. According to the Guardian, “A Florida judge handed prosecutors in Donald Trump’s classified documents lawsuit a significant victory on Monday by ruling the former president cannot publicly disclose any of the evidence against him. Trump, who was arraigned in Miami last week on a 37-count indictment over his improper storage and handling of classified materials at his Mar-a-Lago resort, can also only view, but not retain, any of the evidence under the direct supervision of his lawyers, the order from the magistrate judge, Bruce Reinhart, stated.” [Guardian, 6/19/23]
June 21, 2023: Prosecutors Began Providing Evidence To Trump’s Attorneys In The Classified Documents Case. According to CNN, “Special counsel Jack Smith has begun producing evidence in the Mar-a-Lago documents case to Donald Trump, according to a Wednesday court filing that hints that investigators collected for the case multiple recordings of the former president – not just audio of an interview Trump gave at Bedminster for a forthcoming Mark Meadows memoir.” [CNN, 6/21/23]
June 23, 2023: The Special Counsel Asked To Move The Trial Date Back To December 11. According to Bloomberg, “The judge handling the case had scheduled the trial to begin in August. Special Counsel Jack Smith said in a filing Friday night that a Dec. 11 start will allow more time for Trump’s lawyers to obtain required security clearances and to look at all evidence held by prosecutors.” [Bloomberg, 6/23/23]
Prosecutors Proposed That Any Motions Seeking To Dismiss Charges Be Made By July 31. According to Politico, “Prosecutors proposed that Trump and Nauta submit any motions seeking to dismiss some or all charges in the case in about five weeks, by July 31. That could prove to be an aggressive timetable given some issues raised by the first federal criminal case against a former president.” [Politico, 6/23/23]
The Special Counsel Provided A List To Trump And Co-Defendant Nauta Of Witnesses They Should Not Discuss The Classified Documents Case With. According to CNN, “The special counsel’s office also said in a court filing Friday night that it has given Turmp [sic] and Nauta the list of witnesses with whom they should not discuss the Mar-a-Lago documents case.” [CNN, 6/23/23]
June 26, 2023: Judge Cannon Denied The Government’s Request To Keep The List Of Witnesses Trump Was Barred From Discussing The Classified Documents Case With Under Seal. According to the New York Times, “The federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s prosecution on charges of illegally holding on to sensitive national security documents denied on Monday the government’s request to keep secret a list of witnesses with whom Mr. Trump has been barred from discussing his case.” [New York Times, 6/26/23]
June 26, 2023: CNN Obtained The Audio Recording Of Trump’s Discussion Of Possessing Secret Documents. According to CNN, “CNN has exclusively obtained the audio recording of the 2021 meeting in Bedminster, New Jersey, where President Donald Trump discusses holding secret documents he did not declassify.” [CNN, 6/26/23]
June 28, 2023: Trump Campaign Advisor Wiles Was Identified As The “PAC Representative” Mentioned In The Indictment. According to ABC News, “One of the top advisers on Donald Trump's 2024 campaign is among the individuals identified but not named by special counsel Jack Smith in his indictment against the former president for allegedly mishandling classified documents after leaving the White House and obstructing the government's efforts to retrieve them, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News. Susie Wiles, one of Trump's most trusted advisers leading his second reelection effort, is the individual singled out in Smith's indictment as the ‘PAC Representative’ who Trump is alleged to have shown a classified map to in August or September of 2021, sources said.” [ABC News, 6/28/23]
“Trump Employee 1” Was Hayler Harrison And “Trump Employee 2” Was Molly Michael. According to ABC News, “Sources have also further identified some of the other figures mentioned by Smith's team in the indictment. Hayley Harrison and Molly Michael are said to be ‘Trump Employee 1’ and ‘Trump Employee 2,’ respectively. The indictment details their text messages back and forth about moving Trump's boxes out of the business center as his Mar-a-Lago estate to create room for staff to work.” [ABC News, 6/28/23]
“Trump Representative 1” Was Lawyer Alex Cannon. According to ABC News, “Nauta and Trump Employee 2, identified by sources as Michael, exchanged messages back and forth about the status of Trump's review of the boxes, and on Dec. 29, 2021, Trump Employee 2 texted ‘Trump Representative 1,’ who sources say is former Trump lawyer Alex Cannon, to provide him an update, according to the indictment. Cannon was in touch with the National Archives and responsible for facilitating the initial transfer of 15 boxes from Mar-a-Lago back to the National Archives in January 2022.” [ABC News, 6/28/23]
Trump Campaign Advisor Wiles Met Multiple Times With Federal Prosecutors In The Special Documents Probe. According to CNN, “A senior campaign official for Donald Trump was allegedly shown a classified map by the former president during a meeting at his New Jersey golf club after Trump left office, according to a source familiar with the matter. The campaign adviser, Susie Wiles, has spoken to federal investigators numerous times as part of the special counsel’s Mar-a-Lago documents probe, multiple sources told CNN.” [CNN, 6/29/23]
June 29, 2023: The Department Of Justice And The Office Of The Director Of National Intelligence Had No Record Of Trump’s Supposed “Standing Order” That Instantly Declassified Documents. According to Bloomberg, “A ‘standing order’ that former President Donald Trump has claimed authorized him to instantly declassify documents removed from the Oval Office could not be found by either the Justice Department or Office of Director of National Intelligence. The disclosure by the agencies was made in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed last August by Bloomberg News, which sued ODNI and the Justice Department’s national security division for a copy of Trump’s so-called standing order — if one existed.” [Bloomberg, 6/29/23]
July 5, 2023: Additional Portions Of The Affidavit The FBI Used To Obtain A Search Warrant For Mar-a-Lago Were Unsealed. According to the New York Times, “A federal magistrate judge unsealed on Wednesday additional portions of the affidavit that the F.B.I. used last summer to obtain a warrant to search for sensitive documents at Mar-a-Lago, former President Donald J. Trump’s private club and residence in Florida, revealing a few new details about how that extraordinary process had unfolded.” [New York Times, 7/5/23]
July 6, 2023: Trump Co-Defendant Nauta Pled Not Guilty On Six Charges In The Classified Documents Case. According to The Hill, “Walt Nauta, former President Trump’s co-conspirator in the Mar-a-Lago case, pleaded not guilty in a Miami courtroom Thursday to obstruction of justice and other charges connected to withholding classified records from authorities. Nauta, a former White House military valet, faces charges on six counts in the case after he was spotted on security cameras moving boxes in and out of the storage room at Trump’s Florida home.” [The Hill, 7/6/23]
July 10, 2023: Trump Asked The Court To Delay His Trial While He Was A Presidential Candidate. According to Politico, “Donald Trump on Monday called for a lengthy delay before he goes to trial for allegedly hoarding military secrets at his Mar-a-Lago estate, contending that proceeding while he remains a candidate for president would make it virtually impossible to seat an impartial jury. ‘Proceeding to trial during the pendency of a Presidential election cycle wherein opposing candidates are effectively (if not literally) directly adverse to one another in this action will create extraordinary challenges in the jury selection process and limit the Defendants’ ability to secure a fair and impartial adjudication,’ attorneys for Trump and his personal aide and co-defendant, Walt Nauta, said in a court filing Monday night.” [Politico, 7/11/23]
Trump’s Team Pledged To Oppose Any Trial During The 2024 Presidential Election Season. According to Politico, “The defense filing says bluntly that this December is too soon to start a trial and urges Cannon not to set a trial date now, but makes clear that Trump’s lawyers oppose any trial that would start during the presidential election season, which will get underway in earnest late this year. Assuming Trump wins the Republican nomination, the defense position appears to urge nearly a year of delay beyond what prosecutors are proposing.” [Politico, 7/11/23]
The Special Counsel Said There Was “No Basis In Law Or Fact” To Delay Trump’s Trial Indefinitely. According to Politico, “Special counsel Jack Smith’s team sharply rebuked Donald Trump’s bid to postpone until after the 2024 election his criminal trial for allegedly hoarding classified documents, characterizing the former president’s call for delay as unfounded and one of his key legal arguments as ‘borderline frivolous.’ In an 11-page filing signed by assistant special counsel David Harbach, prosecutors said federal law and the Constitution require the trial to be put on as soon as practical — not with an ‘open-ended’ date built around Trump’s political calendar. ‘There is no basis in law or fact for proceeding in such an indeterminate and open-ended fashion, and the Defendants provide none,’ Harbach writes.” [Politico, 7/13/23]
The Special Counsel Called The Invocation Of The Presidential Records Act “Borderline Frivolous.” According to Politico, “Smith’s team rejected the notion that issues raised by Trump are particularly complex or unprecedented, citing cases related to former President Richard Nixon and cases that have upheld the power of special counsels to conduct federal investigations. And Trump’s contention that the Presidential Records Act — a federal recordkeeping law with no criminal component — provides him a defense in this case is ‘borderline frivolous,’ Harbach wrote. ‘The Defendants are, of course, free to make whatever arguments they like for dismissal of the indictment, and the Government will respond promptly,’ he said. ‘But they should not be permitted to gesture at a baseless legal argument, call it ‘novel’ and then claim the court will require an indefinite continuance in order to resolve it.’” [Politico, 7/13/23]
The Special Counsel Said They Had Already Provided The Vast Majority Of Unclassified Information To Trump’s Defense Team. According to Politico, “In addition, prosecutors have turned over the vast majority of unclassified information to Trump’s legal team, including all witness statements given to prosecutors through May 12, 2023. More recent witness statements will be turned over in the next week, the Justice Department team said.” [Politico, 7/13/23]
July 27, 2023: Trump Proposed He Should Be Able To Discuss Classified Material At Mar-A-Lago And Possibly Bedminster, Not Just In A Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). According to Bloomberg, “In a court filing Thursday, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team laid out a proposal for safeguarding sensitive national defense information as the federal prosecution against Trump moves forward in a Florida federal court. They wrote that they would agree to give Trump access to classified material without him needing special approval, but he could only discuss it in a secure location known as a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF. Trump’s legal team ‘expressed concerns regarding the inconvenience’ of forcing Trump to meet in a SCIF, prosecutors wrote. The defense instead asked that he be allowed to discuss the evidence in an office at his Mar-a-Lago resort, where he also lives, and possibly his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, — his summer home — according to the filing.” [Bloomberg, 7/27/23]
July 27, 2023: The Special Counsel Filed New Charges Against Trump, Including Attempting To Destroy Evidence, Inducing Someone To Destroy Evidence, And An Additional Violation Of The Espionage Act. According to the New York Times, “The revised indictment added three serious charges against Mr. Trump: attempting to ‘alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal evidence’; inducing someone else to do so; and a new count under the Espionage Act related to a classified national security document that he showed to visitors at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.” [New York Times, 7/27/23]
The Indictment Alleged That De Oliveira To Delete The Server That Held The Security Camera Footage Sought In A Grand Jury Subpoena. According to Politico, “The new indictment alleges that on June 27, 2022, De Oliveira met with a Trump Organization employee in an audio closet at Mar-a-Lago and asked that person — unnamed in the indictment — to delete the security camera video sought by prosecutors in a grand jury subpoena days earlier. ‘De Oliveira told [the employee] ‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted,’ the new indictment alleges. The employee ‘responded that he would not know how to do that, and that he did not believe he would have the rights to do that,’ the indictment adds.” [Politico, 7/27/23]
An Additional Charge Concerned The Possession Of A Classified War Plan To Attack Iran That Was Mentioned In The Original Indictment. According to Politico, “The new indictment in the Florida case adds new details about Trump’s alleged handling of the classified war plan, believed to be a plan of attack on Iran. It alleges that, on July 21, 2021, Trump shared the plan at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, with two people working on a book being written by his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows. In the original indictment, prosecutors had revealed they had a recording of that conversation, but they hadn’t yet charged Trump with possessing the document. The new indictment charges that Trump also had that classified war plan at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla. It does not specify how the document reached either location.” [Politico, 7/27/23]
A Superseding Indictment Added Three Additional Charges Against Trump
Federal Prosecutors Added New Accusations Against Trump In A Superseding Indictment. According to the New York Times, “Federal prosecutors on Thursday added major accusations to an indictment charging former President Donald J. Trump with mishandling classified documents after he left office, presenting evidence that he told the property manager of Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida, that he wanted security camera footage there to be deleted. The new accusations were revealed in a superseding indictment that named the property manager, Carlos De Oliveira, as a new defendant in the case. He is scheduled to be arraigned in Miami on Monday.” [New York Times, 7/27/23]
The New Charges Against Trump Included Attempting To Destroy Or Conceal Evidence, Inducing Someone To Destroy Or Conceal Evidence, And An Additional Violation Of The Espionage Act. According to the New York Times, “The revised indictment added three serious charges against Mr. Trump: attempting to ‘alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal evidence’; inducing someone else to do so; and a new count under the Espionage Act related to a classified national security document that he showed to visitors at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.” [New York Times, 7/27/23]
Trump Was Charged With One Count Of Altering, Destroying, Mutilating, or Concealing an Object. According to the indictment in United States v. Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira, “COUNT 40 Altering, Destroying, Mutilating, or Concealing an Object (18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(B), 2) 113. The General Allegations of this Superseding Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference. 114. From on or about June 22, 2022, through in or around August 2022, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, DONALD J. TRUMP, WALTINE NAUTA, and CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA did knowingly corruptly persuade and attempt to persuade another person, with intent to cause and induce any person to alter, destroy, mutilate, and conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding; that is-TRUMP, NAUT A, and DE OLIVEIRA requested that Trump Employee 4 delete security camera footage at The Mara-Lago Club to prevent the footage from being provided to a federal grand jury. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections l 5 I 2(b )(2)(8) and 2.” [Indictment, “United States v. Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira,” [United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:23-cr-80101-AMC, filed 7/27/23]
Trump Was Charged With One Count Of Corruptly Altering, Destroying, Mutilating or Concealing a Document, Record, or Other Object. According to the indictment in United States v. Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira, “COUNT 41 Corruptly Altering, Destroying, Mutilating or Concealing a Document, Record, or Other Object (18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(l), 2) 115. The General Allegations of this Superseding Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference. 116. From on or about June 22, 2022, through in or around August 2022, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, DONALD J. TRUMP, WALTINE NAUTA, and CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA did corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate. and conceal a record, document and other object and attempted to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding; that is- TRUMP, NAUTA, and DE OLIVEIRA requested that Trump Employee 4 delete security camera footage at The Mar-a-Lago Club to prevent the footage from being provided to a federal grand jury. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections I 5 I 2(c)(l) and 2.” [Indictment, “United States v. Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira,” United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:23-cr-80101-AMC, filed 7/27/23]
A 32nd Count Of “Willful Retention Of National Defense Information” Was Added In A Superseding Indictment. According to the indictment in United States v. Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira, “32 January 20, 2021 - January 17, 2022 TOPSECRET//NOFORN Presentation concerning military activity in a foreign country.” [Indictment, “United States v. Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira,” [United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:23-cr-80101-AMC, filed 7/27/23]
Each Of The Additional Obstruction of Justice Charges Carry A Maximum Penalty Of 20 Years In Prison. According to Politico, “Each of the new obstruction-of-justice charges carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The charge of willfully retaining national defense secrets is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.” [Politico, 7/27/23]
July 31, 2023: The Special Counsel Said The Additional Charges Against Trump Should Not Change The Trial Schedule Previously Set. According to Bloomberg, “Trump’s legal team hasn’t signaled yet if they’ll argue to postpone the trial in light of the additional charges. After the indictment was announced, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office filed a notice with US District Judge Aileen Cannon preemptively arguing that it shouldn’t ‘disturb’ the schedule she already set and that prosecutors were taking steps ‘to ensure that it does not do so.’ They wrote that they would ‘promptly’ turn over evidence related to new obstruction charges against Trump, and make arrangements to produce material to De Oliveira once he has a lawyer licensed to practice in Florida. They said they would also work swiftly to get De Oliveira’s lawyers started with the security clearance process.” [Bloomberg, 7/31/23]
October 19, 2023: Judge Cannon Temporarily Suspended A Deadline For Trump To File Motions Pertaining To Discovery. According to the Messenger, “Cannon also temporarily suspended a Friday deadline that Trump's team was facing to file motions seeking to compel discovery from Smith's team.” [Messenger, 10/19/23]
July 31, 2023: New Trump Co-Defendant De Oliveira Was Released On Bond. According to the New York Times, “Carlos De Oliveira, the property manager of Mar-a-Lago, former President Donald J. Trump’s private club and residence in Florida, appeared in court for the first time on Monday to face charges of conspiring with Mr. Trump to obstruct the government’s monthslong efforts to retrieve highly sensitive national security documents from the former president after he left office. Mr. De Oliveira did not enter a plea at his brief hearing in Federal District Court in Miami. The chief magistrate judge, Edwin G. Torres, released him on a $100,000 personal surety bond, and he was ordered to remain in the Southern District of Florida and to not have contact with any of the witnesses in the case.” [New York Times, 7/31/23]
De Oliveira Did Not Enter A Plea Because He Had Yet To Secure A Florida-Licensed Attorney. According to Bloomberg, “Carlos De Oliveira, a property manager at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, made his first appearance Monday at the Miami federal courthouse after a grand jury returned an indictment on July 27 adding him to the case. He didn’t enter an initial plea because he hasn’t secured a Florida-licensed attorney.” [Bloomberg, 7/31/23]
August 2, 2023: Prosecutors Requested A Hearing To Inform Trump Co-Defendant Nauta Of The Potential Conflicts Of Interest His Lawyer Had. According to the Guardian, “Federal prosecutors requested a hearing to inform Donald Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta, about his lead lawyer’s potential conflicts of interest stemming from his defense work for at least three witnesses that could testify against Nauta and the former president in the classified documents case.” [Guardian, 8/2/23]
August 16, 2023: The Special Counsel Asked For A Hearing To Inform Trump Co-Defendant De Oliveira That His Lawyer Had Potential Conflicts Of Internet. According to the Guardian, “Special counsel prosecutors asked on Wednesday for a hearing to inform the Mar-a-Lago club’s maintenance chief, charged with helping Donald Trump to obstruct the government’s attempt to retrieve the classified documents at the property, that his lawyer might be hamstrung at trial due to potential conflicts of interest.” [Guardian, 8/16/23]
Judge Cannon Rejected The Government’s Request To Seal A Motion Concerning Conflicts Of Interest Involving Nauta’s Lawyer. According to the Messenger, “Last week, Special Counsel Jack Smith alleged that an attorney for former President Donald Trump’s personal valet and main co-defendant in his classified documents case may have at least three conflicts of interest. Prosecutors then tried to describe those conflicts in documents that they asked to be placed under seal to protect grand jury secrecy. On Monday morning, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon emphatically rejected those requests for secrecy, telling prosecutors in a two-page order that they ‘plainly fail to satisfy the burden of establishing a sufficient legal or factual basis to warrant sealing the motion and supplement.’” [Messenger, 8/7/23]
Judge Cannon Asked The Justice Department And Nauta To Weigh In On The Legality Of Using A D.C. Grand Jury In A South Florida Court. According to CNN, “Judge Aileen Cannon is asking the Justice Department and Donald Trump co-defendant Walt Nauta to weigh in on the legality of special counsel Jack Smith’s ongoing grand jury activity in Washington, DC, which relates to the obstruction portion of the Mar-a-Lago documents case before her in Florida. In an order Monday, Cannon said Nauta’s lawyers ‘shall address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district’ by August 17. The special counsel must reply by August 22.” [CNN, 8/7/23]
August 22, 2023: The Special Counsel Said The IT Director At Mar-a-Lago Retracted “Prior False Testimony” After Switching Lawyers. According to the Associated Press, “A witness in the criminal case against Donald Trump over the hoarding of classified documents retracted ‘prior false testimony’ after switching lawyers last month and provided new information that implicated the former president, the Justice Department said Tuesday. The statements from the witness, a Trump staffer identified in court papers as the director of information technology at Mar-a-Lago, was presented to prosecutors weeks before special counsel Jack Smith secured an updated indictment accusing Trump and two others in a plot to delete surveillance video at the Florida property.” [Associated Press, 8/22/23]
After Being Informed That He Was A Target Of The Investigation And That His Lawyer Might Have A Conflict Of Interest, The IT Director Received A New Lawyer And Changed His Testimony. According to the Associated Press, “Prosecutors said in a court filing Tuesday that the witness told a grand jury in Washington in March that he could not recall any conversations about the security footage. But in July, after being warned by prosecutors that he was a target of the investigation and after being advised that his lawyer might have a conflict of interest because of his representation of others in the probe, the witness received a new attorney from the federal defender’s office and provided the Justice Department with information that helped form the basis of the revised indictment against Trump, his valet Walt Nauta and a third defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, the court filing says.” [Associated Press, 8/22/23]
August 30, 2023: Attorneys For Trump Co-Defendant de Oliveira Said There Was No Conflict Of Interest That One Of de Oliveira’s Lawyers Represented Three Potential Witnesses. According to CNN, “Lawyers for Carlos de Oliveira – the Mar-a-Lago property manager charged alongside former President Donald Trump in the classified documents case – said Wednesday that special counsel Jack Smith was overplaying a potential ethical conflict in their representation of their client. ‘In short, not only is there a lack of an actual conflict, which the Government apparently concedes, there is a lack of a potential one, as well,’ they said in a new court filing. Prosecutors had raised the issue earlier this month, telling the judge that one of De Oliveira’s attorneys, John Irving, was representing three other possible witnesses in the investigation who Smith’s team could potentially put on the stand at next year’s trial.” [CNN, 8/30/23]
October 12, 2023: Judge Cannon Postponed A Conflict-Of-Interest Hearing For Nauta After Saying Prosecutors Were “Wasting The Court’s Time” By Not Raising Arguments In Their Briefs. According to Politico, “The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s classified documents case in Florida reprimanded federal prosecutors for ‘wasting the court’s time’ by not raising arguments in required filings ahead of the hearing. U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon ultimately postponed a conflict-of-interest hearing for defendant Waltine Nauta, Trump’s valet who is represented by attorney Stanley Woodward. Prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith’s team raised fresh objections Thursday over whether Woodward should be allowed to question a key witness in the case. But Woodward told the judge that the prosecutors should have raised their arguments in court filings ahead of the hearing so he could discuss them with his client. Cannon, who was clearly angry, agreed and called prosecutors’ arguments a ‘last-minute introduction.’ Cannon was appointed to the bench by Trump.” [Politico, 10/12/23]
October 20, 2023: Judge Cannon Allowed Trump Aide Nauta To Keep Woodward As His Attorney Despite His Possible Conflicts Of Interest. According to the Washington Post, “The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s pending trial for allegedly mishandling classified documents cleared the way Friday for a second one of Trump’s employees and co-defendants to keep his lawyer when the case goes before a jury next year. Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision ends a long period of wrangling between special counsel Jack Smith and lawyers for two Trump aides who have been charged in the case. Prosecutors had questioned whether there is a conflict of interest because lawyers for the two men have also represented some potential witnesses. Friday’s hearing was held to determine whether Waltine ‘Walt’ Nauta — a longtime valet to the former president who is charged with helping his boss obstruct government efforts to retrieve classified documents — could keep Stanley Woodward as his lawyer, despite Woodward having previously represented a different Trump employee who is expected to testify against Nauta. Woodward also is currently representing a witness who could testify in the case.” [Washington Post, 10/20/23]
Trump Asked The Court To Allow Him To Discuss Discovery Evidence At Mar-a-Lago. According to the New York Times, “Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump on Wednesday asked the judge overseeing his prosecution on charges of risking national security secrets if he could discuss the classified discovery evidence in the case in the ‘secure facility’ that he once used for classified material when he was in office. The request to the federal judge, Aileen M. Cannon, was an attempt to get around a stricter provision contained in a protective order proposed by the government that would require Mr. Trump to discuss and review the classified evidence only in one of the highly secure locations run by the federal courts in Florida. While Mr. Trump’s lawyers refused to offer many details about their preferred location, they told Judge Cannon that it was ‘a previously approved facility at or near his residence’ — an apparent reference to Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s private club in Florida.” [New York Times, 8/9/23]
The Special Counsel Opposed Reestablishing A Secure Facility At Mar-a-Lago. According to The Hill, “The Justice Department (DOJ) is fighting an effort from former President Trump’s legal team to reestablish a secure facility in Mar-a-Lago, arguing he would be ‘the only defendant ever’ in a classified document case to review evidence in their home. ‘Creating a secure location in Trump’s residence — which is also a social club — so he can discuss classified information would be an unnecessary and unjustified accommodation that deviates from the normal course of cases involving classified discovery,’ the DOJ wrote in a brief Monday evening.” [The Hill, 8/14/23]
Judge Cannon Canceled A Hearing Over A Protective Order Concerning Classified Evidence. According to CNN, “US District Judge Aileen Cannon has canceled tentative plans to hold a hearing on August 25 on a protective order for classified evidence in the Mar-a-Lago documents case against former President Donald Trump.” [CNN, 8/17/23]
September 13, 2023: Judge Cannon Issued A Protective Order Restricting How And When Trump Could Look At And Discuss Classified Information. According to CNN, “Former President Donald Trump will be restricted on how and when he can look at, and talk about, classified information, a judge decided Wednesday after a sealed hearing the day before. The decision appears to largely be in line with restrictions special counsel Jack Smith sought to protect classified information that may be evidence in the case against Trump, which accuses him of criminally mishandling sensitive national security secrets at his Florida club and residence after he left office.” [CNN, 9/13/23]
October 31, 2023: Trump Reviewed Classified Materials With Attorneys In Miami At A SCIF. According to ABC News, “Yesterday, Trump joined his attorneys in Miami for a visit to a SCIF to conduct his first known review of classified evidence, according to sources.” [ABC News, 11/1/23]
August 10, 2023: Trump And Nauta Pleaded Not Guilty To New Charges In The Classified Documents Case. According to ABC News, “Former President Donald Trump and longtime aide Walt Nauta both pleaded not guilty Thursday to new charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith in a superseding indictment last month in his classified documents probe.” [ABC News, 8/10/23]
August 15, 2023: Trump Co-Defendant De Oliveira Pleaded Not Guilty To Charges Of Conspiring To Thwart The Investigations Into Trump’s Possession Of Classified Documents. According to Reuters, “An aide to Donald Trump pleaded not guilty in federal court in Florida on Tuesday to charges he tried to helped the former U.S. president hide secret documents taken upon leaving office, U.S. media reported. Special Counsel Jack Smith's team has accused the aide, Carlos De Oliveira, of conspiring with Trump and another aide, Walt Nauta, to thwart an investigation into Trump's retention of the documents. Trump and Nauta have also pleaded not guilty to the charges.” [Reuters, 8/15/23]
September 13, 2023: Judge Cannon Issued A Protective Order Restricting How And When Trump Could Look At And Discuss Classified Information. According to CNN, “Former President Donald Trump will be restricted on how and when he can look at, and talk about, classified information, a judge decided Wednesday after a sealed hearing the day before. The decision appears to largely be in line with restrictions special counsel Jack Smith sought to protect classified information that may be evidence in the case against Trump, which accuses him of criminally mishandling sensitive national security secrets at his Florida club and residence after he left office.” [CNN, 9/13/23]
Trump Would Have To Use A Secure Facility To Review Classified Documents, But Cannon Did Not Specify Where The Facility Would Be. According to the New York Times, “For the past few weeks, lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump and federal prosecutors have been arguing about a touchy subject: Should Mr. Trump, accused of mishandling classified documents, be allowed to discuss the secret papers with his lawyers in the secure facility he once used as president at Mar-a-Lago — the very place the F.B.I. swooped down on last summer to retrieve some of the records after he failed to return them? On Wednesday, Judge Aileen M. Cannon, who is presiding over the documents case, gave an answer to that question — albeit one that was rather vague. In an order setting up a series of rules to protect the classified materials at the heart of the proceeding, Judge Cannon said that Mr. Trump would indeed need to use a secure facility to review the sensitive records, but she did not specify where that facility would be.” [New York Times, 9/13/23]
Long-Time Trump Assistant Molly Michael Told Investigators That Trump Repeatedly Wrote Her To-Do Lists On Classified Documents. According to ABC News, “One of former President Donald Trump's long-time assistants told federal investigators that Trump repeatedly wrote to-do lists for her on documents from the White House that were marked classified, according to sources familiar with her statements. As described to ABC News, the aide, Molly Michael, told investigators that -- more than once -- she received requests or taskings from Trump that were written on the back of notecards, and she later recognized those notecards as sensitive White House materials -- with visible classification markings -- used to brief Trump while he was still in office about phone calls with foreign leaders or other international-related matters.” [ABC News, 9/18/23]
Michael Notified The FBI Of The Documents When She Discovered They Were Not Taken By The FBI During Their Search Of Mar-a-Lago. According to ABC News, “The notecards with classification markings were at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate when FBI agents searched the property on Aug. 8, 2022 -- but the materials were not taken by the FBI, according to sources familiar with what Michael told investigators. When Michael, who was not present for the search, returned to Mar-a-Lago the next day to clean up her office space, she found the documents underneath a drawer organizer and helped transfer them to the FBI that same day, sources told ABC News.” [ABC News, 9/18/23]
Trump Allegedly Told Michael, "You Don't Know Anything About The Boxes." According to ABC News, “Sources said that after Trump heard the FBI wanted to interview Michael last year, Trump allegedly told her, ‘You don't know anything about the boxes.’” [ABC News, 9/18/23]
October 4, 2023: Trump Asked To Delay The Classified Documents Trial Until After The 2024 Presidential Election Again. According to the Associated Press, “Lawyers for former President Donald Trump have asked a judge to postpone his classified documents trial until after next year’s presidential election, saying they have not received all the records they need to review to prepare his defense. The trial on charges of illegally hoarding classified documents, among four criminal cases the Republican former president is facing, is currently scheduled for May 20, 2024, in Florida. In a motion filed late Wednesday, Trump’s lawyers urged U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to push back the trial until at least mid-November 2024. The presidential election is set for Nov. 5, 2024, with Trump currently leading the GOP field in the months before the primary season.” [Associated Press, 10/4/23]
October 9, 2023: The Special Counsel Pushed Back On Trump’s Attempt To Delay The Trial Saying That There Was No Credible Reason To Delay. According to NBC News, “Special counsel Jack Smith is pushing back against former President Donald Trump's bid to delay his trial on charges of mishandling classified information until after the 2024 election, saying there's no ‘credible justification’ to do so.” [NBC News, 10/9/23]
October 11, 2023: Trump Reiterated A Request To Delay His Classified Documents Trial Until After The 2024 Election. According to Axios, “Lawyers for former President Trump reiterated a request Wednesday to delay his classified documents criminal trial until after the 2024 election. Why it matters: Trump's mounting legal woes have created a packed courtroom calendar. The trial, currently scheduled to begin next May, would overlap with the final months of the GOP frontrunner's presidential campaign. Driving the news: In the court filing, Trump's lawyers cite the conflicting scheduling demands between the classified documents case and Special Counsel Jack Smith's separate election interference case.” [Axios, 10/12/23]
November 1, 2023: Judge Cannon Signaled She Might Push Back The Trial Timeline. According to the Washington Post, “The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s indictment for allegedly mishandling national security secrets suggested Wednesday that she might push back the planned trial timeline, as courts wrestle with the growing complexity of juggling four separate criminal cases and an ongoing civil trial against the former president. U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon listened to prosecutors argue at a hearing for keeping the schedule she set earlier this year, which includes a trial in May 2024. Lawyers for the former president insisted they needed more time to prepare. ‘I’m having a hard time seeing how this work can be accomplished in this compressed time frame,’ Cannon said at one point, focusing in particular on a federal trial scheduled to begin March 4 in Washington in which Trump is accused of conspiring to obstruct the results of the 2020 election.” [Washington Post, 11/1/23]
November 2, 2023: The Special Counsel Informed Judge Cannon That Trump Was Trying To Delay Both His Election Interference And Classified Documents Trials “At Any Cost.” According to ABC News, “The special counsel leading both the classified documents probe and the Jan. 6 election interference investigation says that former President Donald Trump is trying to delay both trials ‘at any cost,’ after Trump's attorneys filed a motion for a stay in the Jan. 6 case.” [ABC News, 11/2/23]
November 10, 2023: Judge Cannon Kept The Trial Date For May 2024, But Moved Back Other Deadlines. According to the Associated Press, “A federal judge in Florida declined for now to postpone former President Donald Trump’s classified documents trial but did push back several pre-trial deadlines in the case. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon is at least a modest victory for special counsel Jack Smith’s team, which had vigorously rejected efforts to push off the trial beyond its scheduled start date of May 20, 2024.” [Associated Press, 11/10/23]
November 16, 2023: Judge Cannon Rejected The Special Counsel’s Request To Set A Deadline For Trump To Provide Notice On What Classified Material They Sought To Use At Trial. According to the Messenger, “In a paperless order on Thursday, Cannon, a Donald Trump appointee, denied Smith’s motion requesting a deadline for the former president's defense team to provide notice of the classified information it seeks to use at trial. The notice at issue is required by Section 5 of the Classified Information Procedures Act, or CIPA, which ‘enables the government to know what classified information the defense seeks to disclose at trial.’” [Messenger, 11/16/23]
October 5, 2023: ABC News Reported That Trump Allegedly Discussed Sensitive Information About America’s Nuclear Submarines With An Australian Businessman. According to ABC News, “Months after leaving the White House, former President Donald Trump allegedly discussed potentially sensitive information about U.S. nuclear submarines with a member of his Mar-a-Lago Club -- an Australian billionaire who then allegedly shared the information with scores of others, including more than a dozen foreign officials, several of his own employees, and a handful of journalists, according to sources familiar with the matter.” [ABC News, 10/5/23]
The Businessman Was Mar-a-Lago Member Anthony Pratt. According to ABC News, “Prosecutors and FBI agents have at least twice this year interviewed the Mar-a-Lago member, Anthony Pratt, who runs U.S.-based Pratt Industries, one of the world's largest packaging companies.” [ABC News, 10/5/23]
Trump Told Pratt The Exact Number Of Nuclear Warheads Submarines Carry And How Close They Could Get To Russian Submarines Without Being Detected. According to ABC News, “According to Pratt's account, as described by the sources, Pratt told Trump he believed Australia should start buying its submarines from the United States, to which an excited Trump – ‘leaning’ toward Pratt as if to be discreet -- then told Pratt two pieces of information about U.S. submarines: the supposed exact number of nuclear warheads they routinely carry, and exactly how close they supposedly can get to a Russian submarine without being detected.” [ABC News, 10/5/23]
The Conversation With Pratt Took Place In April 2021
The Conversation With Pratt Took Place In April 2021. According to ABC News, “In those interviews, Pratt described how -- looking to make conversation with Trump during a meeting at Mar-a-Lago in April 2021 -- he brought up the American submarine fleet, which the two had discussed before, the sources told ABC News.” [ABC News, 10/5/23]
Pratt Since Described The Remarks To At Least 45 People
Pratt Described Trump’s Remarks To At Least 45 People. According to ABC News, “In emails and conversations after meeting with Trump, Pratt described Trump's remarks to at least 45 others, including six journalists, 11 of his company's employees, 10 Australian officials, and three former Australian prime ministers, the sources told ABC News.” [ABC News, 10/5/23]
ABC News: The Special Counsel Questioned Witnesses About A Closet And A “Hidden Room” FBI Agents Did Not Search At Mar-a-Lago That Might Have Contained Classified Documents. According to ABC News, “Special counsel Jack Smith's team has questioned several witnesses about a closet and a so-called ‘hidden room’ inside former President Donald Trump's residence at Mar-a-Lago that the FBI didn't check while searching the estate in August 2022, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News. As described to ABC News, the line of questioning in several interviews ahead of Trump's indictment last year on classified document charges suggests that -- long after the FBI seized dozens of boxes and more than 100 documents marked classified from Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate -- Smith's team was trying to determine if there might still be more classified documents there.” [ABC News, 2/1/24]
Allegedly The Locks On The Door To A Closet That Was Not Searched Were Changed While Trump’s Attorney Was In Mar-a-Lago’s Basement Searching For Classified Documents. According to ABC News, “According to sources, some investigators involved in the case came to later believe that the closet, which was locked on the day of the search, should have been opened and checked. As investigators would later learn, Trump allegedly had the closet's lock changed while his attorney was in Mar-a-Lago's basement, searching for classified documents in a storage room that he was told would have all such documents. Trump's alleged efforts to conceal classified documents from both the FBI and his own attorney are a key part of Smith's indictment against Trump in Florida.” [ABC News, 2/1/24]
The Special Counsel Planned To Call Mar-a-Lago’s Staffers And Contract Workers To The Stand. According to CNN, “A plumber, a maid, a chauffeur and a woodworker are among Mar-a-Lago staffers and contract workers who federal prosecutors may call to testify against former President Donald Trump and his two co-defendants at their upcoming criminal trial in Florida, according to multiple people familiar with the investigation. CNN has assembled a comprehensive picture of how prosecutors are structuring their case against Trump over his mishandling of classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago. While some of the witnesses who may be called to testify hail from Trump’s inner circle, including his career in business, as a political candidate and from his time in the White House, other potential witnesses are the types of workers rarely noticed by Mar-a-Lago’s wealthy guests, according to the sources.” [CNN, 11/9/23]
Trump Asked Judge Cannon To Reschedule A February 15, 2024 Hearing Because It Conflicted With A Hearing At The Exact Same Time In The Stormy Daniels Case. According to the Messenger, “In yet another sign that the former president faces a packed 2024 court schedule, Donald Trump's attorneys on Monday flagged a scheduling conflict between his Florida and New York criminal cases. Judges in the two cases have scheduled two hearings at the same exact time on Feb. 15, 2024, attorneys for the former president said in the Monday filing in the federal classified documents case based in South Florida. Trump's attorneys asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to reschedule a planned two-day hearing set to begin at 10 a.m. on Feb. 15 regarding classified evidence procedures in the Florida case to a different date, citing a separate 10 a.m. Feb. 15 hearing in the New York state business records case.” [Messenger, 11/13/23]
The Special Counsel Informed Judge Cannon That They Have Turned Over 1.28 Million Pages Of Unclassified Material To Trump’s Defense Team. According to the Messenger, “Special Counsel Jack Smith has so far delivered eight batches of unclassified discovery materials to Donald Trump — totaling more than 1.28 million pages — as the former president and his two co-defendants prepare to face trial over charges tied to the mishandling of classified documents, according to a new court filing on Tuesday. Smith's team disclosed its efforts to share discovery materials in a four-page report to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, explaining that the hand offs have come in rolling fashion through last fall and into early December. That includes sharing of all of the closed-caption television security footage the special counsel's office obtained from Trump's Mar-a-Lago club where the classified documents were allegedly found during DOJ's investigation.” [Messenger, 1/9/24]
The Special Counsel Told Judge Cannon That Trump Had Yet To Produce Any Discovery Documents. According to the Messenger, “Smith's filing also noted that the former president has yet to produce any discovery documents back to the special counsel's office.” [Messenger, 1/9/24]
The Special Counsel Opposed Trump’s Motion To Access Certain Records Saying Potential Witnesses Needed To Be Protected From Harassment And Intimidation. According to the Messenger, “Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecutors pushed back Thursday against Donald Trump's attempt to gain access to certain records in preparation for his South Florida classified documents trial, saying the materials should remain sealed for now to protect potential government witnesses from harassment and intimidation. The four-page reply filed by Smith's team begins by calling out Trump's request from late Tuesday night as one ‘replete with mischaracterizations and baseless arguments.’ ‘The Government supports full transparency of the record consistent with witness safety, national security, and the court's protective order, in part because that transparency will expose the defendants' distortions of the factual and legal landscape in their motions to compel,’ Smith's team wrote.” [Messenger, 1/18/24]
Judge Cannon Granted Most Of Trump’s Requests To Unseal Redacted Information In Documents Provided During Discovery. According to Newsweek, “In a Tuesday filing, Cannon once again ruled mostly in Trump's favor when she dismissed Smith's arguments for keeping certain classified information redacted in documents provided to Trump's team during discovery, including the names of certain potential witnesses, the uncharged conduct of certain individuals, and the FBI codename for a separate investigation. ‘Neither the Special Counsel's publicly filed Response nor the accompanying sealed filing identifies the information it seeks to redact,’ Cannon's decision explained. ‘Although 'protection of a continuing law enforcement investigation' can constitute a compelling governmental interest...the Special Counsel fails to identify the information at issue, provide any explanation about the nature of the investigation, or explain how disclosure of the code name would prejudice or jeopardize the integrity of the separate investigation (assuming it remains ongoing).’” [Newsweek, 2/6/24]
Special Counsel Jack Smith Told Judge Cannon That Her Order Made A “Clear Error” That Could Expose Witnesses To Threats From Trump Supporters. According to Newsweek, “The judge in Donald Trump's classified documents case made a ‘clear error’ that could expose many witnesses to threats from Trump supporters, special prosecutor Jack Smith has written in a court filing. He was reacting to Judge Aileen Cannon's decision to release unredacted discovery documents in the case at the request of Trump and media groups. ‘That discovery material, if publicly docketed in unredacted form as the Court has ordered, would disclose the identities of numerous potential witnesses, along with the substance of the statements they made to the FBI or the grand jury, exposing them to significant and immediate risks of threats, intimidation, and harassment, as has already happened to witnesses, law enforcement agents, judicial officers, and Department of Justice employees whose identities have been disclosed in cases in which defendant Trump is involved,’ Smith wrote in a filing to Cannon. There have been significant threats to court officials in both Trump's election inference cases in Washington and Atlanta, and in his civil fraud trial in New York, all of which were discussed in open court in those cases. Smith filed a written request to Judge Cannon on February 8, asking her to reconsider her position.” [Newsweek, 2/8/24]
April 10, 2024: Judge Cannon Agreed To Redact Witness Identities. According to the Associated Press, “The federal judge presiding over the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump granted a request by prosecutors on Tuesday aimed at protecting the identities of potential government witnesses. But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon refused to categorically block witness statements from being disclosed, saying there was no basis for such a ‘sweeping’ and ‘blanket’ restriction on their inclusion in pretrial motions. The 24-page order centers on a dispute between special counsel Jack Smith’s team and lawyers for Trump over how much information about witnesses and their statements could be made public ahead of trial. The disagreement, which had been pending for weeks, was one of many that had piled up before Cannon and had slowed the pace of the case against Trump — one of four prosecutions he is confronting.” [Associated Press, 4/10/24]
Trump’s Legal Team Told Judge Cannon They Would Seek National Security Damage Assessments And “Tracking Information” Concerning The Classified Records Taken From Mar-a-Lago. According to the New York Times, “Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump on Friday told the federal judge overseeing his prosecution on charges of mishandling classified documents that they intended to ask the government for new information, including assessments of any damage to national security. The lawyers also told the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, that they planned to ask prosecutors working for the special counsel, Jack Smith, for additional information about how the documents at issue were related to national defense — a requirement of the Espionage Act, one of the statutes that Mr. Trump has been accused of violating. In addition, they said they wanted ‘tracking information’ concerning the classified records. Mr. Trump’s legal team is poised to make the requests on Tuesday, when it files motions asking for additional discovery evidence. This is a standard part of the pretrial process in which the defense seeks to get as much information about the case out of the government as it can. Discovery motions often indicate how lawyers intend to attack charges before a trial begins or how they plan to defend against them once the case goes in front of a jury.” [New York Times, 1/12/24]
The Special Counsel’s Office Told Judge Cannon That They Would Call Several FBI Agents As Witnesses Concerning The Data Taken From The Phones Belonging To Trump’s Co-Defendants. According to the New York Times, “Mr. Smith’s team filed its own set of court papers on Friday, telling Judge Cannon that they intended to call several F.B.I. agents to testify at trial concerning data extracted from cellphones and other devices seized from Mr. Trump’s two co-defendants in the case. They are Walt Nauta, a personal aide who served the former president at Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida, and Carlos De Oliveira, Mar-a-Lago’s property manager. Some of the data, the papers said, will be used to track for the jury the movements of Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira during key moments of the investigation. Both men have been charged along with Mr. Trump in a conspiracy to obstruct the government’s repeated attempts to retrieve the classified materials.” [New York Times, 1/12/24]
The Special Counsel’s Office Told Judge Cannon That They Would Call Expert Witnesses About Classified Materials, But That Section Was Made Under Seal. According to the New York Times, “Mr. Smith also told Judge Cannon about some expert witnesses who will testify about classified material, but that section of the filing was submitted under seal.” [New York Times, 1/12/24]
Judge Cannon Rejected The Special Prosecutor’s Request To Force Trump To Reveal If He Planned On Using An Advice Of Counsel Defense. According to Newsweek, “Judge Aileen Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, has rejected Special Counsel Jack Smith's request to force the former president to reveal if he plans on using a defense that he was merely relying on advice of his lawyers during the trial. Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Saturday for comment via email.
[…] In a court filings on Friday, Cannon rejected federal prosecutors ‘motion to compel disclosure regarding advice-of-counsel defense,’ while saying such a request is ‘not amenable to proper consideration at this juncture.’” [Newsweek, 1/13/24]
Trump Filed A Motion Disputing The Special Counsel’s Allegations That Mar-a-Lago Was Not Secure. According to the Associated Press, “Lawyers for former President Donald Trump foreshadowed elements of their defense in the criminal case charging him with illegally retaining classified documents, saying in a motion filed Tuesday that they will dispute prosecutors’ allegations that the estate where the records were stored was not secure.” [Associated Press, 1/16/24]
Trump Asked For Communications Between The Special Counsel’s Office And Associates Of President Biden. According to the Associated Press, “The defense team also said in a wide-ranging court filing that they are seeking communication between the Justice Department prosecution team and associates of President Joe Biden in hopes of advancing their claims that the classified documents case is ‘politically motivated’ and designed to harm Trump’s 2024 campaign. The brief, which asks a judge to compel special counsel Jack Smith’s team to turn over a trove of information, offers the most expansive view yet of potential lines of defense in one of the four criminal cases Trump faces as he seeks to capture the Republican nomination and reclaim the White House.” [Associated Press, 1/16/24]
Trump Sought To Allege The Intelligence Community Was Biased Against Trump To Undermine The Special Counsel’s Contention That The Documents Trump Took Were Related To National Defense. According to the New York Times, “The nation’s spy services took center stage in the papers, given that intelligence officials are likely to testify at trial about what Mr. Trump’s lawyers called their ‘subjective assessments’ of the more than 30 classified documents that the former president is accused of removing from the White House. ‘One of the ways in which President Trump will challenge that testimony is by demonstrating that the intelligence community has operated with a bias against him dating back to at least the 2019 whistle-blower complaint relating to his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky,’ two of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Todd Blanche and Christopher M. Kise, wrote, referring to the incident that resulted in Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial. Mr. Blanche and Mr. Kise said they planned to use ‘evidence relating to analytic bias harbored by the intelligence community’ to undermine the prosecution’s contention that the documents Mr. Trump took with him were connected to issues of national defense. Mr. Smith’s team will have to prove such connections for jurors to find the former president guilty of violating the Espionage Act, the central statute he is accused of breaking.” [New York Times, 1/16/24]
A Filing From The Special Counsel Said That Trump’s Requests For Additional Discovery Materials Was “Based On Speculative, Unsupported, And False Theories Of Political Bias And Animus.” According to the New York Times, “Federal prosecutors pushed back on Friday against former President Donald J. Trump’s contention that his prosecution over the handling of classified documents was motivated by a longstanding bias against him among the intelligence agencies and other government officials. The pushback by the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, came in a 67-page court filing. The filing was intended to argue against Mr. Trump’s requests for additional discovery materials in the classified documents case. When Mr. Trump’s lawyers made those requests for materials last month, they signaled that they planned to place accusations that the intelligence community and other members of the so-called deep state were biased against Mr. Trump at the heart of their defense. But Mr. Smith’s team said that the former president’s requests for additional information were ‘based on speculative, unsupported, and false theories of political bias and animus.’ Some of Mr. Trump’s demands for discovery were so ambiguous ‘that it is difficult to decipher what they seek,’ the prosecutors wrote, while others, they added, ‘reflect pure conjecture detached from the facts surrounding this prosecution.’” [New York Times, 2/2/24]
Trump’s Legal Team Notified Judge Cannon That They Intended To File Multiple Motions On February 22 To Dismiss The Charges. According to NBC News, “Lawyers for former President Donald Trump said in a filing Tuesday night that they plan to file multiple motions to get the criminal charges in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case against the former president dismissed. ‘Defendants currently plan to file on February 22, at minimum, a series of motions to dismiss the Superseding Indictment and certain of the charges therein,’ Todd Blanche and Christopher Kise wrote in the newly filed motion, which seeks to extend certain deadlines in the case. The superseding indictment in the case alleges Trump was involved in a scheme to delete security video at Mar-a-Lago. Trump's legal team added that the defense is ‘still evaluating potential motions’ and they could relate to presidential immunity, the Presidential Records Act, Trump's security clearances, and ‘selective and vindictive prosecution,’ among other issues. Prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith's office and Trump's defense team have until Feb. 22 to file pretrial motions in the case.” [NBC News, 2/7/24]
Trump’s Legal Team Requested The Ability To File Motions After The February 22 Deadline. According to NBC News, “In Wednesday's filing, Trump’s lawyers argue that they should be allowed to file additional motions beyond that deadline based on any additional evidence they receive from the prosecution.” [NBC News, 2/7/24]
Judge Cannon Rejected Trump’s Request To Push Back Pre-Trial Deadlines
Judge Cannon Rejected Trump’s Request To Delay Pre-Trial Deadlines. According to Newsweek, “The judge overseeing Donald Trump's classified documents case has refused the former president's legal team's request to delay pre-trial deadlines. Judge Aileen Cannon rejected calls for a February 22 deadline to file pre-trial motions to be put back amid discussions between the judge, the former president's counsel and Special Counsel Jack Smith's team on how the sensitive materials related to the case can be discussed in front of the jury.” [Newsweek, 2/16/24]
Trump Filed Four Motions To Dismiss The Classified Documents Case Charges. According to the New York Times, “Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump launched a flurry of attacks on Thursday night against the federal charges accusing him of illegally holding on to classified documents after he left office, filing more than 70 pages of court papers seeking to have the case thrown out. In four separate motions to dismiss the case, Mr. Trump’s lawyers made a barrage of legal arguments in seeking to circumvent a criminal case that many legal experts consider the most ironclad of the four against him. They attacked the law he is accused of violating, questioned the legality of the special counsel prosecuting him and argued that he is shielded from prosecution by presidential immunity.” [New York Times, 2/22/24]
Trump Invoked His Previously Rejected Presidential Immunity Argument
Trump Argued That He Was Immune From Prosecution Despite Losing That Argument At An Appeals Court In The January 6 Case. According to the New York Times, “In one of their most brazen motions, Mr. Trump’s lawyers claimed that he was immune from prosecution on the classified documents charges even though a federal appeals court roundly rejected that argument this month when he sought to use it in a separate case, in which he stands accused of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. Mr. Trump’s claims of immunity have always rested on the theory that he could not be charged for any actions he undertook as president. And his lawyers sought to argue in their motion that he should not be prosecuted for moving dozens of classified records from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida, because his initial decision to do so was made while he was in power.’” [New York Times, 2/22/24]
Trump Argued The Espionage Act Was “Unconstitutionally Vague”
Trump Argued That The Espionage Act Was “Unconstitutionally Vague.” According to the New York Times, “In a separate motion, Mr. Trump’s lawyers sought to poke holes in different sections of the Espionage Act, saying that certain phrases of the law were ‘unconstitutionally vague as applied to President Trump.’ The law, for instance, makes it a crime to have ‘unauthorized possession’ of documents ‘relating to the national defense.’ Mr. Trump’s lawyers appeared to be arguing that presidents were always authorized to be in possession of national security files. They also claimed that the definition of ‘national defense’ records was so broad and ambiguous that no one could possibly know what the phrase meant.” [New York Times, 2/22/24]
Trump’s Motion To Dismiss Because The Espionage Act Was Too Vague Was Rejected
March 14, 2024: Trump’s Motion To Dismiss The Charges On The Basis That The Statue Was Unconstitutionally Vague Was Dismissed. According to NBC News, “The judge presiding over the federal criminal case involving former President Donald Trump's handling of classified documents on Thursday denied one of his two motions to dismiss the case, saying the motion was premature. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon found that Trump's argument that the main statute prosecutors are using against him is unconstitutionally vague as it applies to presidents is better-suited to be addressed at a later time ‘in connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions.’” [NBC News, 3/14/24]
Judge Cannon Said Trump Could Raise The Issue That The Espionage Act Was Too Vague At Trial. According to Politico, “Less than three hours after the hearing concluded, Cannon turned down — for now — Trump’s motion to toss out 32 of the 40 felony charges he faces in the case. Trump had argued in the motion that the law he’s accused of violating, the Espionage Act, is too vague to apply in these circumstances. In a spare, two-page ruling, the judge said the former president’s argument ‘depends too greatly on contested’ legal arguments and factual issues that could be addressed at a trial in the case. She said she would address Trump’s vagueness claims if he raises them later in the case.” [Politico, 3/14/24]
Trump Argued Jack Smith’s Appointment Was Illegal Because He Was Not Confirmed By The Senate
Trump Argued That The Special Counsel Was Unlawfully Appointed Because AG Garland Had Not Gotten Smith Confirmed By The Senate. According to the New York Times, “In their third motion, Mr. Trump’s lawyers went after Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing the two federal cases against Mr. Trump, claiming that he was unlawfully appointed to his post. The lawyers advanced an untested argument: that under the Constitution, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland should have gotten Senate confirmation for Mr. Smith’s appointment in November 2022. Without that, the lawyers wrote, ‘Jack Smith lacks the authority to prosecute this action.’” [New York Times, 2/22/24]
June 6, 2024: Judge Cannon Allowed Outside Parties To Participate In A Hearing Scheduled For June 21 On The Legality Of Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s Appointment. According to CNN, “Judge Aileen Cannon is planning on holding a sprawling hearing on Donald Trump’s request to declare Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel invalid, signaling the judge could be more willing than any other trial judge to veto the special prosecutor’s authority. The planned hearing also adds a new, unusual twist in the federal criminal national security case against the former president: Cannon on Tuesday said that a variety of political partisans and constitutional scholars not otherwise involved with the case can join in the oral arguments on June 21. It’s an extraordinary elevation of arguments in a criminal case first filed a year ago this week that likely won’t see trial until next year, if at all.” [CNN, 6/4/24]
Trump’s Argument He Could Have Unilaterally Declared Classified Records As Personal Rejected
Trump Argued That He Had The Right To Declare Classified Records As Personal Under The Presidential Records Act. According to the New York Times, “Finally, Mr. Trump’s lawyers filed a motion reprising an argument that they — and their client — have made repeatedly since well before the indictment in the case was returned in June: that under the Presidential Records Act, Mr. Trump had the ‘unreviewable discretion’ to ‘designate the records at issue as personal,’ meaning that the documents were not unauthorized at all, but instead belonged to him. Legal experts have questioned this expansive interpretation of the Presidential Records Act, saying that the law was put in place after the Watergate scandal for precisely the opposite reason. It was meant to ensure that the U.S. government, not an individual president, has control over most presidential records.” [New York Times, 2/22/24]
April 4, 2024: Judge Cannon Rejected Trump’s Motion To Dismiss The Charges Against Him Due To The Presidential Records Act. According to the Miami Herald, “Former President Donald Trump lost his biggest bet so far to throw out his classified documents case Thursday when U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon firmly denied his motion, concluding that the Presidential Records Act ‘does not provide a pre-trial basis to dismiss’ the 42-count indictment. Trump’s lawyers argued at a hearing last month in the Fort Pierce federal courthouse that he designated the documents as his own personal property when he took them from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach after leaving office and therefore he had the authority to keep them. Her decision — barring a ruling on an appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court in April that Trump has immunity against criminal prosecution — paves the way for his classified documents trial as scheduled on May 20 or later in the year as the presidential election looms between him and Joe Biden in November.” [Miami Herald, 4/4/24]
Trump Filed Three Additional Motions That Were Under Redaction Review
Trump Filed An Additional Three Motions That Were Under Redaction Review. According to NBC News, “Trump's attorneys filed three additional motions that were emailed privately to the court for redaction review.” [NBC News, 2/22/24]
February 26, 2024: Federal Prosecutors Rejected Trump’s Allegation That He Was Selectively Prosecuted Because No Former Public Official In American History “Engaged In Conduct Remotely Similar To Trump’s.” According to the New York Times, “Federal prosecutors on Monday rejected former President Donald J. Trump’s claims that he was unfairly charged with holding on to classified documents after he left office, saying that his case bore no comparison to the one in which President Biden was cleared of wrongdoing even though he was found in possession of classified materials after leaving the vice presidency. In rebuffing what was known as a ‘selective prosecution’ claim by Mr. Trump, the prosecutors said that while many government officials over the years had taken classified materials with them after leaving office — often inadvertently, but occasionally willfully — Mr. Trump’s case remained unique because of the extent to which he had ‘resisted the government’s lawful efforts to recover them.’ ‘There has never been a case in American history in which a former official has engaged in conduct remotely similar to Trump’s,’ they wrote.” [New York Times, 2/26/24]
March 7: The Special Counsel Laid Out Why Trump’s Case Was Different From Others Who Faced Allegations Of Mishandling Classified Documents. According to Politico, “Donald Trump’s efforts to thwart a federal investigation into his hoarding of national security secrets set him apart from other political figures who’ve faced allegations of mishandling classified information, including President Joe Biden, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Mike Pence and James Comey, special counsel Jack Smith said in a court filing Thursday.” [Politico, 3/7/24]
The Special Counsel Said, “None Is Alleged To Have Willfully Retained A Vast Trove Of Highly Sensitive, Confidential Materials And Repeatedly Sought To Thwart Their Lawful Return And Engaged In A Multi-Faceted Scheme Of Deception And Obstruction.” According to Politico, “Rather than serve as evidence that Trump is being singled out by politically motivated prosecutors, Smith contends that the long list of figures — most of whom never faced any charges — underscores the egregiousness of Trump’s conduct, which was ‘aggravated’ by his monthslong refusal to return the documents. ‘While each of them, to varying degrees, bears a slight resemblance to this case … none is alleged to have willfully retained a vast trove of highly sensitive, confidential materials and repeatedly sought to thwart their lawful return and engaged in a multi-faceted scheme of deception and obstruction,’ prosecutors argued in a 29-page brief. ‘There is no one who is similarly situated.’” [Politico, 3/7/24]
The Special Counsel Said Biden Had No Role In His Charging Decisions
The Special Counsel Said Biden Had No Role In The Criminal Charges Filed Against Trump. According to Politico, “In the same filing, Smith also sharply rejected the suggestion that Biden had any role in causing the criminal case to be filed against his archrival. ‘Trump appears to contend that it was President Biden who actually made the decision to seek the charges in this case; that Biden did so solely for unconstitutional reasons; and that this decision was somehow foisted on the Special Counsel through a newspaper article, a press conference, and an interview that each preceded the Special Counsel’s appointment,’ Smith writes. ‘That theory finds no support in evidence or logic. Indeed, the very sources Trump relies on undercut his claim.’” [Politico, 3/7/24]
Trump And His Legal Team Spent Five Hours With Judge Cannon To Explain Their Need For Highly Classified Evidence As Part Of Their Defense. According to the New York Times, “Former President Donald J. Trump and his lawyers spent about five hours inside a secure space in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla., on Monday, for a hearing to explain their defense strategy to the judge overseeing the case in which Mr. Trump is charged with illegally retaining classified documents after he left office. The purpose of the closed hearing was to give Mr. Trump’s team a chance to convince Judge Aileen M. Cannon that they should have access to highly classified materials that federal prosecutors have cited as potential evidence. The prosecutorial team led by Jack Smith, the special counsel in charge of the federal investigations into Mr. Trump, has argued that the materials in question have no relevance or utility to the former president’s defense.” [New York Times, 2/12/24]
February 22, 2024: Trump Co-Defendant De Oliveira Moved To Have The Obstruction Of Justice And Making False Statements Charges Thrown Out. According to the Guardian, “Lawyers for Donald Trump’s second co-defendant in the criminal case involving his retention of classified documents have asked a federal judge to throw out the parts of the indictment charging him with conspiring to obstruct justice and making false statements to the FBI. Carlos De Oliveira, who worked as the maintenance chief at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club, was charged last year with taking part in an alleged effort to delete security footage of boxes containing classified documents being moved out of a storage room to be hidden. In a 19-page court filing on Thursday, lawyers for De Oliveira argued that the specific obstruction counts he was charged with should be tossed because De Oliveira was not aware that a grand jury subpoena had been issued for the footage, or of the compliance obligations the subpoena required.” [Guardian, 2/22/24]
April 18, 2024: Judge Cannon Rejected Requests By Trump Co-Defendants Nauta And De Oliveira To Dismiss The Charges Against Them. According to the New York Times, “The federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case on Thursday denied initial attempts by Mr. Trump’s two co-defendants to have the charges against them dismissed. The ruling by the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, was the first time she had rejected dismissal motions by the two men, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, both of whom work for Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida.” [New York Times, 4/18/24]
May 22, 2024: Nauta’s Defense Accused Prosecutors Of Selective Prosecution. According to the Associated Press, “A lawyer for Donald Trump’s personal valet took aim at the conduct of prosecutors in the classified documents case in a heated hearing Wednesday, the first since a judge indefinitely postponed the trial. Stanley Woodward, a lawyer for Walt Nauta, said prosecutors had targeted his client for prosecution after he refused to cooperate against Trump in the investigation. Nauta was charged alongside Trump last year in a federal case accusing them of conspiring to conceal boxes of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s estate in Palm Beach, Florida. The defense lawyer also said a prosecutor in the case had warned him earlier in the investigation that he needed to be careful or he would ‘mess up’ his bid for a Washington, D.C., judgeship, a comment Woodward interpreted as designed to get him to pressure Nauta to assist the inquiry. But David Harbach, a prosecutor with Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith’s team, which brought the case, called Woodward’s allegations ‘garbage’ and ‘fantasy.’ He said the statements attributed to his colleague, Jay Bratt, had been taken out of context. Woodward said he would be willing to testify under oath about the exchange.” [Associated Press, 5/22/24]
February 27, 2024: Judge Cannon Denied Access To Classified Documents To Trump Co-Defendants Nauta And De Oliveira According to CNN, “The judge presiding over the Mar-a-Lago documents case on Tuesday denied efforts by Donald Trump’s co-defendants to view the classified records they allegedly moved around the former president’s Florida residence for him. The men, political aide Walt Nauta and property staffer Carlos De Oliveira, wanted to view the classified records to prepare their trial defenses against obstruction of justice charges. They are accused of helping Trump conceal documents he unlawfully kept in Florida after he left the presidency. The decision from Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon on Tuesday night resolves a protracted battle that stood to hamper movement toward a trial, days before the judge revisits her calendar to see if Trump and the two men can be tried before summer. After several confidential hearings in her courthouse in recent weeks, including one that Trump attended, Cannon ruled in favor of the special counsel’s office, which argued De Oliveira and Nauta didn’t need to see the records that were in the boxes at Mar-a-Lago.” [CNN, 2/27/24]
February 28, 2024: Judge Cannon Rejected Trump’s Request For Access To A Secret Filing From The Special Counsel Over Reasons For Redacting Classified Documents That Would Be Provided To Trump’s Legal Team In Discovery. According to the Guardian, “A federal judge on Tuesday rejected an attempt by Donald Trump to review a sensitive court filing submitted by special counsel prosecutors that detailed their reasons for wanting to redact some of the classified documents which would be turned over to the former president in discovery. The attempt by Trump to access the filing was a brazen move that would have defeated the purpose of rules to protect national security in Espionage Act prosecutions and potentially thrown into disarray the scope and viability of continuing the case against Trump. But in a nine-page order, the presiding US district judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Trump should not gain access to the secret filing because his legal team could still prepare a defense without it, even as she took issue with prosecutors’ reasoning for why access should be withheld.” [Guardian, 2/28/24]
The Special Counsel Proposed Moving The Trial Date To July 8. According to Politico, “Donald Trump has already succeeded this week in delaying one of his two federal criminal trials. On Friday, a federal judge in Florida will begin deciding just how far to delay his other one. Judge Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing Trump’s classified documents case, has scheduled a marathon hearing with a daunting agenda. Among the issues likely to be discussed: how jurors will be selected, how classified evidence should be handled, whether the names of sensitive government witnesses should be publicly revealed and whether the trial should be postponed until this summer — or until after the presidential election. On Thursday evening, Trump’s lawyers and special counsel Jack Smith filed competing proposals for the trial schedule. Officially, the case is slated to go to trial on May 20, but Cannon, whom Trump appointed to the federal bench in 2020, is almost certain to push that date back. The big question is how much she’ll push it. Even prosecutors are resigned that the case will be delayed. They’re asking for a July 8 trial date that would represent a six-week slowdown.” [Politico, 3/1/24]
Trump Proposed Moving The Trial Date To August 12. According to Politico, “Trump, on the other hand, is asking Cannon to consider pushing the trial until after the 2024 election or, if she refuses, to instead set it for Aug. 12.” [Politico, 3/1/24]
Trump Proposed A Date Despite Saying He Could Not Get A Fair Trial In 2024. According to Reuters, “Donald Trump's lawyers told a U.S. judge on Thursday that he believes he cannot get a fair trial this year on charges of mishandling classified documents after leaving the White House, while he campaigns to try to recapture the presidency. U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is bringing the case against Trump, asked on Thursday for a July 8 start to the trial. Lawyers for the former president said in their filing that Trump ‘strongly asserts that a fair trial cannot be conducted this year in a manner consistent with the Constitution.’” [Reuters, 2/29/24]
March 1, 2024: Judge Cannon Made No Decision About When To Move The Trial Date In The Classified Documents Case. According to the New York Times, “A federal judge in Florida held a hearing on Friday to consider a new date for former President Donald J. Trump’s trial on charges of mishandling classified documents, but made no immediate decision about a choice that could have major consequences for both his legal and political future. Four months ago, the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, declared she was inclined to make some ‘reasonable adjustments’ to the timing of the classified documents trial, which was originally scheduled to start on May 20 in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla. But by holding off on making a decision at the hearing on Friday, Judge Cannon further delayed resolving the question of how long the trial would be postponed.” [New York Times, 3/1/24]
March 11: “Trump Employee 5” Was Revealed To Be Brian Butler, A 20-Year Employee At Mar-a-Lago. According to CNN, “A longtime Mar-a-Lago employee who is a central witness in the investigation into former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents is now speaking publicly because he believes that voters should hear the truth about his former boss and the case before the November election. Brian Butler, who is referenced as ‘Trump Employee 5’ in the classified documents indictment brought by special counsel Jack Smith, told CNN in an exclusive interview that he doesn’t believe the criminal case against Trump is a ‘witch hunt,’ as the former president has claimed. Butler gave testimony to federal investigators that informed crucial portions of last year’s criminal obstruction charges against Trump and his two co-defendants, Walt Nauta, a personal aide to Trump, and Carlos De Oliveira, a property manager at Mar-a-Lago who had been Butler’s closest friend until recently. Butler, who was employed at Mar-a-Lago for 20 years, has spoken repeatedly with investigators, paying for his own attorney and breaking with the orbit around Trump that he knows so well – setting him apart from his former colleagues and friends as his former boss has been named in multiple federal investigations.” [CNN, 3/11/24]
March 18, 2024: Judge Cannon Asked Both Sides To Submit Jury Instructions That Incorporated The Presidential Records Act. According to CNN, “Federal Judge Aileen Cannon issued an order Monday for lawyers to submit instructions for a trial jury in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case – signaling that the debate over whether Trump had the authority to keep documents from his White House could remain a central issue of the case, which could help him at trial. But – to the surprise and confusion of several legal experts on Monday – Cannon asked the attorneys in the case to consider how to incorporate into the trial the Presidential Records Act. The request is an unusual one that leads both sides into hypothetical, untrodden territory. Cannon asked both the Justice Department and defense team to contemplate how a jury could be told to weigh the criminal law around national security records if Trump could say the PRA gave him authority to keep documents he chose.” [CNN, 3/18/24]
This Was Despite The Prosecution Saying That Charges Have Nothing To Do With The Presidential Records Act. According to CNN, “The Justice Department maintains his charges have nothing to do with the PRA and are about what happened after the presidency: how classified records about US and foreign military secrets were kept without federal protection at a private beach club and allegedly moved around so government officials wouldn’t find them.” [CNN, 3/18/24]
April 3, 2024: Prosecutors Slammed Judge Cannon’s Proposed Jury Instructions As Being Based On A “Fundamentally Flawed Legal Premise.” According to the Associated Press, “Federal prosecutors chided the judge presiding over former President Donald Trump's classified documents case in Florida, warning her off potential jury instructions that they said rest on a ‘fundamentally flawed legal premise.’” [Associated Press, 4/3/24]
March 22, 2024: Judge Cannon Approved Several Of The Special Counsel’s Requests To Shield Classified Information From The Defense. According to The Hill, “U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon largely sided with special counsel Jack Smith in a battle to shield certain information from former President Trump’s lawyers as they prepare for trial in his documents case. The Classified Information Procedures Act allows prosecutors to redact or summarize some elements of classified discovery before it’s turned over to defendants. Cannon mostly approved the Justice Department’s request to do so, but held off on making a decision on some documents at issue in the Mar-a-Lago case. ‘No classified information not already agreed to be released by the Special Counsel shall be disseminated as a result of this unclassified Order,’ Cannon wrote.” [The Hill, 3/22/24]
April 18, 2024: Trump Asked To Postpone Deadlines In The Classified Documents Case Until Three Weeks After The Conclusion Of The Stormy Daniels Trial. According to Politico, “A hallmark of Donald Trump's legal strategy while under indictments in four different cases has been to try to use developments in one case to seek delays in the others. This morning his lawyers continued to do that in Florida, where he is charged with hoarding classified information at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Trump's lawyers told Judge Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing the Florida case, that jury selection in the New York hush money case is ‘proceeding expeditiously’ — and that's a good reason, they argued, for Cannon to postpone some filing deadlines in Florida. Trump is asking Cannon to set the deadline for three weeks after the conclusion of the New York trial, noting that his two lead lawyers in Manhattan — Todd Blanche and Emil Bove — are also his lead lawyers in Florida.” [Politico, 4/18/24]
May 2, 2024: Trump Asked The Court to Dismiss The Charges In The Classified Documents Case Because Of Selective Prosecution. According to Reuters, “Donald Trump cited U.S. President Joe Biden’s mishandling of classified documents after leaving the vice presidency as he seeks to have criminal charges related to his own retention of sensitive records tossed out, court filings showed on Thursday. Trump, the former president and the Republican challenger to Democrat Biden in the Nov. 5 election, argued that the decision not to charge Biden and other senior U.S. officials who mishandled classified information shows he is being selectively targeted by prosecutors. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing the case and who was nominated by Trump, will rule on Trump's challenge. Cannon, who has been receptive to some of Trump's defense arguments, has questioned prosecutors at prior court hearings about why former presidents and vice presidents found to be in possession of potentially classified documents were not charged.
Trump faces a high legal bar in showing that he was selectively targeted and such challenges are rarely successful, but the argument aligns with Trump's campaign message that he is a victim of political persecution.” [Reuters, 5/2/24]
May 3, 2024: Prosecutors Said That The Classified Documents Seized At Mar-a-Lago May Not Be In The Same Order That They Were Found When Seized In 2022. According to Politico, “Special counsel Jack Smith’s team acknowledged Friday that some evidence in the prosecution of former President Donald Trump for hoarding classified documents at his Florida home may not be in the same sequence FBI agents found it when they swept into the Mar-a-Lago compound with a search warrant in August 2022. The concession from prosecutors in a court filing Friday afternoon came after attorneys for one of Trump’s co-defendants asked for a delay in the case because the defense lawyers were having trouble determining precisely where particular documents had come from in the 33 boxes the FBI seized almost two years ago. In their filing, prosecutors acknowledged the government had previously — and incorrectly — told U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon that the boxes remained ‘in their original, intact form as seized,’ other than a decision to replace classified documents with placeholder sheets.” [Politico, 5/3/24]
May 6, 2024: Judge Cannon Postponed The Deadline For Trump To Provide A List Of The Classified Documents He Wished To Use At Trial. According to the New York Times, “Reversing one of her own decisions, the federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case granted his request on Monday to postpone the deadline for a crucial court filing in the criminal proceeding, increasing the chance that any trial would be pushed past the November election. The ruling by the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, was made in a bare-bones order that contained no factual or legal reasoning. It did not schedule a new deadline but erased the one she had set almost a month ago ordering Mr. Trump’s lawyers to file by Thursday a detailed list of the classified materials that they intend to introduce at the trial, which is set to take place at some point in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla.” [New York Times, 5/6/24]
May 7, 2024: Judge Cannon Indefinitely Postponed The Classified Documents Trial. According to Politico, “The judge presiding over Donald Trump’s criminal case in Florida — on charges that he hoarded classified secrets at his Mar-a-Lago estate after his presidency — has indefinitely postponed the trial, once scheduled for May 20. The date had been widely expected to move amid a tangle of pretrial conflicts between special counsel Jack Smith and Trump’s attorneys. Smith had urged Judge Aileen Cannon to reschedule the trial to begin on July 8, but an order from the judge on Tuesday afternoon suggested that she is unlikely to even decide on a new trial date before late July.” [Politico, 5/7/24]
May 24, 2024: Federal Prosecutors Asked Judge Cannon To Bar Trump From Making Statements That Might Endanger Law Enforcement Officials Involved In The Investigation After Trump Falsely Claimed That The FBI Was Authorized To Kill Him During The Mar-a-Lago Search. According to the New York Times, “Federal prosecutors on Friday night asked the judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case to bar him from making any statements that might endanger law enforcement agents involved in the proceedings. Prosecutors tendered the request after Mr. Trump made what they described as ‘grossly misleading’ assertions about the F.B.I.’s August 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida. This week, the former president falsely suggested that the F.B.I. had been authorized to shoot him when agents discovered more than 100 classified documents while executing a court-approved search warrant there. In a social media post on Tuesday, Mr. Trump falsely claimed that President Biden ‘authorized the FBI to use deadly (lethal) force’ during the search.” [New York Times, 5/24/24]
Prosecutors Did Not Ask For A Gag Order, But Rather To Revise The Conditions Of Trump’s Release. According to the New York Times, “Prosecutors did not seek to impose a gag order on Mr. Trump in the classified documents case, but instead asked Judge Cannon to revise his conditions of release to forbid him to make any public comments ‘that pose a significant, imminent and foreseeable danger to law enforcement agents participating in the investigation.’ Still, if Judge Cannon agrees to the request, it would mean that Mr. Trump could be placed in custody were he to violate the revised conditions.” [New York Times, 5/24/24]
May 27, 2024: Trump’s Lawyers Asked That The Request Be Stricken From The Docket And Prosecutors Should Face Contempt Sanctions. According to the New York Times, “In their motion to Judge Aileen M. Cannon in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla., Mr. Trump’s lawyers said that Mr. Smith’s request was ‘an extraordinary, unprecedented and unconstitutional censorship application’ that ‘unjustly targets President Trump’s campaign speech while he is the leading candidate for the presidency.’ Mr. Trump’s legal team said that Mr. Smith’s request should be stricken from the docket and that he and his prosecutors should face contempt sanctions for filing it in the first place. The lawyers accused prosecutors of springing the request on them over a holiday weekend and further claimed that Mr. Smith was ‘pursuing media coverage rather than justice.’ They did not address how their client had started this latest spat in the case by twisting the facts in an explosive social media post that Mr. Trump has since turned into a fund-raising appeal.” [New York Times, 5/27/24]
May 28, 2024: Judge Cannon Rejected Prosecutors’ Request To Prevent Trump From Making Public Comments That Could Endanger Law Enforcement. According to the Associated Press, “The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s classified documents case in Florida on Tuesday denied prosecutors’ request to bar the former president from making public statements that could endanger law enforcement agents participating in the prosecution. Prosecutors had told U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon that the restriction was necessary to protect law enforcement from potential threats and harassment after the presumptive Republican presidential nominee baselessly claimed that the Biden administration wanted to kill him during a search of his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, nearly two years ago. Cannon chided prosecutors in her order denying their request, saying they didn’t give defense lawyers adequate time to discuss the matter before it was filed Friday evening. The judge warned prosecutors that failing to comply with court requirements in the future may lead to sanctions. She denied the request without prejudice, meaning prosecutors could file it again.” [Associated Press, 5/28/24]
A June 24 Hearing On Whether Trump’s Lawyers Should Have Access To Communications Between Prosecutors And The National Archives Was Cancelled. According to the New York Times, “The most important change Judge Cannon made to the schedule in a brief order was arguably the cancellation of a three-day hearing that had been set to take place starting June 24 in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla. The hearing was originally meant to consider whether Mr. Trump’s lawyers should be permitted access to communications between prosecutors working for Mr. Smith and officials at the National Archives and several national security agencies. The lawyers want those communications to bolster their claims that Mr. Smith worked hand in glove with the Biden administration and members of the so-called deep state to bring the documents case against Mr. Trump. Prosecutors had objected to holding the proceeding at all, telling Judge Cannon in March that no similar hearings had ever been held in the Southern District of Florida, where she sits. In her order on Wednesday, she said she would place the hearing back on her calendar at some point in the future.” [New York Times, 6/5/24]
June 10, 2024: Judge Cannon Rejected Trump’s Effort To Dismiss Charges Against Him. According to CBS News, “The federal judge overseeing special counsel Jack Smith's classified documents case against Donald Trump once again rejected requests by the former president's legal team to dismiss the charges against him, according to an order filed Monday evening. Judge Aileen Cannon denied numerous claims by Trump's defense attorneys and his co-defendants arguing the 2023 indictment was technically flawed, but she criticized prosecutors' description of one incident as unnecessary to the charges and agreed to strike a single paragraph from the charging document because she said it ‘improperly contained uncharged offense allegations.’” [CBS News, 6/10/24]
June 10, 2024: Trump Motioned That Prosecutors Failed To Properly Preserve The Boxes FBI Agents Took From Mar-a-Lago. According to the New York Times, “Just before midnight on Monday, Mr. Trump’s lawyers filed another motion challenging the indictment. This one accused Mr. Smith’s prosecutors of failing to have properly preserved the boxes of documents that the F.B.I. removed from Mar-a-Lago after executing a search warrant at the estate in August 2022. The lawyers claimed that the federal agents who seized the boxes did not maintain the order of the documents inside them, and did not take photographs that would have served as ‘alternative evidence of the documents’ sequence in each box.’ Moreover, the lawyers argued that prosecutors misled Judge Cannon at least twice, telling her that ‘the order of the documents within each box was intact’ when in fact in some boxes it was not.” [New York Times, 6/10/24]
June 18, 2024: Trump’s Legal Team Informed Judge Cannon Of Their First Selections Of Classified Documents They Wish To Use At Trial. According to Newsweek, “Donald Trump's legal team have selected classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago estate that they want to use at trial. On Monday, June 18, they notified Judge Aileen Cannon that they have made their first selection and notified a government classified information officer in Fort Pierce, Florida. They also notified Cannon that they are making their selection under Section 5[a] of the Classified Information Procedure Act, the section of federal law that allows defendants in criminal trials to use classified documents if they require it.” [Newsweek, 6/18/24]
Trump May Make More Selections. According to Newsweek, “Trump's selection has not been made public. As his lawyers, Todd Blanche and Chris Kise, notified Cannon that this is their first selection, there are likely to be more, given the large volume of documents that the FBI uncovered at Mar-a-Lago.” [Newsweek, 6/18/24]
June 20, 2024: Two Judges, Including The Chief Judge In The Southern District Of Florida, Advised Judge Cannon To Pass On The Classified Documents Case. According to the New York Times, “Shortly after Judge Aileen M. Cannon drew the assignment in June 2023 to oversee former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case, two more experienced colleagues on the federal bench in Florida urged her to pass it up and hand it off to another jurist, according to two people briefed on the conversations. The judges who approached Judge Cannon — including the chief judge in the Southern District of Florida, Cecilia M. Altonaga — each asked her to consider whether it would be better if she were to decline the high-profile case, allowing it to go to another judge, the two people said. But Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, wanted to keep the case and refused the judges’ entreaties. Her assignment drew attention because she has scant trial experience and had previously shown unusual favor to Mr. Trump by intervening in a way that helped him in the criminal investigation that led to his indictment, only to be reversed in a sharply critical rebuke by a conservative appeals court panel.” [New York Times, 6/20/24]
July 1, 2024: Trump Asked Judge Merchan To Delay Sentencing In Light Of The Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Ruling. According to the Associated Press, “Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers have asked the New York judge who presided over his hush money trial to set aside his conviction and delay his sentencing, scheduled for next week. The letter to Judge Juan M. Merchan cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling earlier Monday on presidential immunity and asked the judge to delay Trump’s sentencing while he weighs the high court’s decision and how it could influence the New York case, according to the letter obtained by The Associated Press.” [Associated Press, 7/1/24]
July 6, 2024: Judge Cannon Paused Deadlines After Trump Requested A Review Of The Supreme Court’s Decision In The Presidential Immunity Case. According to NPR, “The federal judge overseeing the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump has paused a few deadlines after Trump's legal team requested a review of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity. […] Cannon's order issued Saturday does not give a date for any discussion of the immunity issue to be held, but does allow for a short pause related to two deadlines for Trump's lawyers and one deadline for prosecutors. The order gives federal prosecutors until July 18 to respond to Trump's request for an extended delay. Trump's legal team will then be due to reply to the prosecution on July 21.” [NPR, 7/6/24]
Trump Asked For A Hearing On The Immunity Decision To Take Place By Early September. According to NPR, “Trump's legal team had also asked to argue the immunity issue before Cannon between now and early September, which would have effectively delayed all aspects of the case for at least two months. Trump has argued that his removal of classified documents from the White House and then relocating them to his Florida resort home at Mar-a-Lago constituted an official act — and that the Supreme Court's ruling should translate to charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith being dropped.” [NPR, 7/6/24]
Trump Asked That The Court Rule Special Counsel Smith’s Appointment Unconstitutional In Light Of Justice Thomas’ Concurrence In The Immunity Decision. According to NPR, “In Friday's court filing, attorneys for Trump also pointed to Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion in the immunity decision, which questioned Smith's appointment and authority in the classified documents case. Trump's team also has sought to have the case dismissed on those grounds, arguing that Smith's appointment is unconstitutional.” [NPR, 7/6/24]
July 6, 2024: Judge Cannon Denied Trump Co-Defendant Walt Nauta’s Motion To Dismiss Charges Based On Selective Prosecution. According to ABC News, “The judge overseeing Donald Trump's classified documents case denied a motion to dismiss the charges against the former president's co-defendant and longtime aide, Walt Nauta. Nauta's lawyers attempted to have the charges against him thrown out by arguing that he was ‘selectively’ and ‘vindictively’ prosecuted by investigators – a claim that Judge Aileen Cannon considered during a hearing in May. In an order issued Saturday, Cannon denied the motion to dismiss the case, determining that Nauta failed to prove the prosecution was ‘motivated by a discriminatory purpose’ or that others who engaged in similar conduct were not prosecuted.” [ABC News, 7/6/24]
July 15, 2024: Judge Cannon Dismissed The Classified Documents Case Against Trump After Ruling That The Special Counsel’s Appointment Was Unconstitutional. According to ABC News, “The classified documents case against former President Donald Trump has been dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon, according to court records. The judge ruled that special counsel Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional. ‘The Superseding Indictment is DISMISSED because Special Counsel Smith’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution,’ she wrote.” [ABC News, 7/15/24]
July 17, 2024: The Special Counsel Formally Appealed Judge Cannon’s Decision To Throw Out The Charges Against Trump In The Classified Documents Case To The 11th Circuit. According to Reuters, “U.S. prosecutors formally appealed on Wednesday a federal judge's decision to throw out the criminal case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith accusing Donald Trump of illegally holding on to classified documents following the end of his presidency. Smith's office filed a notice indicating it would ask the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to revive the case and reverse Florida-based U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon's ruling on Monday that Smith had been unlawfully appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland. Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by Trump in 2020, ruled that Smith's 2022 appointment violated the U.S. Constitution because Congress did not authorize Garland to name a special counsel with the degree of power and independence wielded by Smith.” [Reuters, 7/17/24]
August 26, 2024: The Special Counsel Asked The 11th Circuit To Reinstate The Classified Documents Case Against Trump. According to the Associated Press, “Special counsel Jack Smith urged a federal appeals court Monday to reinstate the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, saying a judge’s decision that dismissed the prosecution was at odds with longstanding Justice Department practice and must be reversed.” [Associated Press, 8/26/24]
The Special Counsel Argued That Judge Cannon’s Ruling “Deviated From Binding Supreme Court Precedent,” “Misconstrued” Law, And “Took Inadequate Account” Of Previous History. According to the Associated Press, “Smith’s team said U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon made a grievous mistake by ruling that Smith was unlawfully appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland. That position, prosecutors wrote in a brief filed with the Atlanta-based appeals court, runs counter to rulings by judges across the country as well as ‘widespread and longstanding appointment practices in the Department of Justice and across the government.’ If allowed to stand, they warned, it could ‘jeopardize the longstanding operation of the Justice Department and call into question hundreds of appointments throughout the Executive Branch.’ ‘The Attorney General validly appointed the Special Counsel, who is also properly funded,’ prosecutors wrote. ‘In ruling otherwise, the district court deviated from binding Supreme Court precedent, misconstrued the statutes that authorized the Special Counsel’s appointment, and took inadequate account of the longstanding history of Attorney General appointments of special counsels.’” [Associated Press, 8/26/24]
August 12, 2024: Trump Planned To Sue The Justice Department For $100 Million Over The FBI Search Of Mar-a-Lago. According to Fox News, “Former President Donald Trump is set to sue the Justice Department for $100 million in damages over the government’s unprecedented 2022 raid on his Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Florida, with lawyers arguing it was done with ‘clear intent to engage in political persecution.’ Fox News has obtained Trump’s memo claiming ‘tortious conduct by the United States against President Trump.’ Trump and his legal team intend to sue the Justice Department for its conduct during the FBI’s raid on Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8, 2022, amid the federal investigation into his alleged improper retention of classified records. After the raid, Special Counsel Jack Smith was appointed to investigate. Smith ultimately brought 37 felony counts against Trump, including willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and false statements. Trump pleaded not guilty to all counts. But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, last month, dismissed Smith’s case against Trump altogether. Cannon ruled that Smith was unlawfully appointed and funded, citing the Appointments Clause in the Constitution.” [Fox News, 8/12/24]
The Justice Department Had 180 Days To Respond. According to Fox News, “Trump attorney Daniel Epstein filed the notice to sue the Justice Department. The Justice Department has 180 days from the date of receipt to respond to Epstein's notice and come to a resolution. If no resolution is made, Trump's case will move to federal court in the Southern District of Florida.” [Fox News, 8/12/24]
Mid-September 2024: Trump’s Response Brief Due Before The 11th Circuit. According to Politico, “Under the standard timeline outlined by the appeals court, Smith would file his opening brief by Aug. 27 — though nothing would prevent him from filing it earlier. Trump’s brief would follow 30 days afterward, and Smith would have an opportunity to reply three weeks after that. If all briefs are filed on their due date, briefing would be complete by mid-October, with oral arguments to a three-judge panel of the appeals court likely to follow several weeks or months later.” [Politico, 7/25/24]
Mid-October 2024: The Special Counsel’s Response Brief Due Before The 11th Circuit. According to Politico, “Under the standard timeline outlined by the appeals court, Smith would file his opening brief by Aug. 27 — though nothing would prevent him from filing it earlier. Trump’s brief would follow 30 days afterward, and Smith would have an opportunity to reply three weeks after that. If all briefs are filed on their due date, briefing would be complete by mid-October, with oral arguments to a three-judge panel of the appeals court likely to follow several weeks or months later.” [Politico, 7/25/24]
July 2022: Sources Said The Department Of Justice Was Investigating Trump’s Actions To Overturn The 2020 Election. According to the Washington Post, “The Justice Department is investigating President Donald Trump’s actions as part of its criminal probe of efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, according to four people familiar with the matter. Prosecutors who are questioning witnesses before a grand jury — including two top aides to Vice President Mike Pence — have asked in recent days about conversations with Trump, his lawyers, and others in his inner circle who sought to substitute Trump allies for certified electors from some states Joe Biden won, according to two people familiar with the matter. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.” [Washington Post, 7/26/22]
September 2022: The Justice Department Was Investigating The Fake Electors Plot, False Election Fraud Claims, Legal Efforts To Challenge Trump’s Electoral Loss, And The Effort To Finance Efforts To Overturn The 2020 Election. According to CNN, “Justice Department criminal prosecutors are now examining nearly every aspect of former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election – including the fraudulent electors plot, efforts to push baseless election fraud claims and how money flowed to support these various efforts – according to sources and copies of new subpoenas obtained by CNN. The investigation is also stretching into cogs of the sprawling Trump legal machine that boosted his efforts to challenge his electoral loss – with many of the recipients of 30-plus subpoenas that were issued in recent days being asked to turn over communications with several Trump attorneys.” [CNN, 9/13/22]
A December 2020 Memo From Lawyer Kenneth Chesebro Proposed The Idea Of Using Fake Electors To Overturn The 2020 Election Despite Concluding That The Supreme Court Would “Likely” Reject The Plan. According to the New York Times, “A lawyer allied with President Donald J. Trump first laid out a plot to use false slates of electors to subvert the 2020 election in a previously unknown internal campaign memo that prosecutors are portraying as a crucial link in how the Trump team’s efforts evolved into a criminal conspiracy. The existence of the Dec. 6, 2020, memo came to light in last week’s indictment of Mr. Trump, though its details remained unclear. But a copy obtained by The New York Times shows for the first time that the lawyer, Kenneth Chesebro, acknowledged from the start that he was proposing ‘a bold, controversial strategy’ that the Supreme Court ‘likely’ would reject in the end.” [New York Times, 8/8/23]
Emails From Trump Lawyer Chesebro Showed That He Was Providing Political Analysis To The Trump Team. According to the New York Times, “Kenneth Chesebro and other lawyers fighting to reverse President Donald J. Trump’s election defeat were debating whether to file litigation contesting Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in Wisconsin, a key swing state. Mr. Chesebro argued there was little doubt that the litigation would fail in court — he put the odds of winning at ‘1 percent’ — as Mr. Trump continued to push his baseless claims of widespread fraud, according to emails reviewed by The New York Times. But the ‘relevant analysis,’ Mr. Chesebro argued, ‘is political.’” [New York Times, 10/18/23]
The Emails Contradicted Chesebro’s Argument That His Case Should Be Dismissed Because He Was Providing Legal Advice To Trump. According to the New York Times, “Mr. Chesebro’s lawyers have argued that his work was shielded by the First Amendment and that he ‘acted within his capacity as a lawyer.’ They have called for his case to be dismissed, saying he was merely ‘researching and finding precedents in order to form a legal opinion, which was then supplied to his client, the Trump campaign.’” [New York Times, 10/18/23]
Kenneth Chesebro, The Architect Of The Fake Electors Scheme, Was Discovered To Be With Alex Jones In Restricted Areas Outside The Capitol On January 6. According to CNN, “When conspiracy theorist Alex Jones marched his way to the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, riling up his legion of supporters, an unassuming middle-aged man in a red ‘Trump 2020’ hat conspicuously tagged along. Videos and photographs reviewed by CNN show the man dutifully recording Jones with his phone as the bombastic media personality ascended to the restricted area of the Capitol grounds where mobs of then-President Donald Trump’s supporters eventually broke in. While the man’s actions outside the Capitol that day have drawn little scrutiny, his alleged connections to a plot to overthrow the 2020 election have recently come into sharp focus: He is attorney Kenneth Chesebro, the alleged architect of the scheme to subvert the 2020 Electoral College process by using fake GOP electors in multiple states.” [CNN, 8/18/23]
November 2022: The U.S. Attorney’s Office In Washington Subpoenaed Giuliani For Records Concerning His Representation Of Trump. According to the New York Times, “Rudolph W. Giuliani, the lawyer who oversaw former President Donald J. Trump’s legal challenges to the 2020 election, has received a grand jury subpoena for records related to his representation of Mr. Trump, including those that detailed any payments he received, a person familiar with the matter said on Monday. The subpoena, which was sent in November, bore the name of a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington. It predated the appointment of Jack Smith, the special counsel chosen to take over the Justice Department’s investigation of the roles that Mr. Trump and several of his aides and lawyers played in seeking to overturn the results of the election. It remained unclear, however, if Mr. Smith and his team have assumed control of the part of the inquiry related to Mr. Giuliani.” [New York Times, 1/9/23]
December 2022: Trump Campaign Officials Received A Subpoena From The January 6 Grand Jury. According to the Washington Post, “A wide-ranging subpoena sent to Trump campaign officials last month shows new areas of investigative interest as part of the Justice Department’s extensive Jan. 6 criminal probe, according to a copy reviewed by The Washington Post, and lawyers say a grand jury focused on the day’s events and related fundraising has increased its activities in recent months. The subpoena was received in early December, according to a former Trump campaign official who provided the document to The Post on the condition of anonymity because a criminal investigation is ongoing. The document seeks more than two dozen categories of information, and includes some questions that were not part of a series of similar subpoenas reviewed by The Post that were sent to several dozen people in September.” [Washington Post, 1/11/23]
December 2022: Election Officials In Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, And Wisconsin Were Subpoenaed For Any And All Communication With Trump, His Aides And Allies, And His Campaign. According to the Associated Press, “Special counsel Jack Smith has subpoenaed local election officials in Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona and Pennsylvania, asking for communications with or involving former President Donald Trump, his 2020 campaign aides and a list of allies involved in his efforts to try to overturn the results of the election. The requests, issued to Milwaukee and Dane counties in Wisconsin; Wayne County, Michigan; Maricopa County, Arizona; and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, are the first known subpoenas by Smith, who was named special counsel last month by Attorney General Merrick Garland.” [Associated Press, 12/6/22]
December 2022: Special Counsel Sent Grand Jury Subpoena To Georgia Secretary Of State Raffensperger And Election Officials In Nevada. According to the Washington Post, “Special counsel Jack Smith has sent grand jury subpoenas to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and to authorities in Clark County, Nev., bringing to six the number of 2020 battleground states where state or local election officials are known to have received such requests for any and all communications with Trump, his campaign, and a long list of aides and allies.” [Washington Post, 12/12/22]
January 2023: The Special Counsel’s Office Interviewed Former Acting Homeland Security Secretary Wolf. According to Bloomberg, “Chad Wolf, former acting homeland security secretary, has been interviewed as part of a special counsel’s probe into efforts by Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election, according to a person familiar with the matter. Wolf sat for a four-hour recorded discussion under oath a few weeks ago with several FBI agents and Justice Department lawyers rather than appear before a federal grand jury, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. The interview was conducted by representatives of Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to take over the probe in November, after former President Trump declared his candidacy for the White House in 2024.” [Bloomberg, 2/8/23]
January 2023: The Special Counsel Got A Search Warrant For Trump’s Twitter Account. According to the New York Times, “Prosecutors working for Jack Smith, the special counsel who has twice brought indictments against former President Donald J. Trump, obtained a search warrant early this year for Mr. Trump’s long-dormant Twitter account as part of their inquiry into his attempt to overturn the 2020 election, according to court papers unsealed on Wednesday. The warrant, which was signed by a federal judge in Washington in January after Elon Musk took over Twitter, now called X, is the first known example of prosecutors directly searching Mr. Trump’s communications and adds a new dimension to the scope of the special counsel’s efforts to investigate the former president.” [New York Times, 8/9/23]
January 2024: The D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals Rejected Twitter’s Request To Rehear The Case En Banc Involving The Execution Of A Search Warrant On Donald Trump’s Twitter Account. According to the Messenger, “Over objections from four judges appointed by Republican presidents, a federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected a petition from Twitter seeking to rehear a case regarding the search of Donald Trump's Twitter account. The social media company filed a petition last year asking the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reconsider a three-judge panel's July ruling, which upheld a lower court's order holding that Special Counsel Jack Smith's office could execute a search warrant on Trump's Twitter account without notifying the former president. The full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Twitter's petition in a one-sentence decision issued Tuesday. Because no member of the court requested a vote, a formal tally was not recorded among the 11-member appellate court.” [Messenger, 1/16/24]
February 9, 2023: Special Counsel Smith Subpoenaed Former Vice President Pence In Regards To Trump Attempts To Overturn The 2020 Election. According to ABC News, “Former Vice President Mike Pence has been subpoenaed by the special counsel overseeing probes into former President Donald Trump, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. Sources told ABC News that the subpoena from special counsel Jack Smith requests documents and testimony related to the failed attempt by Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election, which culminated in the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The subpoena follows months of negotiations between federal prosecutors and Pence's legal team.” [ABC News, 2/9/23]
February 9, 2023: Special Counsel Smith Subpoenaed Former National Security Advisor O’Brien In Both The 2020 Election And Classified Documents Probes. According to CNN, “Former national security adviser Robert O’Brien has been subpoenaed by special counsel Jack Smith in both his investigation into classified documents found at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and the probe related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to a source familiar with the matter.” [CNN, 2/9/23]
February 12, 2023: The Special Counsel Investigated How And Why Trump’s Save America PAC Paid Their Vendors. According to the New York Times, “In addition to the documents and Jan. 6 investigations, Mr. Smith appears to be pursuing an offshoot of the Jan. 6 case, examining Save America, a pro-Trump political action committee, through which Mr. Trump raised millions of dollars with his false claims of election fraud. That investigation includes looking into how and why the committee’s vendors were paid. […] More recently his team has been asking witnesses about research the Trump campaign commissioned by an outside vendor shortly after the election that was intended to come up with evidence of election fraud. The existence of that research was reported earlier by The Washington Post. The apparently related investigation into the activities of Mr. Trump’s main fund-raising arm, the Save America PAC in Florida, was emerging even before Mr. Smith arrived in Washington around Christmas from The Hague. A vast array of Trump vendors have been subpoenaed. Investigators have been posing questions related to how money was paid to other vendors, indicating that they are interested in whether some entities were used to mask who was being paid or if the payments were for genuine services rendered.” [New York Times, 2/12/23]
February 15, 2023: Former Chief Of Staff Meadows Subpoenaed By The Special Counsel Over January 6. According to CNN, “Donald Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows has been subpoenaed by the special counsel investigating the former president and his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection, a source familiar with the matter told CNN. Special counsel Jack Smith’s office is seeking documents and testimony related to January 6, and Meadows received the subpoena sometime in January, the source said. An attorney for Meadows declined to comment.” [CNN, 2/15/23]
February 22, 2023: The Special Counsel Subpoenaed Ivanka Trump And Jared Kushner Concerning Trump’s Efforts To Overturn The 2020 Election. According to the New York Times, “Former President Donald J. Trump’s daughter Ivanka and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, have been subpoenaed by the special counsel to testify before a federal grand jury about Mr. Trump’s efforts to stay in power after he lost the 2020 election and his role in a pro-Trump mob’s attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, according to two people briefed on the matter. The decision by the special counsel, Jack Smith, to subpoena Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner underscores how deeply into Mr. Trump’s inner circle Mr. Smith is reaching, and is the latest sign that no potential high-level witness is off limits.” [New York Times, 2/22/23]
February 24, 2023: Chief Judge Howell Released Previous Sealed Rulings That Rejected Most Of Representative Perry’s Claims Of Protections Under The Speech And Debate Clause Concerning Documents On His Cell Phone. According to the Washington Post, “Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court in D.C. released a number of previously sealed opinions after finding that the ‘powerful public interest’ outweighed the need for secrecy in the constitutional battle over Perry’s claims and the historic investigation. The Pennsylvania Republican has asserted that 2,219 documents contained on his phone are shielded by the Constitution’s ‘speech or debate’ clause, which grants members of Congress immunity from criminal investigation in their official capacities. But in a ruling in December, Howell rejected that claim for more than 90 percent of the records, ordering Perry to turn over 2,055 text messages, emails and attachments after concluding that they were only incidentally related to his status as a lawmaker, and not central to that status and constitutionally protected as part of his lawmaking. ‘What is plain is that the Clause does not shield Rep. Perry’s random musings with private individuals touting an expertise in cybersecurity or political discussions with attorneys from a presidential campaign, or with state legislators concerning hearings before them about possible local election fraud or actions they could take to challenge election results in Pennsylvania,’ Howell wrote.” [Washington Post, 2/25/23]
Chief Judge Howell Unsealed Her Order, Which Was Stayed By A Federal Appeals Court, After The Opinion Was Released To The House General Counsel’s Office And Certain Members Of Congress. According to the Washington Post, “The scope and nature of the Perry fight had been secret, because they involve an FBI search warrant used to seize Perry’s phone on Aug. 9. But Howell said the Justice Department agreed to unseal details Friday because a federal appeals court held fast-tracked public arguments this week after staying Howell’s order and approved the release of her key opinions to certain members of Congress and the House general counsel’s office. That office has taken Perry’s side. Perry’s lawyers objected to the unsealing, but Howell said redactions protected his interests, noting that the government’s specific allegations about why Perry’s phone might contain evidence of a crime remain under seal.” [Washington Post, 2/25/23]
March 2023: Michigan Secretary Of State Benson Spoke With Federal Prosecutors In The Investigation Into Efforts To Overturn The 2020 Election. According to CNN, “Federal prosecutors interviewed Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson for ‘several hours’ in March as part of the ongoing criminal probe into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, Benson told CNN Wednesday. Her comments confirmed CNN’s earlier exclusive reporting on the meeting. ‘[The interview] really underscored, I think, the depth through which the federal prosecutors are looking into everything and the seriousness with which they’re taking what occurred and the quest for justice to ensure it doesn’t happen again,’ Benson told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on ‘The Source.’” [CNN, 7/12/23]
April 4, 2023: Former Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Cuccinelli Was Seen Entering The Building Where The Grand Jury Met. According to CNN, “Now some of those same officials, including Wolf, Cuccinelli and O’Brien, as well as others who have so far refused to testify, may have to return to the grand jury in Washington, DC, to provide additional testimony after a series of pivotal court rulings that were revealed in recent weeks rejected Trump’s claims of executive privilege. Cuccinelli was spotted going back into the grand jury on Tuesday, April 4.” [CNN, 4/5/23]
April 11, 2023: Former White House Aide Miller Appeared Before The Grand Jury. According to Bloomberg, “Stephen Miller, a top White House aide to former President Donald Trump, appeared before a federal grand jury in Washington on Tuesday. Miller’s appearance came after a federal appeals court on April 4 rebuffed Trump’s request to block grand jury testimony by several former top administration advisers, a group that reportedly included Miller. Trump had unsuccessfully raised a challenge on executive privilege grounds before a district judge. Miller, accompanied by two attorneys, did not speak with reporters as he entered the courthouse and walked into the grand jury suite.” [Bloomberg, 4/11/23]
April 13, 2023: Former Director Of National Intelligence Ratcliffe Testified Before The Grand Jury. According to CNN, “Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe testified before a federal grand jury Thursday in Washington, DC, as part of the special counsel’s criminal probe into the aftermath of the 2020 election. Former President Donald Trump had sought to block testimony from Ratcliffe and other top officials from his administration, but courts have rejected his executive privilege claims.” [CNN, 4/13/23]
April 13, 2023: Former Acting Director Of National Intelligence Grenell Testified Before The Grand Jury. According to CNN, “Former acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell testified Thursday before a grand jury investigating Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents. CNN identified Grenell as he was departing the courthouse in Washington, DC. Grenell was subpoenaed to testify in special counsel Jack Smith’s ongoing criminal probe, according to a source familiar with the matter.” [CNN, 4/13/23]
April 2023: Ken Block Was Subpoenaed And Met With Federal Prosecutors From The Special Counsel’s Office. According to the Washington Post, “Block said he recently received a subpoena from special counsel Jack Smith’s office and met with federal prosecutors in Washington, but he declined to discuss his interactions with them. Block said he contemporaneously sent his findings disputing fraud claims in writing to the Trump campaign in late 2020. ‘I just don’t believe it’s appropriate at this point in time to discuss anything related to the grand jury process,’ he said.” [Washington Post, 4/27/23]
Federal Prosecutors Interviewed Employees From Berkeley Research Group, Which Was Paid By The Trump Campaign To Investigate Election Fraud Claims. According to the Washington Post, “Separately, prosecutors have interviewed multiple employees from the Berkeley Research Group in recent weeks, another Trump-paid firm that produced a 29-page report ultimately undermining many of Trump’s fraud claims, according to three people familiar with the matter. Berkeley’s study contradicted claims made by Trump and his advisers that there were extensive numbers of dead voters and cases of fraud in states such as Georgia and Nevada.” [Washington Post, 4/27/23]
April 26, 2023: Former Fox News Producer Abby Grossberg Was In Discussions To Turn Audiotapes Over To The Special Counsel’s Office. According to CNN, “Special Counsel Jack Smith has expressed interest in audio tapes recorded by former Fox News producer Abby Grossberg while she worked at the right-wing network, her lawyer said. Grossberg attorney Gerry Filippatos told CNN on Wednesday that he has given a spreadsheet to the special counsel’s team, detailing the nearly 90 audiotapes in Grossberg’s possession. Talks are underway for a subpoena, so Grossberg can turn over the material to Smith’s team of federal prosecutors, who are investigating efforts by former President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election. ‘We’re in the process of negotiating a targeted subpoena for Abby’s electronic data, so they can have what they want,’ Filippatos said.” [CNN, 4/26/23]
May 2023: Trump Aide Russell Testified Before The Grand Jury. According to the New York Times, “A third track of Mr. Smith’s investigation is focused on Mr. Trump’s efforts to leverage claims of investigating election fraud to raise money. Mr. Trump raised tens of millions of dollars in small increments from donors as he aired allegations about election fraud that were eventually debunked. Mr. Smith’s team is still bringing witnesses to the grand jury in connection with that matter. One witness this week is William Russell, an aide to Mr. Trump who worked for him in the White House and who was paid by Mr. Trump’s political action committee, Save America, where much of the money raised went.” [New York Times, 5/22/23]
Mid-May 2023: The Special Counsel Subpoenaed Trump White House Staff Members Who May Have Been Involved In The Firing Of Top Cybersecurity Official Christopher Krebs. According to the New York Times, “The special counsel investigating former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to cling to power after he lost the 2020 election has subpoenaed staff members from the Trump White House who may have been involved in firing the government cybersecurity official whose agency judged the election ‘the most secure in American history,’ according to two people briefed on the matter. The team led by the special counsel, Jack Smith, has been asking witnesses about the events surrounding the firing of Christopher Krebs, who was the Trump administration’s top cybersecurity official during the 2020 election. Mr. Krebs’s assessment that the election was secure was at odds with Mr. Trump’s baseless assertions that it was a ‘fraud on the American public.’” [New York Times, 5/31/23]
May 2023: The Special Counsel Sought Information On How White House Officials Approached The Justice Department As Trump Tried To Stay In Office. According to the New York Times, “Mr. Smith’s team is also seeking information about how White House officials, including in the Presidential Personnel Office, approached the Justice Department, which Mr. Trump turned to after his election loss as a way to try to stay in power, people familiar with the questions said.” [New York Times, 5/31/23]
The Special Counsel Asked About The Role Of White House Liaison To The Justice Department Heidi Stirrup. According to the New York Times, “By the time the election took place, Heidi Stirrup, a loyalist close to Mr. Trump’s policy adviser, Stephen Miller, had been installed as the White House liaison at the Justice Department. Mr. Smith’s office has asked questions about her role, one of the people briefed on the matter said.” [New York Times, 5/31/23]
May 2023: The Special Counsel Subpoenaed Steve Bannon In The January 6 Investigation. According to NBC News, “Former Trump White House official Steve Bannon has been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., in connection with special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into Jan. 6 and former President Donald Trump's efforts to stay in office, according to two sources familiar with the matter. The subpoena, for documents and testimony, was sent out late last month, the sources said. The grand jury investigating Trump's actions surrounding the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, and in connection with efforts to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power is separate from the grand jury in Miami that heard testimony Wednesday about his handling of classified documents.” [NBC News, 6/7/23]
May 2023: The Special Counsel Subpoenaed The Arizona Secretary Of State’s Office. According to the Arizona Republic, “U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith subpoenaed the Arizona Secretary of State's Office as recently as May as part of his investigation into the events leading up to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.” [Arizona Republic, 7/5/23]
June 8, 2023: Newt Gingrich Testified Before The Grand Jury. According to CNN, “Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich testified Thursday before a federal grand jury investigating January 6, 2021, according to a person familiar with the matter. Gingrich allegedly communicated with senior advisers to former President Donald Trump about television advertisements that relied on false claims of election fraud, according to documents obtained by the House select committee that investigated January 6. The panel also claimed Gingrich played a role in the effort to submit fake slates of electors in battleground states that Trump lost, according to committee documents.” [CNN, 6/8/23]
June 13, 2023: Nevada GOP Chair McDonald And Vice-Chair DeGraffenreid Were Seen Entering The Courthouse Where The January 6 Grand Jury Met. According to NBC News, “Nevada GOP Chair Michael McDonald, a close Trump political ally, as well as Jim DeGraffenreid, the state party’s vice chair, were spotted by NBC News entering the area where the Jan. 6 jury is meeting at the Washington federal courthouse Tuesday.” [NBC News, 6/13/23]
June 22, 2023: Gary Michael Brown, Deputy Director For Election Day Operations For Trump’s 2020 Campaign, Testified Before The January 6 Grand Jury. According to NBC News, “The deputy director of Election Day operations for Donald Trump's 2020 presidential campaign appeared before a federal grand jury Thursday as part of special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into Jan. 6 and efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of presidential power. Gary Michael Brown, who has been accused of being involved in the so-called fake electors scheme after the 2020 election, was seen headed into the third-floor grand jury space at a courthouse in Washington where a grand jury has been hearing testimony about efforts to stop the transfer of power to President Joe Biden.” [NBC News, 6/22/23]
Former Trump Campaign Official Mike Roman Cooperated With Federal Authorities Under A Proffer Agreement. According to CNN, “Former Donald Trump campaign official Mike Roman is cooperating with prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith’s team in the ongoing criminal probe related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN. One of the sources said that the agreement, known as a proffer agreement, means that Roman may not have to appear before the grand jury but could instead speak to prosecutors in a more informal setting. Under such an agreement, prosecutors generally agree not to use those statements against them in future criminal proceedings.” [CNN, 6/29/23]
About A Half Dozen Secret Service Agents Testified Before The January 6 Grand Jury. According to NBC News, “About half a dozen Secret Service agents have testified before the grand jury that will decide whether to indict former President Donald Trump for his alleged role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol and efforts to interfere in the peaceful transfer of the presidency, according to two sources familiar with their testimony. Roughly five or six agents have appeared, the sources said, in compliance with subpoenas they received. It is not known what the agents’ proximity to Trump was on Jan. 6 or what information they may have provided to the grand jury.” [NBC News, 6/26/23]
June 2023: Rudy Giuliani Interviewed By The Special Counsel’s Office. According to CNN, “Former Donald Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani has been interviewed by federal investigators as part of the special counsel’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, multiple sources familiar with the meeting told CNN.” [CNN, 6/27/23]
June 28, 2023: Georgia Secretary Of State Brad Raffensperger Spoke With Federal Prosecutors. According to the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, “Federal prosecutors examining former President Donald Trump’s efforts to cling to power following the 2020 election interviewed Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in Atlanta on Wednesday. Few other details about the meeting were available late Wednesday, including how long the parties met for, what exactly they discussed or whether Raffensperger was subpoenaed or agreed to speak voluntarily.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 6/28/23]
The Special Counsel Subpoenas Requested Communications With Republican Operative Mike Roman And Powell Lawyer Emily Newman. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Special counsel Jack Smith’s team in recent weeks has taken a growing interest in the role of lawyers and other figures involved in legal efforts aimed at reversing Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 election, people familiar with the matter said. Prosecutors from Smith’s team have issued subpoenas and asked questions centered on several key figures in those postelection efforts, including Sidney Powell, a pro-Trump lawyer who spread baseless claims of widespread voter fraud. The subpoenas have also requested communications with Emily Newman, a lawyer who worked with Powell, and Mike Roman, a Republican operative who headed Election Day operations for the Trump campaign and dispatched lawyers to swing states before November 2020.” [Wall Street Journal, 7/3/23]
The Special Counsel Was Interested In The December 2020 Oval Office Meeting Where Trump Considered Proposals To Remain In Office. According to CNN, “Special counsel Jack Smith’s team has signaled a continued interest in a chaotic Oval Office meeting that took place in the final days of the Trump administration, during which the former president considered some of the most desperate proposals to keep him in power over objections from his White House counsel. Multiple sources told CNN that investigators have asked several witnesses before the grand jury and during interviews about the meeting, which happened about six weeks after Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. Some witnesses were asked about the meeting months ago, while several others have faced questions about it more recently, including Rudy Giuliani.” [CNN, 7/6/23]
June 2023: Jared Kushner Testified Before The January 6 Grand Jury. According to the New York Times, “Federal prosecutors investigating former President Donald J. Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election have questioned multiple witnesses in recent weeks — including Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner — about whether Mr. Trump had privately acknowledged in the days after the 2020 election that he had lost, according to four people briefed on the matter. […] Mr. Kushner testified before a grand jury at the federal courthouse in Washington last month, where he is said to have maintained that it was his impression that Mr. Trump truly believed the election was stolen, according to a person briefed on the matter.” [New York Times, 7/13/23]
June 2023: Former White House Communications Director Alyssa Farah Griffin Testified Before The Grand Jury. According to the New York Times, “But others in Mr. Trump’s orbit who interacted with him in the weeks after the 2020 election, who have potentially more damaging accounts of Mr. Trump’s behavior, have been questioned by the special counsel’s office recently. Among them is Alyssa Farah Griffin, the White House communications director in the days after the 2020 election. Repeating an account she provided last year to the House select committee on Jan. 6, she told prosecutors this spring that Mr. Trump had said to her in the days after the election: Can you believe I lost to Joe Biden? ‘In that moment I think he knew he lost,’ Ms. Griffin told the House committee.” [New York Times, 7/13/23]
The Special Counsel Asked Former Officials About A February 2020 Meeting Where Trump Praised Improvements To Election Security. According to CNN, “Special counsel Jack Smith’s office has asked former US officials about a February 2020 Oval Office meeting where then-President Donald Trump praised improvements to the security of US elections, according to multiple people familiar with the matter. In the meeting with senior US officials and White House staff, Trump touted his administration’s work to expand the use of paper ballots and support security audits of vote tallies. Trump was so encouraged by federal efforts to protect election systems that he suggested the FBI and Department of Homeland Security hold a press conference to take credit for the work, four people familiar with the meeting told CNN.” [CNN, 7/24/23]
The Special Counsel Expected To Speak With Additional Witnesses And A Former Trump Attorney In The Coming Weeks. According to CNN, “As anticipation builds for former President Donald Trump to be indicted for the third time this year, investigators in the special counsel’s election interference probe are expected to speak with additional witnesses over the next several weeks, including at least one former Trump attorney.” [CNN, 7/20/23]
July 2023: The Special Counsel Contacted Georgia Governor Brian Kemp. According to the Washington Post, “Special counsel Jack Smith recently asked Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp for information about efforts by President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the election results in Georgia in 2020, the governor’s spokesman confirmed Friday afternoon. ‘Our office has been contacted by Jack Smith’s office, but we will decline to comment further at this time,’ said Andrew Isenhour, the spokesman for Kemp (R).” [Washington Post, 7/21/23]
July 24, 2023: Former New York City Police Commissioner And Giuliani Ally Kerik Turned Over Documents Concerning Trump’s Investigation Into Voter Fraud To The Special Counsel. According to The Hill, “Bernard Kerik, who helped lead a Trump campaign investigation into false claims of voter fraud, has turned over all documents relating to the effort to special counsel Jack Smith. Kerik, a former New York City Police Commissioner, led the investigation for the Trump campaign alongside former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. Kerik’s attorney Timothy Parlatore said the production includes ‘all the substance of the fraud investigation’ which was sought last year by the House Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.” [The Hill, 7/24/23]
Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue Interviewed With The Special Counsel’s Office. According to NBC News, “Former senior Justice Department official Richard Donoghue says he has been interviewed by special counsel Jack Smith’s office, but has not been called to testify before the federal grand jury investigating Jan. 6 and efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Donoghue, who confirmed the meeting with Smith's office to NBC News on Monday, served as acting deputy attorney general near the end of the Trump administration. He later testified before the House Jan. 6 committee that investigated the Capitol riot.” [NBC News, 7/24/23]
August 7, 2023: Bernie Kerik Met With The Special Counsel’s Office Over What Giuliani Did To Prove Trump Won The 2020 Election. According to CNN, “Donald Trump ally Bernie Kerik met Monday with special counsel Jack Smith’s investigators who are handling the probe related to the 2020 election aftermath and the January 6, 2021, insurrection. The interview largely focused on what Trump’s former attorney Rudy Giuliani did to prove that really won the election, Kerik’s attorney told CNN. Kerik’s and his attorney were spotted by CNN arriving Monday morning and leaving after roughly five hours. This is the first public sign of activity by the special counsel’s team after it filed landmark criminal charges against the former president last week.” [CNN, 8/7/23]
The Special Counsel’s Office Interviewed Georgia Governor Brian Kemp. According to NBC News, “Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp said he sat for an interview with the special counsel prosecuting former President Donald Trump's efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election. In an interview on CNN’s ‘The Source with Kaitlan Collins’ released Tuesday night, Kemp said, ‘I basically told them the same thing I told the special grand juries — that I follow the law and the Constitution and answered all their questions truthfully.’ Kemp said that the interview with special counsel Jack Smith's office took place ‘months ago,’ adding that he could not recall exact details on its timing.” [NBC News, 2/20/24]
Trump Rejected Advice To End His Election Fraud Claims
Trump Aide Luna Advised Against Trump Posting A Tweet Blaming The Attack On A Stolen Election. According to ABC News, “None of the Trump aides who spoke with investigators said they heard Trump concede even in private that he lost the election, sources told ABC News. According to the sources, shortly before 6 p.m. on Jan. 6, Trump showed Luna a draft of a Twitter message he was thinking about posting: ‘These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots. ... Remember this day for forever!’ it read. The message echoed what Trump had allegedly been saying privately all day. Sources said Luna told Trump that it made him sound ‘culpable’ for the violence, perhaps even as if he may have somehow been involved in ‘directing’ it, sources said. Still, at 6:01 p.m., Trump posted the message anyway.” [ABC News, 1/7/23]
Trump Rejected Advice From White House Counsel Pat Cipollone To Ask Republicans In Congress To Withdraw Their Election Objections. According to ABC News, “After that -- but before Congress reconvened to finish its vote certifying the 2020 election -- Cipollone called Trump, relaying what a ‘horrible day’ it had been and urging Trump to tell Republican allies in Congress that they should withdraw any objections to the certification so the country could move on, sources said. Instead, Trump again declined to act, telling Cipollone, ‘I don't want to do that,’ Cipollone recalled to investigators, according to sources.” [ABC News, 1/7/23]
March 24, 2023: Former Chief Judge Howell Rejected Claims Of Executive Privilege For Several Of Trump’s Top Aides In The January 6 Investigation. According to ABC News, “A federal judge has rejected former President Donald Trump's claims of executive privilege and has ordered Mark Meadows and other former top aides to testify before a federal grand jury investigating Trump's efforts to overturn the election leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News. Meadows, Trump's former chief of staff, was subpoenaed along with the other former aides by Special counsel Jack Smith for testimony and documents related to the probe.” [ABC News, 3/24/23]
March 29, 2023: Trump Appealed Decision Requiring His Top Aides To Testify Before The Grand Jury. According to Bloomberg, “Former President Donald Trump is appealing an order rejecting his efforts to block grand jury testimony from several former White House advisers in an investigation into efforts to undermine the 2020 presidential election. A federal judge in Washington rebuffed Trump’s challenge earlier in March to efforts by Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office to question former top administration officials. That March 15 order is under seal, but a person familiar with the matter who requested anonymity to discuss it confirmed the substance of the ruling, the date of the order and the district court case number. A new appeals court docket on Wednesday shows an appeal in that case that matches the date.” [Bloomberg, 3/29/23]
April 4, 2023: The DC Circuit Court Of Appeals Rejected Trump’s Emergency Request To Block Aides From Being Required To Testify Before The Grand Jury. According to Politico, “A federal appeals court in Washington D.C. has rejected an emergency bid by former President Donald Trump to block several top aides from testifying in the special counsel investigation of his effort to subvert the 2020 election. In a sealed order, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Trump’s urgent demand to block his aides from being required to appear before special counsel Jack Smith’s grand jury. Trump’s emergency motion triggered a frenzied set of overnight filings ahead of the Tuesday morning ruling.’ [Politico, 4/4/23]
May 2023: Former White House Deputy Chief Of Staff Dan Scavino Testified Before The Grand Jury. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Earlier this week, Dan Scavino, Mr. Trump’s former deputy chief of staff for communications, testified for eight hours before a Washington grand jury, according to a person familiar with the matter, weeks after a federal appeals court rejected Mr. Trump’s bid to block his testimony and that of other top aides.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/5/23]
March 3, 2023: Former President Trump Asked Chief Judge Howell To Prevent Former Vice President Pence From Testifying Before The Grand Jury Over Executive Privilege. According to the New York Times, “Former President Donald J. Trump has filed a motion asking a federal judge to prevent his former vice president, Mike Pence, from testifying to a grand jury about specific issues that Mr. Trump is claiming are protected by executive privilege, a person briefed on the matter said. The filing is unsurprising — Mr. Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly sought to assert executive privilege over former aides as a means of blocking testimony — but it underscores how much the Justice Department’s attempts to get Mr. Pence to testify in the investigation into Mr. Trump’s efforts to cling to power may be drawn out. The sealed filing was made on Friday, according to the person briefed on the matter. Its existence was reported earlier by CNN. A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to a request for comment.” [New York Times, 3/4/23]
March 6, 2023: Former Vice President Pence Filed A Motion To Block The Subpoena Issued By A Grand Jury Investigating The January 6 Attack On The Capitol. According to CNN, “Former Vice President Mike Pence has filed a motion asking a judge to block a federal grand jury subpoena for his testimony related to January 6 on the grounds that he is protected by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, according to a source familiar with the filing.” [CNN, 3/6/23]
March 23, 2023: Chief Judge Boasberg Heard Arguments About Whether To Enforce A Subpoena Against Former Vice President Pence. According to CBS News, “A federal judge heard arguments Thursday in a dispute between former Vice President Mike Pence, attorneys for former President Donald Trump and special counsel Jack Smith over whether Pence can be compelled to testify in Smith's probe of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, three sources tell CBS News. Smith issued the subpoena for Pence's testimony before a federal grand jury in February, and the former vice president said he would contest it, calling it ‘unconstitutional’ and ‘unprecedented.’ Trump's legal team claimed executive privilege over Pence's testimony after CBS News first reported prosecutors filed a motion asking the federal courts to compel the former vice president to testify. Emmet Flood, Pence's attorney, as well as Trump's legal team — Evan Corcoran, Jim Trusty, Tim Parlatore and John Rowley — were spotted inside the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., on Thursday ahead of the expected hearing. Legal teams for both Trump and Pence are working to fight the subpoena. Justice Department prosecutor Thomas Windom was also at the federal courthouse.” [CBS News, 3/23/23]
March 28, 2023: Chief Judge Boasberg Largely Rejected Former President Trump’s Attempt To Assert Executive Privilege Over Vice President Pence’s Testimony. According to Politico, “A federal judge presiding over the special counsel investigation into Donald Trump’s attempt to subvert the 2020 election has largely rejected an effort by the ex-president to assert executive privilege over the testimony of his former vice president, Mike Pence, according to a person familiar with the ruling.” [Politico, 3/28/23]
Pence Must Testify About Conversations He Had With Trump Leading Up To January 6. According to CNN, “A federal judge has decided that former Vice President Mike Pence must testify to a grand jury about conversations he had with Donald Trump leading up to January 6, 2021, according to multiple sources familiar with a recent federal court ruling.” [CNN, 3/28/23]
Judge Boasberg Ruled That Pence Had Some Immunity Due To His Role As President Of The Senate On January 6. According to Politico, “However, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg agreed that Pence does enjoy a degree of immunity from testifying due to his role as president of the Senate on Jan. 6. It was not immediately clear whether that ruling is broad enough to satisfy Pence’s resistance to the subpoena — issued by special counsel Jack Smith — or whether he intends to appeal.” [Politico, 3/28/23]
April 5, 2023: Former Vice President Pence Decided Against Appealing Court Decision Requiring Him To Testify Before The Grand Jury. According to Politico, “Mike Pence has decided against appealing a court order requiring him to testify before the grand jury investigating Donald Trump’s effort to subvert the 2020 presidential election. ‘Vice President Pence will not appeal the Judge’s ruling and will comply with the subpoena as required by law,’ spokesman Devin O’Malley said Wednesday in a statement.” [Politico, 4/5/23]
April 7, 2023: Trump Requested The DC Circuit Court Of Appeals To Immediately Block The Subpoena For Mike Pence While A Full Appeal Was Pursued. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump has asked a federal appeals court in Washington to immediately block a subpoena for grand jury testimony from former Vice President Mike Pence. The former president’s lawyers filed the request on Friday under seal, but the public docket shows they asked the court to vacate the underlying order or at least stop prosecutors from enforcing the subpoena while they pursue a full appeal. The appeal, which is largely under seal but previously confirmed by Bloomberg News, was filed on April 10. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has rebuffed Trump’s earlier efforts to halt grand jury subpoenas from Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office in its investigation into efforts to undermine the 2020 presidential election.” [Bloomberg, 4/14/23]
April 10, 2023: Trump Appealed Decision Requiring Pence To Testify Before The Grand Jury. According to NBC News, “Former President Donald Trump is moving to block former Vice President Mike Pence from testifying before a federal grand jury investigating Trump’s role in the efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to a source familiar with the litigation. The sealed appeal was filed Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit. It comes days after Pence's adviser said the former vice president will not appeal an order by Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, requiring Pence to testify in special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into Trump. Boasberg issued that ruling late last month.” [NBC News, 4/10/23]
April 26, 2023: The D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals Rejected Trump’s Attempt To Block Mike Pence From Testifying Before The Grand Jury. According to the Associated Press, “A federal appeals court on Wednesday night moved former Vice President Mike Pence closer to appearing before a grand jury investigating efforts to undo the results of the 2020 presidential election, rejecting a bid by lawyers for former President Donald Trump to block the testimony. It was not immediately clear what day Pence might appear before the grand jury, which for months has been investigating the events preceding the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and efforts by Trump and his allies to subvert the election outcome. But Pence’s testimony, coming as he inches toward a likely entrance in the 2024 presidential race, would be a milestone moment in the investigation and would likely give prosecutors a key first-person account as they press forward with their inquiry. The order from the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit was sealed and none of the parties are mentioned by name in online court records. But the appeal in the sealed case was filed just days after a lower-court judge had directed Pence to testify over objections from the Trump team.” [Associated Press, 4/26/23]
April 27, 2023: Mike Pence Testified Before The Grand Jury Investigating The January 6 Attack On The Capitol. According to the Washington Post, “Former vice president Mike Pence testified Thursday before a grand jury that has been investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol and alleged efforts by President Donald Trump and others to overturn the results of the 2020 election, according to a person familiar with his appearance who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter.” [Washington Post, 4/27/23]
June 9, 2023: A Federal Judge Ordered The Release Of Documents Related To The Fight Over Mike Pence’s Testimony Before The Grand Jury. According to Bloomberg, “A federal judge ordered the release of legal documents related to a fight over the grand jury testimony of former Vice President Mike Pence, who was subpoenaed in the Jan. 6 investigation involving former President Donald Trump. Chief Judge James Boasberg, who presides over grand jury-related matters in Washington, held on Friday that Pence’s public statements about the secret grand jury proceedings weighed in favor of making the documents available, with redactions. The court released them a few hours later, after the government indicated it would not appeal.” [Bloomberg, 6/9/23]
Mark Meadows Testified Before The Grand Jury. According to the New York Times, “Mark Meadows, the final White House chief of staff under President Donald J. Trump and a potentially key figure in inquiries related to Mr. Trump, has testified before a federal grand jury hearing evidence in the investigations being led by the special counsel’s office, according to two people briefed on the matter.” [New York Times, 6/6/23]
July 7, 2023: The DC Circuit Court Of Appeals Rejected Trump’s Effort To Prevent Pence From Testifying To The Grand Jury. According to Bloomberg, “A federal appeals court tossed out what remained of Donald Trump’s unsuccessful legal fight to stop his former vice president-turned-rival Mike Pence from testifying about efforts to overturn the 2020 election. A panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a sealed order on Friday granting a request by Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office to dismiss the case, rebuffing opposition by Trump’s lawyers.” [Bloomberg, 7/7/23]
April 2023: Prosecutors Sought Documents Related To Trump’s Fundraising Following The 2020 Election. According to the Washington Post, “Federal prosecutors probing the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol have in recent weeks sought a wide range of documents related to fundraising after the 2020 election, looking to determine if former president Donald Trump or his advisers scammed donors by using false claims about voter fraud to raise money, eight people familiar with the new inquiries said. Special counsel Jack Smith’s office has sent subpoenas in recent weeks to Trump advisers and former campaign aides, Republican operatives and other consultants involved in the 2020 presidential campaign, the people said. They have also heard testimony from some of these figures in front of a Washington grand jury, some of the people said.” [Washington Post, 4/12/23]
Prosecutors Reportedly Sought To Figure Out Whether Wire Fraud Laws Were Violated By False Representations Over Email For Money. According to the Washington Post, “The fundraising prong of the investigation is focused on money raised during the period between Nov. 3, 2020, and the end of Trump’s time in office on Jan. 20, 2021, and prosecutors are said to be interested in whether anyone associated with the fundraising operation violated wire fraud laws, which make it illegal to make false representations over email to swindle people out of money.” [Washington Post, 4/12/23]
Subpoenas Sought To Compare What Trump Advisors Were Telling Each Other To What They Said In Their Public Appeals For Money. According to Washington Post “The subpoenas seek more specific types of communications so that prosecutors can compare what Trump allies and advisers were telling one another privately about the voter-fraud claims with what they were saying publicly in appeals that generated more than $200 million in donations from conservatives, according to people with knowledge of the investigation.” [Washington Post, 4/12/23]
The Special Counsel Was Focused On Whether Funds Raised Off Baseless Voter Fraud Claims Were Used To Fund Efforts To Attempt To Breach Voting Equipment. According to CNN, “Special counsel Jack Smith is still pursuing his investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election a month after indicting Donald Trump for orchestrating a broad conspiracy to remain in power, a widening of the probe that raises the possibility others could still face legal peril. Questions asked of two recent witnesses indicate Smith is focusing on how money raised off baseless claims of voter fraud was used to fund attempts to breach voting equipment in several states won by Joe Biden, according to multiple sources familiar with the ongoing investigation.” [CNN, 9/5/23]
Sidney Powell Was A Focus Of The Investigation. According to CNN, “In both interviews, prosecutors have focused their questions on the role of former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell. According to invoices obtained by CNN, Powell’s non-profit, Defending the Republic, hired forensics firms that ultimately accessed voting equipment in four swing states won by Biden: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Arizona.” [CNN, 9/5/23]
October 2023: The Special Counsel Withdrew A Subpoena For Records From Trump’s Save America PAC. According to the Washington Post, “Special counsel Jack Smith has withdrawn a subpoena seeking records about fundraising by the political action committee Save America — a group that is controlled by former president Donald Trump and whose activities related to efforts to block the results of the 2020 presidential election have come under investigation, people familiar with the matter said. The withdrawal of the subpoena earlier this month indicates Smith is scaling back at least part of his inquiry into the political fundraising work that fed and benefited from unfounded claims that the election was stolen, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing criminal investigation.” [Washington Post, 10/17/23]
Late October 2023: The Special Counsel Withdrew A Subpoena For Records From Trump’s 2020 Campaign. According to the New York Times, “Federal prosecutors have quietly withdrawn a subpoena seeking records from former President Donald J. Trump’s 2020 campaign as part of their investigation into whether Mr. Trump’s political and fund-raising operations committed any crimes as he sought to stay in power after he lost the election, according to two people familiar with the matter. The decision this week by the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, to effectively kill the subpoena to the Trump campaign came on the heels of the withdrawal of a similar subpoena to Save America, the political action committee that was formed by Mr. Trump’s aides shortly after he lost the race in 2020.” [New York Times, 10/26/23]
July 18, 2023: Trump Said He Received A Letter From Special Counsel Jack Smith Informing Him That He Was A Target In The January 6 Investigation. According to Axios, “Former President Trump said Tuesday that he received a letter from special counsel Jack Smith informing him that he is a target in the grand jury investigation into efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.” [Axios, 7/18/23]
July 27, 2023: Trump’s Lawyers Met With The Special Counsel’s Office. According to the Washington Post, “Lawyers for former President Donald Trump were meeting Thursday morning with prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith’s office, more than a week after Trump said he received a letter from the Justice Department telling him he could face criminal charges in connection with his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The meeting, confirmed by a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it, is another sign that Smith could be close to seeking an indictment of Trump in the Justice Department’s long-running elections probe.” [Washington Post, 7/27/23]
Count One: Trump Was Charged With Conspiracy To Defraud The United States To Overturn The Results Of The 2020 Election
Count One: Trump Was Charged With Conspiracy To Defraud The United States For The Purposes Of Overturning The Results Of The 2020 Election. According to the indictment in United States of America v. Donald J. Trump, “COUNT ONE (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States 18 U.S.C. 371) The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 of this Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference. The Conspiracy 6. From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 20, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government. Purpose of the Conspiracy 7. The purpose of the conspiracy was to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.” [Indictment, “United States of America v. Donald J. Trump” United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:23-cr-00257-TSC, filed 8/1/23]
The Indictment Identified Six Co-Conspirators
Six Co-Conspirators Were Identified. According to the indictment in United States of America v. Donald J. Trump, “The Defendant's Co- Conspirators DONALD J. TRUMP, 8. The Defendant enlisted co-conspirators to assist him in his criminal efforts to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election and retain power. Among these were: a. Co-Conspirator 1, an attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that the Defendant's 2020 re-election campaign attorneys would not. b. Co-Conspirator 2, an attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the Vice President's ceremonial role overseeing the certification proceeding to obstruct the certification of the presidential election. c. Co- Conspirator 3, an attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud the Defendant privately acknowledged to others sounded crazy. Nonetheless, the Defendant embraced and publicly amplified Co-Conspirator 3's disinformation. d. Co-Conspirator 4, a Justice Department official who worked on civil matters and who, with the Defendant, attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud. e. Co- Conspirator 5, an attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding. f. Co-Conspirator 6, a political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.” [Indictment, “United States of America v. Donald J. Trump” United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:23-cr-00257-TSC, filed 8/1/23]
Some Of The Co-Conspirators Were Identified With Commonly Known Information
Politico Identified Trump’s Six Co-Conspirators As: 1. Rudy Giuliani, 2. John Eastman, 3. Sidney Powell, 4. Jeffrey Clark, And 5. Ken Chesebro. According to Politico, “Six co-conspirators The indictment does not identify any of the six alleged co-conspirators who prosecutors say unlawfully agreed to aid Trump’s bid to subvert the election. But five of them were readily identifiable based on the widely known details in the indictment. They are: Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer and the leader of an effort to pressure state legislators to reverse election results. John Eastman, a constitutional lawyer who helped develop the strategy to pressure Mike Pence to overturn the election on Jan. 6. Sidney Powell, a conservative lawyer who pushed fringe theories about manipulation of voting machines. Jeffrey Clark, a Justice Department lawyer who pressed DOJ leaders to sow doubt about the election results. Ken Chesebro, an architect of key elements of Trump’s fake elector strategy.” [Politico, 8/1/23]
Email Evidence Suggested That The Sixth Co-Conspirator Could Have Been Boris Epshteyn. According to the New York Times, “Co-conspirator 6 was more of a mystery. Identified by the indictment as ‘a political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding,’ the person could have been a number of figures in Mr. Trump’s orbit. But a close look at the indictment and a review of messages among people working with Mr. Trump’s team provides a strong clue. An email from December 2020 from Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser to the Trump campaign in 2020, to Mr. Giuliani matches a description in the indictment of an interaction between co-conspirator 6 and Mr. Giuliani, whose lawyer has confirmed that he is co-conspirator 1.” [New York Times, 8/2/23]
The Indictment Alleged That Trump Knew His Claims About The Election Were False
The Indictment Alleged That Trump Knew His Claims About Election, Specifically In Arizona And Georgia, Were False. According to ABC News, “The indictment alleges that Trump knew that the claims he advanced about the election, specifically in Arizona and Georgia, were false -- yet he repeated them for months.” [ABC News, 8/1/23]
The Maximum Sentence Was Five Years In Prison
The Maximum Sentence For Conspiracy To Defraud Was Five Years In Prison. According to Business Insider, “Indeed, the January 6 committee said in a court filing last year that it had evidence Trump and his allies ‘entered into an agreement’ to defraud the US by interfering with Congress' election-certification process, ‘disseminating false information about election fraud, and pressuring state officials to alter state election results and federal officials to assist in that effort.’ If convicted of this charge, Trump could face a maximum of 5 years in prison, Rahmani said.” [Business Insider, 8/1/23]
Count Two: Trump Was Charged With Conspiracy To Obstruct An Official Proceeding
Count Two Was Conspiracy To Obstruct An Official Proceeding. According to the indictment in United States v. Donald J. Trump, “COUNT TWO (Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding-18 U.S.C. § 1512(k)) 125. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 and 8 through 123 of this Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference. 126. From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 7, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to corruptly obstruct and impede an official proceeding, that is, the certification of the electoral vote, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2). (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(k)).” [Indictment, “United States v. Donald J. Trump,” United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:23-cr-00257-TSC, filed 8/1/23]
The Maximum Sentence Was 20 Years In Prison
The Maximum Sentence For Obstruction of An Official Proceeding Was 20 Years In Prison. According to Business Insider, “Obstruction of an official proceeding is among the most widely used charges federal prosecutors have brought against other defendants related to the Capitol riot. The January 6 committee also said last year that several judges ‘concluded that Congress's proceeding to count the electoral votes on January 6th was an 'official proceeding' for purposes of this section, and each has refused to dismiss charges against defendants under that section.’ The maximum prison sentence if Trump is convicted of this charge is 20 years.” [Business Insider, 8/1/23]
Count Three: Trump Was Charged With Obstruction Of And Attempt To Obstruct An Official Proceeding
Count Three Was Obstruction Of And Attempt To Obstruct An Official Proceeding. According to the indictment in United States v. Donald J. Trump, “COUNT THREE (Obstruction of, and Attempt to Obstruct, an Official Proceeding-18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2) 127. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 and 8 through 123 of this Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference. 128. From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 7, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, attempted to, and did, corruptly obstruct and impede an official proceeding, that is, the certification of the electoral vote. (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(c)(2), 2).” [Indictment, “United States v. Donald J. Trump,” United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:23-cr-00257-TSC, filed 8/1/23]
The Maximum Sentence Was 20 Years In Prison
The Maximum Sentence For Conspiracy To Obstruct An Official Proceeding Was 20 Years In Prison. According to Business Insider, “Prosecutors used the same evidence laid out in the first conspiracy charge to make its case here. The conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding charge relates directly to the government's accusation that Trump conspired to obstruct the congressional certification of President Joe Biden's November 2020 win. The charge carried a possible prison sentence of 20 years, The Washington Post reported.” [Business Insider, 8/1/23]
Count Four: Trump Was Charged With Conspiracy Against Rights
Count Four Was Conspiracy Against Rights. According to the indictment in United States v. Donald J. Trump, “COUNT FOUR (Conspiracy Against Rights-18 U.S.C. § 241) 129. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 and 8 through 123 of this Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference. 130. From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 20, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States-that is, the right to vote, and to have one's vote counted. (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 241).” [Indictment, “United States v. Donald J. Trump,” United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:23-cr-00257-TSC, filed 8/1/23]
The Maximum Sentence Was 10 Years In Prison
The Maximum Sentence For Conspiracy Against Rights Was 10 Years In Prison. According to Business Insider, “Trump was widely expected to be charged with conspiracy to defraud the US and obstruction of an official proceeding. But legal experts were surprised when it initially surfaced that Smith's office was also considering charging Trump with conspiracy against rights. The Reconstruction-era law was originally passed to stop members of the Ku Klux Klan from terrorizing formerly enslaved people trying to exercise their constitutional rights. But it's been applied more broadly in the modern day, and in Trump's case, prosecutors want to use it in alleging that the former president tried to tamper with the 2020 election results in battleground states. If convicted of this charge, Trump could face a fine or prison time of up to 10 years, Rahmani said.” [Business Insider, 8/1/23]
Judge Tanya Chutkan Was Assigned The Case. According to Politico, “Trump’s case was initially assigned to U.S. District Court Tanya Chutkan, an Obama-appointed judge who has been among the harshest critics of Jan. 6 defendants and their conduct.” [Politico, 8/1/23]
August 3, 2023: Trump Pleaded Not Guilty At His Arraignment. According to the Washington Post, “Former president Donald Trump pleaded not guilty Thursday to charges that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election, appearing in the federal courthouse that sits just blocks away from where his angry supporters stormed the Capitol building in an effort to keep him in power.” [Washington Post, 8/2/23]
The Justice Department Asked Judge Chutkan To Impose Firm Rules On Trump’s Ability To Review Discovery Materials. According to the Washington Post, “The Justice Department urged in a Friday-evening court filing that a federal judge in Washington impose firm rules on Donald Trump and his attorneys as they review materials during the discovery process for his trial, citing, in part, the former president’s history of revealing details about cases on social media. [Washington Post, 8/5/23]
Judge Chutkan Ruled That Trump Could Review Evidence Without His Attorneys Present, But Without Electronic Devices And A Review Of Notes He Took. According to Politico, “Chutkan sided with the defense’s request to permit Trump to review sensitive evidence without a minder from his legal team, but said Trump would be required to review such information without any electronic devices capable of reproducing it, and his team would be required to review any notes he takes to ensure it doesn’t include the personally identifying information of witnesses.” [Politico, 8/11/23]
Judge Chutkan Ruled That Witness Recordings And Transcripts Were Barred From Public Disclosure. According to Politico, “Chutkan sided with prosecutors who wanted to include ‘hundreds’ of recordings of witness interviews and transcripts in ‘sensitive’ materials that are barred from public disclosure. And she also rejected Trump’s team’s push to permit a significantly wider array of Trump aides to review evidence in the case, which Lauro said was necessary given prosecutors’ timeline and the extraordinary volume of material.” [Politico, 8/11/23]
Judge Chutkan Said She Would Bar Trump From Publicly Discussing Materials Related To The Grand Jury And Recordings, Transcripts, Or Information About Witness Interviews. According to Bloomberg, “A federal judge in Washington agreed to impose some limits on what Donald Trump can say publicly about certain evidence prosecutors collected for the criminal indictment accusing him of trying to obstruct the 2020 election. In the first court hearing since his indictment Aug. 1, US District Judge Tanya Chutkan said Friday she would order the former president to refrain from publicly discussing ‘sensitive’ details of the case, including materials related to the grand jury and recordings, transcripts or information about witness interviews that could threaten their safety and security.” [Bloomberg, 8/11/23]
Judge Chutkan Rejected Trump’s Claim That The Investigation Was Politically Motivated. According to the Wall Street Journal, “The judge interrupted Trump’s lawyer, John Lauro, when he said the Justice Department’s goal was to interfere with Trump’s ability to run for president. ‘I’m not going to accept that,’ she said. ‘I have seen no evidence that this is politically motivated.’” [Wall Street Journal, 8/11/23]
Judge Chutkan Warned Trump She Would Take “Measures” To Prevent Him From Intimidating Witnesses Or Tainting The Jury Pool. According to the New York Times, “The federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s prosecution on charges of seeking to overturn the 2020 election rejected his request on Friday to be able to speak broadly about evidence and witnesses — and warned Mr. Trump she would take necessary ‘measures’ to keep him from intimidating witnesses or tainting potential jurors. The caution from the judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, came during a 90-minute hearing in Federal District Court in Washington to discuss the scope of a protective order over the discovery evidence in Mr. Trump’s case, a typically routine step in criminal matters. Judge Chutkan said she planned to impose the order but agreed to a modification requested by the Trump legal team that it apply only to “sensitive” materials and not all evidence turned over to the defense. She concluded the hearing with a blunt warning to Mr. Trump, and an unmistakable reference to a recent social media post in which he warned, ‘If you go after me, I’m coming after you!’ — a statement his spokesman later said was aimed at political opponents and not at people involved in the case. ‘I do want to issue a general word of caution — I intend to ensure the orderly administration of justice in this case as I would in any other case, and even arguably ambiguous statements by the parties or their counsel,’ she said, could be considered an attempt to ‘intimidate witnesses or prejudice potential jurors,’ triggering the court to take action.” [New York Times, 8/11/23]
September 5, 2023: The Department Of Justice Said Trump’s Social Media Posts Threaten To “Prejudice The Jury Pool.” According to the Messenger, “Justice Department lawyers are arguing former President Donald Trump’s ‘daily’ social media posts regarding his federal Jan. 6, 2021 are threatening the case. In a sealed brief placed on the docket Tuesday afternoon arguing against granting Trump the motion to dismiss one filed by the Justice Department, the lawyers argue what they call Trump’s ‘daily extrajudicial statements’ are threatening ‘to prejudice the jury pool in this case.’ Tuesday’s mention of Trump’s online behavior is the latest in an installment after his repeated attacks earned him a protective order issued by Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Obama appointee overseeing his federal trial in Washington, D.C.” [Messenger, 9/5/23]
December 11: Jury Selection Date Proposed By The Special Counsel. According to Bloomberg, “Prosecutors estimated needing ‘no longer than four to six weeks’ to present their case and also proposed starting jury selection several weeks earlier on Dec. 11. That doesn’t account for the time needed for Trump to put on his defense.” [Bloomberg, 8/10/23]
January 2, 2024: Trial Date Proposed By The Special Counsel. According to the New York Times, “The prosecutors overseeing the indictment of former President Donald J. Trump on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election asked a judge on Thursday to set a trial date in the case for early January, laying out an aggressive schedule for the proceeding. In a motion filed to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is presiding over the case in Federal District Court in Washington, the prosecutors said they were ready not only to go to trial on Jan. 2, but were also poised to give Mr. Trump’s lawyers the bulk of their discovery evidence in the next two weeks or so. The prosecutors further proposed that Mr. Trump’s lawyers submit their first pretrial motions in not much more than a month.” [New York Times, 8/10/23]
April 2026: Trial Date Proposed By Trump. According to the New York Times, “Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump asked a judge on Thursday to reject the government’s proposal to take Mr. Trump to trial in early January on charges of seeking to overturn the 2020 election and to instead push back the proceeding until April 2026 — nearly a year and a half after the 2024 election.” [New York Times, 8/17/23]
August 21, 2023: The Special Counsel Opposed Trump’s Proposal Of An April 2026 Trial Date. According to the Messenger, “Special Counsel Jack Smith's lawyers on Monday took serious issue with a proposal from Donald Trump to push back the start of his federal trial in Washington, D.C., until 2026. ‘In service of a proposed trial date in 2026 that would deny the public its right to a speedy trial, the defendant cites inapposite statistics and cases, overstates the amount of new and non-duplicative discovery, and exaggerates the challenge of reviewing it effectively,’ Smith's lawyers wrote in a six-page brief filed to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan.” [Messenger, 8/21/23]
August 28, 2023: Prosecutors Turned Over 12.8 Million Documents To Trump As Part Of Discovery. According to The Hill, “In the federal case probing former President Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, prosecutors have turned over 12.8 million documents to the former president’s legal team as part of discovery, prosecutors said Monday.” [The Hill, 8/28/23]
September 11, 2023: Trump Asked For Judge Chutkan To Recuse Herself. According to the New York Times, “Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump on Monday asked the federal judge overseeing his looming trial on charges of trying to overturn the 2020 election to recuse herself, claiming that she has shown a bias against Mr. Trump in public statements made from the bench in other cases. The recusal motion was a risky gambit by Mr. Trump’s legal team given that the judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, will have the initial say about whether or not to grant it. Mr. Trump’s lawyers have tried this strategy before, attempting — and failing — to have the judge overseeing his state felony trial in Manhattan step aside.” [New York Times, 9/11/23]
September 14, 2023: The Special Counsel Opposed Trump’s Effort To Have Judge Chutkan Recuse Herself. According to the Washington Post, “Prosecutors working with special counsel Jack Smith on Thursday urged U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan to refuse a request by Donald Trump’s attorneys that she disqualify herself from his federal election obstruction case, saying Trump’s team had failed to supply evidence that she was biased against him. ‘The defendant has failed to identify anything approaching the clear and convincing evidence necessary to overcome the presumption of impartiality,’ prosecutors said in the filing, accusing Trump of relying on ‘suggestion and innuendo to insinuate something sinister in the Court simply doing its job by addressing sentencing arguments.’” [Washington Post, 9/14/23]
September 17, 2023: Trump Requested A Hearing On Whether Judge Chutkan Should Recuse Herself. According to the Messenger, “Donald Trump is pressing a federal judge presiding over his election-obstruction case in Washington, D.C., to convene a hearing ‘at the earliest opportunity’ to consider whether she should recuse herself from the case. In the 11-page filing on Sunday night, Trump's lead attorney John Lauro in his arguments for U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's recusal played on her famous remark to the former president in a different case nearly two years ago. ‘Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President,’ Chutkan told Trump in November 2021, rejecting his request to block a subpoena from the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection. Riffing on that quote, Lauro acknowledged that was true, but he added a corollary observation. ‘No president is a king, but every president is a United States citizen entitled to the protections and rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,’ the defense filing states.” [Messenger, 9/18/23]
September 27, 2023: Judge Chutkan Rejected Trump’s Arguments That Statements She Made During January 6 Rioters’ Sentencing Necessitated Her Recusal. According to ABC News, “A district judge has denied former President Donald Trump's effort to have her recuse herself from presiding over his federal election interference case. Washington, D.C., District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected the argument from Trump's legal team regarding statements she made during her sentencing of pro-Trump rioters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6, 2021.” [ABC News, 9/27/23]
September 15, 2023: The Special Counsel Sought A “Narrowly Tailored” Gag Order On Trump. According to the New York Times, “Prosecutors have asked the judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s federal indictment on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election to impose ‘a narrowly tailored’ gag order on him, citing his ‘near-daily’ social media attacks on people involved in the case, according to court papers released on Friday.” [New York Times, 9/15/23]
October 16, 2023: Judge Chutkan Imposed A Limited Gag Order On Trump. According to the New York Times, “A judge imposed a limited gag order on former President Donald J. Trump on Monday, restricting Mr. Trump from making public statements attacking the witnesses and specific prosecutors or court staff members involved in the federal case concerning his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.” [New York Times, 10/16/23]
October 17, 2023: Trump Appealed His Partial Gag Order. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump is appealing a partial gag order that prohibits him from publicly criticizing witnesses, prosecutors, and court staff involved in the federal election obstruction case against him in Washington. The former president’s lawyers filed notice on Tuesday that they are challenging the order by US District Judge Tanya Chutkan a day after she announced it in court and hours after it was officially entered on the docket. Trump’s team is also expected to ask Chutkan put the speech restrictions on hold until the end of the appeal process, which could include taking the fight to the US Supreme Court, according to a person familiar with the situation.” [Bloomberg, 10/17/23]
October 20, 2023: Judge Chutkan Temporarily Lifted The Partial Gag Order She Imposed On Trump. According to Reuters, “A U.S. judge on Friday temporarily lifted a partial gag order she had imposed limiting Donald Trump's public statements about the federal criminal case in which the former president is accusing of illegally attempting to undo his 2020 election loss. Acting on the same day that a New York state judge fined Trump $5,000 for violating a gag order in a civil trial, U.S. District Tanya Chutkan in Washington put on hold the order she issued earlier in the week while she considers the former president's request for a longer pause while he challenges it.” [Reuters, 10/20/23]
October 25, 2023: The Special Counsel Said Trump’s Gag Order Should Be Reinstated Because Trump Kept Violating Its Provisions. According to the New York Times, “For much of this week, after a federal judge temporarily froze the gag order she imposed on him, former President Donald J. Trump has acted like a mischievous latchkey kid, making the most of his unsupervised stint. At least three times in the past three days, he has attacked Jack Smith, the special counsel leading his federal prosecutions, as ‘deranged.’ Twice, he has weighed in about testimony attributed to his former chief of staff Mark Meadows, who could be a witness in the federal case accusing him of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. Each of Mr. Trump’s comments appeared to violate the gag order put in place less than two weeks ago to limit his ability to intimidate witnesses in the case, assail prosecutors or otherwise disrupt the proceeding. And after the former president was fined $10,000 on Wednesday for flouting a similar directive imposed on him by the judge presiding over a civil trial he is facing in New York, federal prosecutors asked that he face consequences for his remarks about the election interference case as well. On Friday, the judge who imposed the federal order, Tanya S. Chutkan, put it on hold for a week to allow the special counsel’s office and lawyers for Mr. Trump to file more papers about whether she should set it aside for an even longer period as an appeals court considers its merits. But in the first round of those additional papers, prosecutors said on Wednesday that the order should be kept in place as the appeals court considers Mr. Trump’s request. They also said the lenient way in which Mr. Trump was released from custody after his indictment should be reconsidered for a simple reason: He has kept on violating the gag order’s provisions.” [New York Times, 10/25/23]
October 29, 2023: Judge Chutkan Reinstated Her Gag Order On Trump. According to Bloomberg, “A federal judge in Washington has denied Donald Trump’s request to keep on hold a partial gag order barring him from publicly criticizing prosecutors, potential witnesses, and court staff involved in the federal election prosecution against him. The ruling from US District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Sunday night means the gag order is set to again take effect unless a higher court intervenes, according to a summary of the ruling published on the docket. The former president’s lawyers are expected to ask a federal appeals court to immediately step in and halt the speech restrictions from being enforced while they pursue a full appeal of the gag order.” [Bloomberg, 10/29/23]
November 2, 2023: Trump Appealed His Limited Gag Order. According to the Washington Post, “Separately, in a Thursday night filing, Trump’s legal team asked an appeals court to stay a limited gag order issued last month by Chutkan, arguing that the order unfairly muffles a leading presidential candidate. The 35-page filing seeks a temporary suspension of the gag order and says that if Trump cannot sway the appeals court, he plans take the request to the Supreme Court.” [Washington Post, 11/2/23]
November 3, 2023: The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The D.C. Circuit Temporarily Lifted The Gag Order. According to the Associated Press, “A federal appeals court temporarily lifted a gag order on Donald Trump in his 2020 election interference case in Washington on Friday — the latest twist in the legal fight over the restrictions on the former president’s speech. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decision puts a hold on the limited gag order to give the judges time to consider Trump’s request for a longer pause on the restrictions while his appeals play out. The appeals court said the temporary pause ‘should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits’ of Trump’s bid.” [Associated Press, 11/3/23]
November 14, 2023: Federal Prosecutors Asked The D.C. Federal Appeals Court To Reinstate the Gag Order Against Trump. According to the New York Times, “Prosecutors asked a federal appeals court in Washington on Tuesday to give its approval to a gag order imposed on former President Donald J. Trump in his federal election interference case, saying that Mr. Trump’s ‘long history’ of targeting his adversaries on social media has often led to dangers in the real world. The gag order on Mr. Trump was suspended this month by the appeals court as it considers whether the trial judge in the case, Tanya S. Chutkan, was justified in imposing it in the first place. The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments about the order next week.” [New York Times, 11/14/23]
The Full D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals Rejected Trump’s Bid To Lift The Federal Gag Order Imposed On Him In The January 6 Case. According to the New York Times, “The full federal appeals court in Washington on Tuesday rejected former President Donald J. Trump’s bid to lift a gag order imposed on him in the criminal case in which he stands accused of trying to subvert the results of the 2020 election. The terse ruling, issued on behalf of the 11 judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, leaves Mr. Trump with only the option of appealing to the Supreme Court if he wants to keep fighting the gag order, which restricts his ability to publicly criticize certain people involved in the legal proceeding.” [New York Times, 1/23/24]
September 28, 2023: Trump Asked To Postpone The Filing Deadline For Motions Until December 9, 2023. According to CBS News, “Former President Donald Trump's legal team asked a federal judge Thursday to postpone filing deadlines by 60 days in the special counsel's 2020 election-related case against him, citing the ‘numerous novel and complex legal issues’ the prosecution presents. Attorneys for Trump filed a motion to Washington, D.C. federal Judge Tanya Chutkan exactly a month after she set an October 9 deadline for any pretrial motions the parties might want to file. In federal trials, prosecutors and defense attorneys submit written arguments to the court about legal issues ranging from concerns about the investigation to attempts to dismiss the case. The court then sets time limits for responses to those filings, usually allowing ample time for a response and other litigation. As a result, any changes to the schedule generally result in trial delays. In this case, Trump's attorneys have urged Chutkan to move the Oct. 9 deadline by two months — to Dec. 9, 2023 — which would move the initial due date for raising primary legal issues to under three months before the trial is currently set to begin, on March 4, 2024.” [CBS News, 9/28/23]
November 7, 2023: Judge Chutkan Agreed To Push Back Some Deadlines To File Motions. According to the Messenger, “A federal judge on Tuesday granted Donald Trump's legal team extra time to file motions regarding evidence in the Washington, D.C. election-subversion criminal case against the former president. In a four-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered that Trump's attorneys may file motions for subpoenas until Nov. 27, and motions seeking to compel prosecutors to produce evidence by Dec. 13. Previously, the deadline for those filings was scheduled for Nov. 9. The types of motions covered by the order deal with discovery--the legal term for the exchange of records and information between parties prior to trial--rather than legal arguments.” [Messenger, 11/7/23]
November 17, 2023: Judge Chutkan Rejected Trump’s Request To Strike References To The January 6 Attack On The Capitol In The Indictment. According to the New York Times, “The federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s trial on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election rejected on Friday a request by Mr. Trump’s lawyers to remove language from his indictment describing the role he played in the violence that erupted at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The ruling by the judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, was an initial step toward allowing prosecutors in the case to introduce evidence at trial that members of the mob that stormed the Capitol that day believed they were acting at Mr. Trump’s instruction.” [New York Times, 11/17/23]
October 2, 2023: The Supreme Court Declined To Hear Trump Lawyer Eastman’s Appeal Of Rulings That Found His Emails Contained Evidence Of A Likely Crime. According to Politico, “The Supreme Court, minus a recused Clarence Thomas, has turned down a bid by attorney John Eastman to erase court rulings that described him as a linchpin in former President Donald Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election. The high court’s decision Monday essentially enshrines rulings by a federal district judge in California that found Eastman’s emails contained evidence of a likely crime related to Trump’s efforts.” [Politico, 10/2/23]
October 5, 2023: Trump Moved To Dismiss The January 6 Case Over Presidential Immunity. According to Politico, “Donald Trump’s months-long efforts to reverse his defeat in the 2020 election were ‘within the heartland’ of his ‘official duties,’ his lawyers claimed Thursday in a bid to get his federal criminal case in Washington, D.C., thrown out. Defense attorneys John Lauro and Todd Blanche say special counsel Jack Smith’s case against the former president is an attempt to criminalize actions that were well within his White House duties, such as enforcing federal election laws. As a result, they said, the charges against Trump — accusing him of conspiracies to obstruct the election process and defraud the public — must be dismissed. ‘The Constitution, the Supreme Court, and hundreds of years of history and tradition all make clear, the President’s motivations are not for the prosecution or this Court to decide,’ Lauro and Blanche write. ‘Rather, where, as here, the President’s actions are within the ambit of his office, he is absolutely immune from prosecution.’” [Politico, 10/5/23]
Trump Argued That He Had Total Immunity From Prosecution For Any Actions He Took As President. According to the New York Times, “The request to dismiss the election interference indictment, which came in a 52-page briefing filed in Federal District Court in Washington, was breathtaking in its scope. It argued that Mr. Trump could not be held accountable in court for any actions he took as president, even after a grand jury had returned criminal charges against him. While the Justice Department has long maintained a policy that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, Mr. Trump’s bid to claim total immunity from prosecution was a remarkable attempt to extend the protections afforded to the presidency in his favor.” [New York Times, 10/5/23]
Trump Claimed That His Acquittal At His Second Impeachment Trial Made Him Immune From Prosecution From Related Acts. According to Politico, “Trump’s attorneys say there’s an even more fundamental problem with the charges against him: He was acquitted by the Senate in an impeachment trial for similar conduct. That acquittal, they say, renders Trump ‘absolutely immune’ from prosecution for related acts. ‘The Impeachment Clauses provide that the President may be charged by indictment only in cases where the President has been impeached and convicted by trial in the Senate,’ the attorneys wrote. ‘Here, President Trump was acquitted by the Senate for the same course of conduct.’” [Politico, 10/5/23]
October 19, 2023: The Special Counsel Opposed Trump’s Claim Of Absolute Immunity. According to the Washington Post, “U.S. prosecutors urged a federal judge Thursday to reject former president Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions he took in office, saying that he is ‘not above the law’ and that his indictment for allegedly conspiring to block the results of the 2020 election should not be dismissed. ‘No court has ever alluded to the existence of absolute criminal immunity for former presidents,’ assistant special counsel James I. Pearce wrote in a 54-page filing. The filing argued that legal principles, historical evidence and sound policy reasons establish that once former presidents leave office, they are subject to federal criminal prosecution ‘like more than 330 million other Americans, including Members of Congress, federal judges, and everyday citizens.’” [Washington Post, 10/19/23]
November 1, 2023: Trump Petitioned The Court To Immediately Halt All Proceedings Until An Opinion On Presidential Immunity Was Issued. According to the Messenger, “Donald Trump's attorneys on Wednesday night petitioned the federal judge overseeing the former president's election-interference case to immediately halt all proceedings until she issues an opinion on whether a chief executive is immune from criminal prosecution. The three-page request from Trump defense counsel John Lauro points out to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that all briefings on the pre-trial issue have been submitted but she hasn't set oral arguments or indicated when she'll release an order.” [Messenger, 11/1/23]
December 1, 2023: Judge Chutkan Rejected Trump’s Absolute Immunity Argument. According to the New York Times, “A federal judge on Friday rejected claims by former President Donald J. Trump that he enjoyed absolute immunity from criminal charges accusing him of seeking to reverse the 2020 election, slapping down his argument that the indictment should be tossed out because it was based on actions he took while he was in office.” [New York Times, 12/1/23]
October 10, 2023: Federal Prosecutors Requested An Order That Would Compel Trump’s Legal Team To Notify The Court If They Sought To Use An Advice Of Counsel Defense. According to the New York Times, “Federal prosecutors asked a judge on Tuesday to force former President Donald J. Trump to tell them months before he goes to trial on charges of seeking to overturn the 2020 election whether he intends to defend himself by blaming the stable of lawyers around him at the time for giving him poor legal advice. In a motion filed to the judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, the prosecutors sought an order that would compel Mr. Trump to tell them by Dec. 18 if he plans to pursue the blame-the-lawyers strategy — known as an advice of counsel defense — at his federal election interference trial, which is now set to begin in March in Federal District Court in Washington.” [New York Times, 10/10/23]
October 10, 2023: Federal Prosecutors Asked Judge Chutkan To Put Restrictions On The Information That Could Be Publicly Disclosed About Potential Jurors. According to the New York Times, “Citing Mr. Trump’s ‘continued use of social media as a weapon of intimidation’ — an issue that has come up in the government’s request for a gag order to be placed on the former president — the prosecutors asked Judge Chutkan to impose restrictions on information about potential jurors and those who are ultimately picked to serve. The prosecutors asked that no one involved in the case be allowed to publicly disclose information about the jurors gleaned during the selection process, in order to protect them ‘from intimidation and fear.’ They also asked Judge Chutkan to consider arranging ‘for jurors to gain discreet entry into and out of the courthouse’ once the trial begins.” [New York Times, 10/10/23]
The Special Counsel Requested That Judge Chutkan Forbid Trump From Using Claims That His Prosecution Was Politically Motivated As A Defense. According to USA Today, “The office of special counsel Jack Smith asked a judge Wednesday to forbid former President Donald Trump from making false claims in the courtroom that the charges he faces over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election are politically motivated. ‘The defense has attempted to inject into this case partisan political attacks and irrelevant and prejudicial issues that have no place in a jury trial,’ said a legal filing from Smith's office to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan.” [USA Today, 12/27/23]
Trump Requested To Subpoena January 6 Committee Members
October 11, 2023: Trump Requested Permission To Subpoena The Former Chair Of The January 6 Committee. According to The Hill, “Attorneys for former President Trump are seeking a judge’s permission to subpoena the former chairman of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, repeating a disputed claim that the panel failed to turn over all the evidence it collected. The filing from Trump — which also seeks to subpoena six other officials — repeats claims from Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee chairman, that he did not receive the entirety of the panel’s records. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who led the nine-member panel, disputed Loudermilk’s claims when he first made them in August. He said the committee turned over all required work products and official records — something that includes transcripts of all witness interviews but not all video recordings that weren’t ultimately used in their hearings.” [The Hill, 10/11/23]
Trump Asked To Subpoena Representative Loudermilk, The National Archivist, And Lawyers From The Department Of Homeland Security And The White House. According to The Hill, “Trump’s attorneys also asked to subpoena Loudermilk, his committee and the clerk of the House. Thompson, like Loudermilk, would likely be able to resist the subpoena given the protections under the Constitution’s Speech and Debate clause. He also wants to subpoena the national archivist and attorneys to the White House and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).” [The Hill, 10/11/23]
The Special Counsel Called Trump’s Subpoena’s A “Fishing Expedition”
October 25, 2023: The Special Counsel Called Trump’s Subpoena Of Records From Government Agencies And The January 6 Committee A “Proposed Fishing Expedition.” According to the Messenger, “Former President Donald Trump should not receive a federal judge's permission to subpoena records related to the House of Representatives' probe into the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol building, prosecutors said in a Wednesday court filing. In the 12-page filing Wednesday night, Special Counsel Jack Smith's office called Trump's request a ‘proposed fishing expedition’ and argued it fails to satisfy a requirement that subpoenas must be ‘for relevant, admissible and specific information.’ The filing comes in response to a motion filed earlier this month by Trump's attorneys asking for U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan's permission to send subpoenas to seven agencies and officials, including the head of the National Archives and Records Administration, as the former president's legal team prepares its defense in the election-subversion case in Washington, D.C.” [Messenger, 10/26/23]
Judge Chutkan Rejected Trump’s Attempt To Subpoena Records From The January 6 Committee
November 27, 2023: Judge Chutkan Rejected Trump’s Attempt To Subpoena Records From The January 6 Committee. According to Reuters, “A judge on Monday rejected Donald Trump’s request to see records from the congressional investigation of the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which the former president said may be relevant to his defense against election interference charges. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington found that Trump ‘has not sufficiently justified his requests’ for information tied to the Democratic-led House of Representatives probe, which concluded in 2022. Trump sought to subpoena materials that his lawyers said were ‘missing’ from the House investigation, including transcripts and video recordings of interviews with law enforcement officials. The judge concluded that prosecutors had already given Trump written transcripts of those interviews and that Trump’s attorneys had not shown how video footage of those same conversations could be relevant to his defense.” [Reuters, 11/27/23]
Trump Requested The Court To Force Federal Agencies To Turn Over Records To Prove The Election Was Stolen
November 28, 2023: Trump Asked The Court To Force Prosecutors To Turn Over Information From The FBI, The Justice Department, And The Homeland Security Department In An Attempt To Prove The Election Was “Stolen.” According to the Washington Post, “Attorneys for Donald Trump have asked a federal judge in Washington to allow them to investigate several U.S. government agencies about their handling of investigations into him and allegations of voter fraud three years ago as the former president moves to defend himself from charges that he criminally conspired to subvert the results of the 2020 election. In court papers filed Monday, Trump’s legal team sought permission to compel prosecutors to turn over information about the FBI, national security and election integrity units of the Justice Department, as well as the intelligence community and Department of Homeland Security’s response to foreign interference and other threats to the 2020 election, in what appeared to be an attempt to resuscitate his unfounded allegation that President Biden’s election victory was ‘stolen.’” [Washington Post, 11/28/23]
Trump Asked For Communications Between The Justice Department And The Biden Administration And President Biden’s Family Members
Trump Asked For Any Communications Between The Justice Department And The Biden Administration Or President Biden’s Family. According to the Washington Post, “Claiming that he is a victim of political persecution by the Biden administration because he is Biden’s primary 2024 rival, Trump’s lawyers also filed requests seeking any communication or ‘coordination’ by the Justice Department with the Biden administration or family, including his son, Hunter.” [Washington Post, 11/28/23]
Trump Asked For Communications Between The Justice Department And Former Vice President Pence
Trump Asked For Any Communications Between The Justice Department And Former Vice President Pence. According to the Washington Post, “And they sought information about the Justice Department’s interactions with Trump’s vice president, Mike Pence, a key witness named in Trump’s indictment. Pence, Trump’s defense suggested, could have been motivated to align his story with prosecutors’ desires because of classified documents found at his home by his lawyer months after an FBI search of Trump’s residence and the discovery of classified documents at Biden’s home in Delaware and a separate think tank office. The Justice Department closed its investigation of Pence in June without charges.” [Washington Post, 11/28/23]
Trump Moved To Dismiss The Charges
October 23, 2023: Trump Filed Four Motions To Dismiss The Federal Election Interference Case. According to the New York Times, “Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump fired off a barrage of new attacks on Monday night against the federal charges accusing him of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, filing nearly 100 pages of court papers seeking to have the case thrown out before it reaches a jury. In four separate motions to dismiss — or limit the scope of — the case, Mr. Trump’s legal team made an array of arguments on legal and constitutional grounds, some of which strained the boundaries of credulity.” [New York Times, 10/24/23]
November 6, 2023: The Special Counsel Asked That Trump’s Motions To Dismiss The January 6 Case Be Rejected. According to the New York Times, “Federal prosecutors on Monday asked a judge to reject a barrage of motions filed last month by former President Donald J. Trump that sought to toss out the indictment charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 election and said his claims were full of ‘distortions and misrepresentations.’ In a 79-page court filing, prosecutors in the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, went one by one through Mr. Trump’s multiple motions to dismiss the case and accused him and his lawyers of essentially trying to flip the script of the four-count indictment filed against him in August.” [New York Times, 11/6/23]
Judge Chutkan Rejected Trump’s Motions To Dismiss The Case
December 1, 2023: Judge Chutkan Rejected Trump’s Claims Of Immunity. According to the New York Times, “A federal judge on Friday rejected claims by former President Donald J. Trump that he enjoyed absolute immunity from criminal charges accusing him of seeking to reverse the 2020 election, slapping down his argument that the indictment should be tossed out because it was based on actions he took while he was in office. The ruling by the judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, was her first denying one of Mr. Trump’s many motions to dismiss the election interference case, which is set to go to trial in Federal District Court in Washington in about three months.” [New York Times, 12/1/23]
Judge Chutkan Rejected Trump’s Argument That He Could Not Be Tried Due To His Acquittal At The Second Impeachment Trial. According to the New York Times, “In her 48-page order, Judge Chutkan, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, also denied a second — and more far-fetched — attempt by Mr. Trump’s lawyers to have the case dismissed. That effort sought to argue that Mr. Trump could not be tried on the election subversion charges because they overlapped in many respects with his second impeachment, in which he was acquitted by the Senate.” [New York Times, 12/1/23]
Judge Chutkan Rejected Trump’s Free Speech Argument. According to the New York Times, “Judge Chutkan further rejected Mr. Trump’s attempt to have the indictment dismissed on free speech grounds, saying that ‘the First Amendment does not protect speech that is used as an instrument of a crime.’” [New York Times, 12/1/23]
Judge Chutkan Issued A Stay After Trump Appealed Her Ruling
Judge Chutkan Issued A Stay After Trump’s Appeal To The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia. According to CBS News, “In a brief order Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan largely granted Trump's request to halt the proceedings while he pursues his appeal. Chutkan said Trump's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit means she must automatically stay further proceedings that would move the case toward trial.” [CBS News, 12/13/23]
December 7, 2023: Trump Requested That Legal Proceedings In The January 6 Case Be Halted While He Appealed The Decision That Rejected His Immunity Argument. According to the New York Times, “Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump asked a federal judge on Wednesday to put the proceedings on hold in the case charging him with seeking to overturn the 2020 election as they appeal her recent ruling that he is not immune from prosecution. The request to freeze the case as the appeal goes forward was part of a long-planned strategy to delay any trial on the election interference charges from starting on schedule, in March.” [New York Times, 12/7/23]
The Special Counsel Unsuccessfully Asked The Supreme Court To Intervene
The Supreme Court Denied The Special Counsel’s Request To Consider Trump’s Immunity Claim Immediately. According to the Messenger, “The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday announced that it will not get involved — for now — on an important case central to the fate of federal criminal charges against Donald Trump and whether the former president is immune from prosecution for acts committed while in office. ‘The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied,’ the Supreme Court said in a one-sentence order, offering no other explanation. The high court's decision represents a small victory for Trump, who has been working overtime to delay a scheduled March criminal trial in Washington, D.C. until after the 2024 presidential election that he hopes to win and then terminate the entire case once back in the White House.” [Messenger, 12/22/23]
Trump’s Legal Team Argued That A President Ordering An Assassination Of A Political Rival May Be Outside Of Legal Jurisdiction
Trump’s Lawyer Argued That Courts Would Not Have Jurisdiction Over A President That Ordered The Assassination Of A Political Rival Unless Impeached And Convicted First. According to the New York Times, “Judge Pan asked Mr. Sauer to address a series of hypotheticals intended to test the limits of his position that presidents are absolutely immune from criminal prosecution over their officials acts, unless they have first been impeached and convicted by the Senate over the same matter. Among them, she asked, what if a president ordered SEAL Team 6, the Navy commando unit, to assassinate a president’s political rival? Mr. Sauer said such a president would surely be impeached and convicted, but he insisted that courts would not have jurisdiction to oversee a murder trial unless that first happened. To rule otherwise, Mr. Sauer said, would open the door to the routine prosecutions of former presidents whenever the White House changes partisan hands.” [New York Times, 1/9/24]
The DC Circuit Court Of Appeals Appeared Prepared To Reject Trump’s Claim Of Presidential Immunity
A Federal Appeals Court Signaled They Would Reject Trump’s Claim To Presidential Immunity. According to Politico, “A federal appeals court panel strongly suggested Tuesday that it would reject Donald Trump’s claims of immunity from criminal charges related to his effort to subvert the 2020 election. With Trump looking on, the three judges expressed deep skepticism of his contention that a president could not be prosecuted — even for assassinating a rival or selling military secrets — if he were not first impeached and convicted by Congress. ‘I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law,’ said Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee.” [Politico, 1/9/24]
Trump’s Attempt To Have The Special Prosecutor Sanctioned For Additional Filings Failed
Trump Asked Judge Chutkan To Sanction The Special Prosecutor For Allegedly Violating The Stay Order. According to CNN, “Donald Trump’s legal team told a federal judge on Thursday that special counsel Jack Smith and prosecutors in his office should be severely sanctioned and possibly held in contempt after they continued to submit filings in the case following a stay order from the judge. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the Washington, DC, election subversion case, issued a stay on the case after Trump appealed her ruling dismissing his claims that presidential immunity protects him from prosecution. ‘The Stay Order is clear, straightforward, and unambiguous. All substantive proceedings in this Court are halted,’ Trump’s attorneys wrote. ‘Despite this clarity, the prosecutors began violating the Stay almost immediately.’” [CNN, 1/4/24]
Judge Chutkan Rejected Trump’s Motion To Hold The Special Counsel In Contempt
Judge Chutkan Rejected Trump’s Request To Hold The Special Counsel In Contempt Of Court, Ruling That Her Order Did Not Prohibit The Filings Made By The Special Counsel. According to Bloomberg, “But she stopped short of holding Special Counsel Jack Smith in contempt of court and fining him as the former president had urged. […] Trump has argued that Smith has violated Chutkan’s order pausing the case by continuing to submit briefs and file exhibits as part of pretrial information sharing known as discovery. The ex-president’s lawyers asked the judge to order a hard stop on additional filings, hold Smith in contempt and assess monetary damages against him to cover legal fees for reviewing the filings. Chutkan said her December order didn’t ‘clearly and unambiguously prohibit’ the Smith filings that Trump complained about. ‘The court cannot conclude that merely receiving discovery or an exhibit list constitutes a meaningful burden,’ she wrote.” [Bloomberg, 1/18/24]
Judge Chutkan Said Any Filings From The Special Counsel Must Be Approved By Her First As Long As The Case Was On Hold
Judge Chutkan Ruled That Any Filings From The Special Counsel Must First Be Approved By Her While The Case Remained On Hold. According to Bloomberg, “The federal judge overseeing the criminal election interference case against Donald Trump limited what prosecutors can do while the case is on hold. […] Smith must first get approval from US District Judge Tanya Chutkan to make new filings under an order she issued Thursday, another obstacle for the Justice Department in its quest to take Trump to trial starting March 4. It’s one of four criminal cases Trump is facing as the Republican frontrunner for the White House in the November election.” [Bloomberg, 1/18/24]
Trump’s Immunity Claim Was Rejected By The D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals
A Three-Judge Panel Of The D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals Unanimously Rejected Trump’s Claims Of Presidential Immunity. According to Politico, “Former president Donald Trump — and indeed any other former president — may be prosecuted for alleged crimes they committed while in office, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday. The unanimous 57-page decision from a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is a major win for special counsel Jack Smith — but is likely to trigger another appeal from Trump, perhaps to the Supreme Court.” [Politico, 2/6/24]
The Court Ruled That Any Executive Immunity Trump May Have Had While President No Longer Applied Now That He Was Out Of Office. According to the Washington Post, “‘For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution,’ the panel of three judges wrote. ‘The interest in criminal accountability, held by both the public and the Executive Branch, outweighs the potential risks of chilling Presidential action and permitting vexatious litigation.’” [Washington Post, 2/6/24]
Trump Planned To Appeal The Decision Rejecting His Claims Of Presidential Immunity
Trump Planned To Appeal The D.C. Circuit’s Decision To Reject His Claim Of Presidential Immunity. According to The Hill, “Former President Trump will appeal a court ruling that he is not immune from criminal prosecution, his campaign said Tuesday, setting up a likely fight at the Supreme Court. ‘Prosecuting a President for official acts violates the Constitution and threatens the bedrock of our Republic. President Trump respectfully disagrees with the DC Circuit’s decision and will appeal it in order to safeguard the Presidency and the Constitution,” Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement.” [The Hill, 2/6/24]
Trump Had Until February 12 To Appeal To The Supreme Court Or The Decision Would Go Into Effect. According to the Washington Post, “Trump has already indicated that he plans to ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling. While his legal arguments keep failing in court, even rulings against him aid his goal of delaying any federal trial in D.C. until after the presidential election. The court said it would put the ruling on hold until Feb. 12 for Trump to appeal to the Supreme Court but would not wait for the full D.C. Circuit to weigh in.” [Washington Post, 2/6/24]
Trump Asked The Supreme Court To Stay The Ruling Rejecting His Immunity Claim
Trump Appealed To The Supreme Court For A Stay Of The Ruling That He Did Not Possess Immunity From Prosecution. According to CNN, “Former President Donald Trump on Monday asked the Supreme Court to step into the charged dispute over whether he may claim immunity from prosecution, once again pressing the nine justices to resolve a question that could undermine his campaign for a second term. Trump asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block a scathing and unanimous decision from the DC Circuit handed down last week that flatly rejected his claims of immunity from election subversion charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith.” [CNN, 2/12/24]
The Special Counsel Requested The Supreme Court Either Deny Trump’s Stay Or Take Up The Immunity Case On An Expedited Basis
The Special Counsel Requested That The Supreme Court Reject Trump’s Stay Request During Appeal. According to the New York Times, “Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting former President Donald J. Trump on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to reject a request from Mr. Trump to put the case on hold while he pursues appeals. ‘Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict — a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here, as it involves federal criminal charges against a former president for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the presidential election, including through the use of official power,’ Mr. Smith wrote.” [New York Times, 2/14/24]
The Special Counsel Asked The Court To Hear Trump’s Appeal On An Expedited Schedule If It Intended To Hear The Appeal. According to the New York Times, “If the justices are inclined to hear Mr. Trump’s appeal, Mr. Smith added, they should set a brisk schedule culminating in oral arguments next month. ‘An expedited schedule would permit the court to issue its opinion and judgment resolving the threshold immunity issue as promptly as possible this term,’ Mr. Smith wrote, ‘so that, if the court rejects applicant’s immunity claim, a timely and fair trial can begin with minimal additional delay.’” [New York Times, 2/14/24]
Trump Submitted His Reply Brief To The Supreme Court On The Request For A Stay In The Presidential Immunity Case
Trump Submitted His Reply Brief To The Supreme Court On The Question Of A Stay In The January 6 Case. According to CNN, “Former President Donald Trump made his final pitch Thursday to the Supreme Court in his effort to pause a trial over the election subversion charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith. ‘There are overwhelming reasons why the case should not go to trial ‘in three months or less,’’ Trump told the Supreme Court in a 16-page filing. ‘With any other defendant, it would be virtually unthinkable for the case to go to trial so soon, and ‘wildly unfair’ to do so.’ Trump claims former presidents must have immunity from such charges to avoid political reprisals when they leave office. So far, two lower federal courts have balked at that argument. The Supreme Court is expected to decide on Trump’s request within a few days.” [CNN, 2/15/24]
February 28, 2024: The Supreme Court Agreed To Hear Trump’s Immunity Claim. According to the New York Times, “The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen while they considered the matter. The court’s brief order said the court will decide this question: ‘Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.’” [New York Times, 2/28/24]
March 19, 2024: Trump Asked The Supreme Court To Rule He Was Absolutely Immune From Criminal Charges For Trying To Overturn The 2020 Election. According to the New York Times, “Former President Donald J. Trump urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to rule that he is absolutely immune from criminal charges stemming from his attempts to subvert the 2020 election. ‘The president cannot function, and the presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence,’ the brief said, ‘if the president faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office.’ The brief, Mr. Trump’s main submission to the justices before the case is argued on April 25, continued to press an expansive understanding of presidential immunity, one that it said was required by the very structure of the Constitution.” [New York Times, 3/19/24]
April 8, 2024: Special Counsel Smith’s Brief With The Supreme Court Said The Framers Never Intended For Former Presidents To Receive Criminal Immunity. According to NBC News, “Special counsel Jack Smith urged the Supreme Court on Monday to reject former President Donald Trump's position that he should be granted absolute immunity in the federal election interference case, with prosecutors arguing that criminal law applies to a president. The 66-page filing from Smith and his team laid out a series of arguments taking aim at Trump’s claim that a president is immune from criminal prosecution. Prosecutors argued that there are no presidential powers that would entitle Trump to immunity in this case and that ‘history likewise refutes’ Trump’s arguments. ‘The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former President, and all Presidents from the Founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts,’ Smith said in the brief, referring to President Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal.” [NBC News, 4/8/24]
Former Trump Aide Nick Luna Told Investigators That Trump’s Response To Vice President Pence Being Evacuated To A Secure Location Was, “So What?” According to ABC News, “Sources also said former Trump aide Nick Luna told federal investigators that when Trump was informed that then-Vice President Mike Pence had to be rushed to a secure location, Trump responded, ‘So what?’ -- which sources said Luna saw as an unexpected willingness by Trump to let potential harm come to a longtime loyalist.” [ABC News, 1/7/23]
Scavino Said Trump Sent His Tweet Criticizing Pence After Failed Attempts To Convince Trump To Make A Calming Statement. According to ABC News, “After unsuccessfully trying for up to 20 minutes to persuade Trump to release some sort of calming statement, Scavino and others walked out of the dining room, leaving Trump alone, sources said. That's when, according to sources, Trump posted a message on his Twitter account saying that Pence ‘didn't have the courage to do what should have been done.’” [ABC News, 1/7/23]
Trump Said His Attack On Pence Was “True” Despite Pleas From His Advisors That It Was “Not What We Need.” According to ABC News, “Some of Trump's aides then returned to the dining room to explain to Trump that a public attack on Pence was ‘not what we need,’ as Scavino put it to Smith's team. ‘But it's true,’ Trump responded, sources told ABC News. Trump has publicly echoed that sentiment since then.” [ABC News, 1/7/23]
December 5, 2023: Prosecutors Said Trump “Sent” His Supporters To The Capitol To Criminally Block The Certification Of The 2020 Election. According to the Washington Post, “Federal prosecutors on Tuesday accused former president Donald Trump of a long pattern of lying about elections and encouraging violence, saying he ‘sent’ supporters on Jan. 6, 2021 to criminally block the election results. In a new court filing, prosecutors working for special counsel Jack Smith went further than in their August indictment in attempting to tie him to that day’s violence, saying they intended to introduce evidence of his other acts both before the November 2020 presidential election and subsequent alleged threats to establish his motive, intent and preparation for subverting its legitimate results. ‘Evidence of the defendant’s post-conspiracy embrace of particularly violent and notorious rioters is admissible to establish the defendant’s motive and intent on January 6 — that he sent supporters, including groups like the Proud Boys, whom he knew were angry, and whom he now calls ‘patriots,’ to the Capitol to achieve the criminal objective of obstructing the congressional certification,’ prosecutors alleged in a nine-page filing.” [Washington Post, 12/5/23]
December 5, 2023: Prosecutors Said They Would Use Trump’s Own Statements To Advance Their Charges At Trial. According to the Washington Post, “They added, ‘At trial, the Government will introduce a number of public statements by the defendant in advance of the charged conspiracies, claiming that there would be fraud in the 2020 presidential election,’ laying the ‘foundation for the defendant’s criminal efforts.’” [Washington Post, 12/5/23]
Judge Chutkan Issued An Order Than Formally Postponed The Trial Date. According to the New York Times, “The federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election issued an order on Friday scrapping the March 4 trial date for the case.” [New York Times, 2/2/24]
April 23, 2024: The DC Circuit Ruled That Grand Jury Records Of Executive Privilege Fights Should Be Made Public. According to Politico, “Details of prosecutors’ battles to obtain testimony from high-level White House aides to Donald Trump may soon become public, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in response to a POLITICO petition to access records related to the investigation of Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election. The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found that although those grand jury fights were properly kept secret at first, special counsel Jack Smith’s office confirmed the existence of the legal battles soon after charging Trump last year in the 2020 election probe. ‘The district court’s decision was correct when it issued. But things have changed,’ the judges declared. ‘There is little doubt that the Office of Special Counsel’s disclosure of the privilege disputes substantively and materially changed the state of play in this case and its impact on the merits of Politico’s request for disclosure should be considered.” [Politico, 4/23/24]
April 25, 2024: The Supreme Court Seemed Skeptical Of Trump’s Argument Of Absolute Immunity. According to the Associated Press, “The Supreme Court on Thursday appeared likely to reject former President Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from prosecution over election interference, but several justices signaled reservations about the charges that could cause a lengthy delay, possibly beyond November’s election.” [Associated Press, 4/25/24]
Several Conservative Justices Indicated They Might Send The Case Back To Lower Courts To Sort Out What Limits Could Exist On Former Presidents. According to the Associated Press, “A majority of the justices did not appear to embrace the claim of absolute immunity that would stop special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump on charges he conspired to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden. But in arguments lasting more than 2 1/2 hours in the court’s first consideration of criminal charges against a former president, several conservative justices indicated they could limit when former presidents might be prosecuted, suggesting that the case might have to be sent back to lower courts before any trial could begin.” [Associated Press, 4/25/24]
A Quick Decision Seemed Unlikely. According to the Associated Press, “The active questioning of all nine justices left the strong impression that the court was not headed for the sort of speedy, consensus decision that would allow a trial to begin quickly.” [Associated Press, 4/25/24]
May 22, 2024: Judge Cannon Released Documents Related To Trump’s Motion To Dismiss The Evidence Seized In The 2022 Search Of Mar-a-Lago. According to the Associated Press, “Lawyers for Donald Trump asked the judge overseeing the classified documents case against him to block prosecutors from using as evidence the boxes of records that FBI agents seized during a search of the former president’s Florida property nearly two years ago, according to a motion unsealed Tuesday. The defense lawyers asserted in the motion that the August 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida was unconstitutional and ‘illegal’ and the FBI affidavit filed in justification of it was tainted by misrepresentations. Prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith’s office, which brought the case, rejected each of those accusations and defended the investigative approach as ‘measured’ and ‘graduated.’ They said the search warrant was obtained after investigators obtained surveillance video showing what they said was a concerted effort to conceal the boxes of classified documents inside the property. ‘The warrant was supported by a detailed affidavit that established probable cause and did not omit any material information. And the warrant provided ample guidance to the FBI agents who conducted the search. Trump identifies no plausible basis to suppress the fruits of that search,’ prosecutors wrote. The defense motion was filed in February but was made public on Tuesday, along with hundreds of pages of documents from the investigation that were filed to the case docket in Florida.” [Associated Press, 5/22/24]
Judge Cannon Released Judge Howell’s Opinion That There Was “Prima Facie” Evidence That Trump Committed A Crime. According to the Associated Press, “Those include a previously sealed opinion last year from the then-chief judge of the federal court in Washington, which said that Trump’s lawyers, months after the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, had turned over four additional documents with classification markings that were found in Trump’s bedroom. That March 2023 opinion from U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell directed a former lead lawyer for Trump in the case to abide by a grand jury subpoena and to turn over materials to investigators, rejecting defense arguments that their cooperation was prohibited by attorney-client privilege and concluding that prosecutors had made a ‘prima facie’ showing that Trump had committed a crime. In the newly unsealed motion, Trump’s defense team asked the Florida judge overseeing the case, Aileen Cannon, to suppress audio recordings that the lawyer, M. Evan Corcoran, made of conversations with Trump. Prosecutors responded that there’s no basis for excluding that evidence from the case.” [Associated Press, 5/22/24]
Late 2023: Additional Classified Documents Were Found In Trump’s Bedroom At Mar-a-Lago Four Months After The FBI Search. According to Politico, “Four months after the FBI raided his Mar-a-Lago estate, Donald Trump’s attorneys discovered four documents marked ‘classified’ in his personal bedroom. That revelation was among several cited by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in a newly unsealed 2023 opinion that found prosecutors had presented compelling evidence that Trump knowingly stashed national security documents in his home and then tried to conceal them when the Justice Department tried to retrieve them.” [Politico, 5/21/24]
July 1, 2024: The Supreme Court Ruled Trump Was Entitled To Some Immunity From Prosecution Over His Efforts To Overturn The 2020 Election. According to the New York Times, “The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that former President Donald J. Trump is entitled to some level of immunity from prosecution, a decision that may effectively delay the trial of the case against him on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election. The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along partisan lines. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said Mr. Trump had immunity for his official acts. ‘The president is not above the law,” the chief justice wrote. “But Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent executive. The president therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.’” [New York Times, 7/1/24]
The Supreme Court Sent The Case Back To The DC Circuit To Determine What Trump Acts Were Official, And Immune, And What Were Not Official, And Not Immune. According to the Associated Press, “In a historic 6-3 ruling, the justices said for the first time that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for their official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts. But rather than do it themselves, the justices ordered lower courts to figure out precisely how to apply the decision to Trump’s case.” [Associated Press, 7/1/24]
August 3, 2024: Judge Chutkan Rejected Trump’s Claim That He Was Politically Targeted For Prosecution. According to Politico, “Former President Donald Trump presented ‘no meaningful evidence’ that the White House or Justice Department targeted him for prosecution over political animus or his refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled Saturday. In a 16-page opinion, Chutkan swept aside Trump’s attempt to dismiss his Washington, D.C., criminal case — which charges him with sweeping conspiracies to subvert the 2020 election — over claims that President Joe Biden pressured prosecutors to target his political rival. In the ruling, Chutkan said Trump repeatedly mischaracterized the charges against him, which describe far more than simply criminalizing his claimed belief that the 2020 election was stolen.” [Politico, 8/3/24]
August 16, 2024: Hearing Set To Consider The Schedule In The January 6 Case. According to Politico, “On Friday, that window closed. The case was returned to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which took just minutes to send the matter back to the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who has been in a holding pattern since December awaiting the outcome of the immunity fight. On Saturday, Chutkan took her first steps in the case in months, setting an August 16 hearing to consider setting a new schedule.” [Politico, 8/2/24]
August 27, 2024: Trump Was Reindicted On Four Felony Counts Related To His Efforts To Overturn The 2020 Election. According to Politico, “A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. has reindicted Donald Trump on four felony charges related to his effort to subvert the 2020 presidential election. The 36-page indictment, secured Tuesday by special counsel Jack Smith, is an attempt by prosecutors to streamline the case against Trump to address the Supreme Court’s ruling last month that concluded presidents enjoy sweeping immunity from prosecution for their official conduct.” [Politico, 8/27/24]
The Superseding Indictment Eliminated References To Government Officials And Emphasized Trump’s Personal Conduct To Highlight Trump Acting As A Candidate And Not As President. According to Politico, “In an apparent bid to downplay any connection between Trump’s official duties and his bid to overturn Joe Biden’s victory, the new indictment repeatedly emphasizes the political and personal nature of many of the actions Trump took during the post-election period and on Jan. 6, 2021. For instance, the document underscores that Mike Pence was not only vice president, but also Trump’s ‘running mate,’ when Trump pressured Pence to block the certification of the election results. It notes that Trump’s rally at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021, was ‘privately funded’ and ‘privately organized.’ And it stresses that Trump often used his Twitter account for ‘personal purposes.’ The new document also eliminates a long list of top government officials who had informed Trump that his claims about election fraud and anomalies were false, including top intelligence, Justice Department, homeland security officials and White House lawyers.” [Politico, 8/27/24]
September 26, 2024: Deadline For The Special Counsel To File A Brief Detailing Why Trump Was Not Immune From Criminal Charges Over Trying To Overturn The 2020 Election. According to Politico, “Special counsel Jack Smith and Donald Trump will be trading high-stakes legal filings — some potentially jammed with new and explosive evidence related to Trump’s effort to subvert the 2020 election — in the weeks leading up to Election Day. A federal judge has given the special counsel’s team until Sept. 26 to detail what his team says will be a ‘comprehensive’ slate of evidence detailing Trump’s alleged conspiracies to subvert the 2020 election.” [Politico, 9/5/24]
October 17, 2024: Trump’s Reply Brief Was Due. According to Politico, “Chutkan described Smith’s submission as an ‘opening brief’ intended to support his argument that Trump is not immune from the criminal charges, despite the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the matter. Trump’s response to that brief will be due Oct. 17, and his lawyers similarly promised to pack it full of new information drawn from secret grand jury transcripts and other unreleased documents.” [Politico, 9/5/24]
October 29, 2024: The Special Counsel’s Reply To Trump’s Brief Due. According to Politico, “Smith will have the opportunity for a final reply on the presidential immunity issue Oct. 29 — one week before Election Day.” [Politico, 9/5/24]
June 24, 2021: Speaker Pelosi Announced Creation Of A Select Committee To Investigate The January 6 Attack On The Capitol. According to CNN, “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Thursday she will create a select committee to investigate the January 6 attack on the Capitol after Republicans blocked the formation of an independent commission. The select committee will corral the various House Democratic investigations into the events surrounding the deadly insurrection into a single effort to examine what led to pro-Donald Trump supporters breaching the Capitol and disrupting the certification of President Joe Biden’s November 2020 election win.” [CNN, 6/24/21]
June 9, 2022: The First Committee Hearing Opened With Chairman Thompson Saying Trump “Was At The Center Of This Conspiracy.” According to the Washington Post, “The House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 Attack on the United States Capitol opened a landmark set of hearings on Thursday by showing video of aide after aide to former President Donald J. Trump testifying that his claims of a stolen election were false, as the panel laid out in meticulous detail the extent of the former president’s efforts to keep himself in office. Over about two hours, the panel offered new information about what it characterized as an attempted coup orchestrated by Mr. Trump that culminated in the deadly assault on the Capitol. The panel’s leaders revealed that investigators heard testimony that Mr. Trump endorsed the hanging of his own vice president as a mob of his supporters descended on Congress. They also said they had evidence that members of Mr. Trump’s cabinet discussed invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. The session kicked off an ambitious effort by the nine-member committee, which was formed after Republicans blocked the creation of a nonpartisan commission, to lay out the full story of a remarkable assault on U.S. democracy, orchestrated by a sitting president, that led to a deadly riot, an impeachment and a crisis of confidence in the political system. ‘Donald Trump was at the center of this conspiracy,’ said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee. ‘And ultimately, Donald Trump, the president of the United States, spurred a mob of domestic enemies of the Constitution to march down the Capitol and subvert American democracy.’” [Washington Post, 6/9/22]
October 13, 2022: The House January 6 Committee Voted Unanimously To Subpoena Trump. According to the Associated Press, “The House Jan. 6 committee voted unanimously to subpoena former President Donald Trump, demanding his personal testimony as it unveiled startling new video and described his multi-part plan to overturn his 2020 election loss, which led to his supporters’ fierce assault on the U.S. Capitol. With alarming messages from the U.S. Secret Service warning of violence and vivid new video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other congressional leaders pleading for help, the panel on Thursday showed the raw desperation at the Capitol. Using language frequently seen in criminal indictments, the panel said Trump had acted in a ‘premeditated’ way before Jan. 6, 2021, despite countless aides and officials telling him he had lost.” [Associated Press, 10/14/22]
December 19, 2022: The House January 6 Committee Issued Four Criminal Referrals Of Trump To The Department Of Justice. According to the Associated Press, “The House Jan. 6 committee urged the Justice Department on Monday to bring criminal charges against Donald Trump for the violent 2021 Capitol insurrection, calling for accountability for the former president and ‘a time of reflection and reckoning.’ After one of the most exhaustive and aggressive congressional probes in memory, the panel’s seven Democrats and two Republicans are recommending criminal charges against Trump and associates who helped him launch a wide-ranging pressure campaign to try to overturn his 2020 election loss. The panel also released a lengthy summary of its final report, with findings that Trump engaged in a ‘multi-part conspiracy’ to thwart the will of voters. At a final meeting Monday, the committee alleged violations of four criminal statutes by Trump, in both the run-up to the riot and during the insurrection itself, as it recommended the former president for prosecution to the Justice Department.” [Associated Press, 12/19/22]
December 22, 2022: The January 6 Committee Released Their Report Which Recommended Trump Be Barred From Federal Office. According to NPR, “After roughly 18 months of investigations, the House committee investigating the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol has released their full report. The document, which is more than 800 pages long, recommends the Justice Department pursue criminal charges against former President Donald Trump for his role in the attack. And they say Congress should act to bar Trump, and others involved in the Jan. 6 insurrection, from ever holding federal office again.” [NPR, 12/23/22]
The House January 6 Committee Said Trump May Have Violated Laws On Conspiracy To Prevent The Discharge Of Official Duties And Conspiracy To Prevent Execution Of The Law. According to the Executive Summary of the Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, “Depending on evidence developed by the Department of Justice, the President’s actions with the knowledge of the risk of violence could also constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 372 and § 2384, both of which require proof of a conspiracy. Section 372 prohibits a conspiracy between two or more persons ‘to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in the discharge of his official duties.’ Oath Keepers Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, and Jessica Watkins were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 372 in connection with the January 6th attack on the Capitol.650 The Committee believes that former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows (who refused to testify and was held in contempt of Congress) could have specific evidence relevant to such charges, as may witnesses who invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination before this Committee. Section 2384, the seditious conspiracy statute, prohibits ‘conspir[acy] to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States . . . or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States . . . .’” [Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, 12/22/22]
The House January 6 Committee Said Trump May Have Attempted To Obstruct Its Investigation. According to the Executive Summary of the Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, “The Committee has substantial concerns regarding potential efforts to obstruct its investigation, including by certain counsel (some paid by groups connected to the former President) who may have advised clients to provide false or misleading testimony to the Committee. Such actions could violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512. The Committee is aware that both the U.S. Department of Justice and the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office have already obtained information relevant to these matters, including from the Committee directly. We urge the Department of Justice to examine the facts to discern whether prosecution is warranted. The Committee’s broad concerns regarding obstruction and witness credibility are addressed in the Executive Summary to this Report.” [Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, 12/22/22]
March 14, 2024: Former Leaders Of The D.C. National Guard Testified To The House January 6 Committee That Trump Could Have Sped Up The Arrival Of Forces To The Capitol On January 6, But Failed To Do So. According to Politico, “Donald Trump could have cleared up confusion and hastened the arrival of National Guard troops to quell the Capitol riot if he’d called Pentagon leaders on Jan. 6, 2021, according to recent closed-door congressional testimony by two former leaders of the D.C. guard. Michael Brooks, the senior enlisted leader of the D.C. guard at the time of the riot, and Brigadier Gen. Aaron Dean, the adjutant general of the D.C. guard at the time, told House Administration Committee staffers that if Trump had reached out that day — which, by all accounts, he did not — he might have helped cut through the chaos amid a tangle of conflicting advice and miscommunication. ‘Could the president have picked up the phone, called the secretary of defense, and said, you know, ‘What’s going on here?’ Our law enforcement is getting overrun, make this happen!’’ a committee staffer asked Brooks, according to the transcript of a previously unreported March 14 interview reviewed by POLITICO. ‘I assume he could expedite an approval through the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of the Army,’ Brooks replied. But Trump never called any military leaders on Jan. 6, per testimony from senior administration officials to the Jan. 6 select committee — a fact that the panel emphasized in its final report that concluded Trump was uniquely responsible for the violent Capitol attack by his supporters. Rather, he was observing the riot on TV and calling allies in his quest to subvert the 2020 election, as outlined by committee witnesses and White House records.” [Politico, 7/17/24]
April 11, 2023: Former Trump White House Lawyer Passantino Sued The January 6 Committee. According to Bloomberg Law, “Former Trump White House lawyer Stefan Passantino is suing the House Jan. 6 committee, alleging its members pushed a ‘false narrative’ that he encouraged star witness Cassidy Hutchinson to lie to the panel. The committee leaked ‘an outrageous tale’ about Passantino to the news media, he said in a complaint filed Tuesday.” [Bloomberg Law, 4/11/23]
January 25, 2024: Former Trump Trade Adviser Peter Navarro Was Sentenced To Four Months In Prison For Criminal Contempt Of Congress For Defying A Committee Subpoena. According to the New York Times, “Peter Navarro, a trade adviser to former President Donald J. Trump who helped lay plans to keep Mr. Trump in office after the 2020 election, was sentenced on Thursday to four months in prison for defying a subpoena from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Mr. Navarro, 74, was found guilty in September of two misdemeanor counts of criminal contempt of Congress. The judge overseeing the case, Amit P. Mehta, rejected Mr. Navarro’s primary defense: that Mr. Trump had personally directed him not to cooperate with the subpoena, and that he believed he was shielded by executive privilege.” [New York Times, 1/25/24]
July 1, 2021: The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office Charged The Trump Organization With Tax Fraud. According to the New York Times, “The Trump Organization, the real estate business that catapulted Donald J. Trump to tabloid fame, television riches and ultimately the White House, was charged Thursday with running a 15-year scheme to help its executives evade taxes by compensating them with fringe benefits that were hidden from the authorities. The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which has been conducting the investigation alongside the New York attorney general, also accused a top executive, Allen H. Weisselberg, of avoiding taxes on $1.7 million in perks that should have been reported as income. Mr. Weisselberg, Mr. Trump’s long-serving and trusted chief financial officer, faced grand larceny, tax fraud and other charges.” [New York Times, 7/1/21]
October 2021: The Trump Organization Was Held In Contempt In A Secret Trial After Prosecutors Claimed They Were “Willfully Disobeying” Grand Jury Subpoenas And Court Orders. According to the New York Times, “Donald J. Trump’s family business lost a criminal contempt trial that was held in secret last fall, according to a newly unsealed court document and several people with knowledge of the matter, with a judge ruling against the company almost exactly a year before it was convicted of a tax fraud scheme last week. The document, a judicial order released Tuesday, showed that in October 2021, a one-day contempt trial was held after prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office requested that the company be punished for ‘willfully disobeying’ four grand jury subpoenas and three court orders enforcing compliance.” [New York Times, 12/13/22]
August 18, 2022: Trump Organization CFO Weisselberg Pled Guilty To 15 Felonies In Plea Deal To Testify Against The Trump Organization. According to CNN, “Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, pleaded guilty Thursday to his role in a 15-year-long tax fraud scheme, and as part of the deal he has agreed to testify against former President Donald Trump’s real estate company at trial. In court Thursday, Weisselberg said, ‘Yes, your honor’ when asked if he was pleading guilty of his own choice. Weisselberg pleaded guilty to 15 felonies and admitted he failed to pay taxes on $1.7 million in income, including luxury perks, such as rent and utilities for a Manhattan apartment, leases for a pair of Mercedes-Benz cars and private school tuition for his grandchildren. He admitted to concealing those benefits from his accountant to under-report his income and knowingly omitting the income from his personal tax returns. Weisselberg answered a series of specific questions about the scheme from the judge in a hushed and barely audible tone, saying ‘Yes, your honor’ repeatedly. As part of the deal, he will pay nearly $2 million in back taxes, interest and penalties and waive any right to appeal.” [CNN, 8/18/22]
December 6, 2022: The Trump Organization Was Found Guilty On All 17 Counts Of Tax Fraud And Other Crimes For Giving Off-The-Books, Tax-Free Perks To Employees. According to the New York Times, “The Trump Organization, the family real estate business that made Donald J. Trump a billionaire and propelled him from reality television to the White House, was convicted on Tuesday of tax fraud and other crimes, forever tarring the former president and the company that bears his name. The conviction on all 17 counts, after more than a day of jury deliberations in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, stemmed from the company’s practice of doling out off-the-books perks to executives: They received luxury apartments, leased Mercedes-Benzes, extra cash at Christmas, even free cable television. They paid taxes on none of it.” [New York Times, 12/6/22]
January 10, 2023: Weisselberg Was Sentenced To Five Months In Jail And Five Years Of Probation And Ordered To Pay Nearly $2 Million In Taxes, Fees, And Penalties. According to the Associated Press, “Allen Weisselberg, a longtime executive for Donald Trump ’s business empire whose testimony helped convict the former president’s company of tax fraud, was sentenced Tuesday to five months in jail for dodging taxes on $1.7 million in job perks. Weisselberg, 75, was promised that sentence in August when he agreed to plead guilty to 15 tax crimes and to testify against the Trump Organization, where he’s worked since the mid-1980s and until his arrest, had served as chief financial officer. He was handcuffed and taken into custody moments after the sentence was announced and was expected to be taken to New York City’s notorious Rikers Island jail complex. Weisselberg will be eligible for release after a little more than three months if he behaves behind bars. As part of the plea agreement, Judge Juan Manuel Merchan also ordered Weisselberg to pay nearly $2 million in taxes, penalties and interest — which he has paid as of Jan. 3. Additionally, the judge ordered Weisselberg to complete five years of probation after his jail term is finished.” [Associated Press, 1/10/23]
January 13, 2023: The Trump Organization Received The Maximum Penalty, A $1.6 Million Fine, For Its Convictions On Tax Avoidance. According to the New York Times, “Former president Donald J. Trump’s family real estate business was ordered on Friday to pay a $1.6 million criminal penalty for its conviction on tax fraud and other charges, a stinging rebuke and the maximum possible punishment. The sentence, handed down by a judge in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, caps a lengthy legal ordeal for Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, which was convicted in December of doling out off-the-books perks to some of its top executives. One of the executives who orchestrated the scheme, Allen H. Weisselberg, pleaded guilty and testified at the company’s trial. He was sentenced on Tuesday to serve five months at the notorious Rikers Island jail complex.” [New York Times, 1/13/23]
January 24, 2023: The Trump Corporation And The Trump Payroll Corporation Paid The $1.6 Million Fine They Received After Being Convicted On Tax Fraud. According to the Daily Beast, “Former President Donald Trump’s family company—notorious for stiffing contractors and dodging bills—has paid the $1.6 million fine it received for its tax fraud conviction in December. The New York County Clerk received the payment in two separate checks on Jan. 24, according to a clerk who confirmed matter-of-factly that the checks didn’t bounce. In recent days, according to a court spokesman, the clerk’s office notified Justice Juan Merchan, the judge who sentenced the Trump Corporation and Trump Payroll Corporation in January to the maximum financial penalty allowed by the state. The companies, which are part of the overall Trump Organization, were convicted in early December by a New York jury that was deeply offended at the way Trump’s businesses cooked the books to shower top executives with untaxed benefits.” [Daily Beast, 2/3/23]
March 2023: The Trump Organization Allegedly Fired The Lawyer Representing Their Former CFO Allen Weisselberg Because He Was Too Willing To Cooperate With The Manhattan DA. According to the Daily Beast, “The Trump Organization has suddenly switched the attorney representing its jailed former chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, after some folks in Trumpworld expressed concerns he was too willing to play ball with the Manhattan District Attorney investigating former President Donald Trump, according to three sources familiar with the situation. For months, the Trump Organization paid New York City lawyer Nicholas Gravante to represent Weisselberg. But according to two people familiar with the situation who spoke with The Daily Beast on the condition of anonymity, Gravante wasn’t ‘Trumpy’ enough to keep onboard.” [Daily Beast, 3/30/23]
April 19, 2023: Former Trump Organization CFO Weisselberg Was Released From Jail 100 Days Into Five Month Sentence. According to Reuters, “Former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg was released from jail on Wednesday, according to New York City Department of Correction records. Weisselberg was sent to New York's Rikers Island jail on January 10 for helping engineer a wide-ranging 15-year tax fraud scheme at former president Donald Trump's family business. He was sentenced to five months behind bars but was eligible for release after 100 days with time off for good behavior.” [Reuters, 4/19/23]
October 2016: Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen Paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 For Being Silent About A Sexual Encounter With Donald Trump. According to the Wall Street Journal, “A lawyer for President Donald Trump arranged a $130,000 payment to a former adult-film star a month before the 2016 election as part of an agreement that precluded her from publicly discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter. Michael Cohen, who spent nearly a decade as a top attorney at the Trump Organization, arranged payment to the woman, Stephanie Clifford, in October 2016 after her lawyer negotiated the nondisclosure agreement with Mr. Cohen, these people said. Ms. Clifford, whose stage name is Stormy Daniels, has privately alleged the encounter with Mr. Trump took place after they met at a July 2006 celebrity golf tournament on the shore of Lake Tahoe, these people said. Mr. Trump married Melania Trump in 2005.” [Wall Street Journal, 1/12/18]
August 21, 2018: Cohen Said He Made The Payment At The Request Of Trump While Pleading Guilty To Campaign Finance Law Violations. According to the New York Times, “Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s former lawyer, made the extraordinary admission in court on Tuesday that Mr. Trump had directed him to arrange payments to two women during the 2016 campaign to keep them from speaking publicly about affairs they said they had with Mr. Trump. Mr. Cohen acknowledged the illegal payments while pleading guilty to breaking campaign finance laws and other charges, a litany of crimes that revealed both his shadowy involvement in Mr. Trump’s circle and his own corrupt business dealings. He told a judge in United States District Court in Manhattan that the payments to the women were made ‘in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office,’ implicating the president in a federal crime. ‘I participated in this conduct, which on my part took place in Manhattan, for the principal purpose of influencing the election’ for president in 2016, Mr. Cohen said.” [New York Times, 8/21/18]
July-August, 2019: Manhattan District Attorney Vance Opened An Investigation Into The Hush-Money Payment. According to the New York Times, “State prosecutors in Manhattan subpoenaed President Trump’s family business on Thursday, reviving an investigation into the company’s role in hush-money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to people briefed on the matter.The subpoena, issued by the Manhattan district attorney’s office, demanded the Trump Organization provide documents related to money that had been used to buy the silence of Stormy Daniels, a pornographic film actress who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump. The inquiry from the district attorney’s office, which is in early stages, is examining whether any senior executives at the company filed false business records about the hush money, which would be a state crime, the people said.” [New York Times, 8/1/19]
November 2022: The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office Jump-Started Criminal Investigation Into Trump, Focusing On The Hush-Money Payment To Daniels. According to the New York Times, “The Manhattan district attorney’s office has moved to jump-start its criminal investigation into Donald J. Trump, according to people with knowledge of the matter, seeking to breathe new life into an inquiry that once seemed to have reached a dead end. Under the new district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, the prosecutors have returned to the long-running investigation's original focus: a hush-money payment to a porn star who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump. The district attorney’s office first examined the payment to the actress, Stormy Daniels, years ago before changing direction to scrutinize Mr. Trump’s broader business practices. But Mr. Bragg and some of his deputies have recently indicated to associates, supporters and at least one lawyer involved in the matter that they are newly optimistic about building a case against Mr. Trump, the people said.” [New York Times, 11/21/22]
January 17, 2023: Manhattan DA’s Office Met With Former Trump Lawyer Cohen Over Hush Money Payments To Daniels. According to the New York Times, “The Manhattan district attorney’s office on Tuesday took a significant step forward in its investigation of Donald J. Trump, meeting with his former personal lawyer about hush money paid to a porn star who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The questioning of the lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, offered the clearest sign yet that the district attorney’s office was ramping up its investigation into Mr. Trump’s role in the $130,000 hush money deal. Mr. Cohen has said publicly that Mr. Trump directed him, in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign, to buy the silence of Stephanie Clifford, the actress known as Stormy Daniels. While the hush money was an impetus for the district attorney’s investigation, which began in 2018, prosecutors had shifted in recent years to a broader examination of Mr. Trump’s business practices. In recent months, however, the prosecutors returned to the payments, seeking to breathe new life into the investigation, The New York Times reported in November.” [New York Times, 1/17/23]
January 30, 2023: The Manhattan DA Planned To Present Evidence To A Grand Jury Concerning Trump’s Role In The Stormy Daniels Hush Money Payment. According to the New York Times, “The Manhattan district attorney’s office on Monday will begin presenting evidence to a grand jury about Donald J. Trump’s role in paying hush money to a porn star during his 2016 presidential campaign, laying the groundwork for potential criminal charges against the former president in the coming months, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The grand jury was recently impaneled, and witness testimony will soon begin, a clear signal that the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, is nearing a decision about whether to charge Mr. Trump.” [New York Times, 1/30/23]
February 2, 2023: Manhattan Prosecutors Warned Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg He May Face Additional Charges On Insurance Fraud In An Effort To Pressure Him To Cooperate. According to the New York Times, “Manhattan prosecutors this week warned that they might file new fraud charges against Allen H. Weisselberg, a longtime top executive at Donald J. Trump’s real estate business — increasing pressure on Mr. Weisselberg to cooperate in a broader investigation into the former president, according to people with knowledge of the matter. Mr. Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s former chief financial officer, is already serving a five-month sentence in the Rikers Island jail complex after pleading guilty to unrelated tax fraud charges. While he testified against the company at its trial on the same charges last year, he has for years refused to turn on Mr. Trump directly. But as the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, jump-starts his office’s effort to indict Mr. Trump, his prosecutors are using the prospect of additional charges to exert leverage over Mr. Weisselberg, the people with knowledge of the matter said. The potential charges, which prosecutors conveyed to the former executive’s legal team this week, center on insurance fraud and could lead to a significant prison sentence for Mr. Weisselberg, who is 75.” [New York Times, 2/2/23]
March 1, 2023: Former Trump Campaign Manager Kellyanne Conway Met With The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. According to the New York Times, “Kellyanne Conway, who managed the final months of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 campaign, met with prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney’s office on Wednesday, the latest sign that the office is ramping up its criminal investigation into the former president.” [New York Times, 3/1/23]
March 15, 2023: Former Trump Lawyer Cohen Concluded His Testimony Before The Grand Jury. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen said he testified for a second and final time before a New York grand jury investigating the former president for potential crimes tied to hush-money payments made to a porn star during the 2016 campaign. Following his appearance before the grand jury Wednesday, which lasted at least two hours, Cohen told reporters he looked forward to testifying at trial if prosecutors decide to charge Trump. Cohen made his first appearance before the panel on Monday.” [Bloomberg, 3/15/23]
March 15, 2023: Stormy Daniels Met With The Manhattan DA’s Office. According to the New York Times, “Manhattan prosecutors on Wednesday met with Stormy Daniels, the porn star who was paid $130,000 to keep quiet about her affair with Donald J. Trump, according to a lawyer for Ms. Daniels. The lawyer, Clark Brewster, tweeted that at the request of the Manhattan district attorney’s office, he and Ms. Daniels had met with prosecutors. Ms. Daniels responded to questions, he said, ‘and has agreed to make herself available as a witness, or for further inquiry if needed.’” [New York Times, 3/15/23]
March 6, 2023: Former White House Aide Hope Hicks Met With The Manhattan DA’s Office. According to the New York Times, “Hope Hicks, a trusted aide to Donald J. Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign, met with the Manhattan district attorney’s office on Monday — the latest in a string of witnesses to be questioned by prosecutors as they investigate the former president’s involvement in paying hush money to a porn star. The appearance of Ms. Hicks, who was seen walking into the Manhattan district attorney’s office in the early afternoon, represents the latest sign that the prosecutors are in the final stages of their investigation.” [New York Times, 3/6/23]
March 24, 2023: Manhattan DA Bragg Received A Death Threat In A Letter That Also Contained A White Powder. According to CNBC, “Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was threatened with assassination in a letter containing powder, hours after former President Donald Trump warned Friday of ‘potential death & destruction’ if he is indicted by a grand jury in a criminal case led by Bragg. ‘ALVIN: I AM GOING TO KILL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!’’ said the typewritten note in a letter contained in an envelope addressed to Bragg, WNBC reported, citing law enforcement sources.” [CNBC, 3/24/23]
March 27, 2023: Former Chief Executive Of The National Enquirer’s Parent Company Pecker Testified Again Before The Grand Jury. According to the Associated Press, “A pivotal figure in the hush money payment investigation of Donald Trump returned on Monday to the building where a grand jury has been meeting for months, a repeat appearance suggesting his testimony could be key as prosecutors push toward potential criminal charges. There was still no word on when the panel might vote on a possible indictment of the former president. David Pecker, a longtime Trump friend and the former chief executive of the parent company of The National Enquirer, was back as the grand jury heard testimony in the probe for the first time since last Monday, when a witness favorable to the ex-president appeared.” [Associated Press, 3/27/23]
March 13, 2013: Trump Declined To Testify Before The Grand Jury Probing His Payment To Stormy Daniels. According to NBC News, “Former president Donald Trump will not appear before the Manhattan grand jury probing a hush-money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump attorney Joe Tacopina told NBC News on Monday. Trump's legal team met with the former president in Florida over the weekend. Following the discussions, the president decided not to sit for a meeting with the grand jury in New York. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office convened the grand jury to look into the payment made to Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress who alleges she slept with Trump before he became president.” [NBC News , 3/13/23]
Trump’s Lawyers Met With the Manhattan DA’s Office To Argue Against Prosecution. According to the New York Times, “Mr. Trump declined the offer, people with knowledge of his decision said. And members of his legal team recently met privately with prosecutors to make their case against an indictment, one of his lawyers, Joseph Tacopina, said on ‘Good Morning America’ on Monday. One of the lawyers at the meeting was Susan R. Necheles, who Mr. Tacopina said was ‘leading the charge’ for Mr. Trump.” [New York Times, 3/13/23]
March 20, 2023: Robert Costello Testified As A Rebuttal Witness For Trump Before The Grand Jury. According to Bloomberg, “Robert Costello, a lawyer who said he once advised Cohen, said he testified Monday for about two hours before the state grand jury investigating Trump as a rebuttal witness for the defense. Cohen denies Costello ever represented him.” [Bloomberg, 3/20/23]
March 18, 2023: Trump Said That He Would Be Arrested By The Manhattan DA’s Office On Tuesday, March 21 And Called For Protest. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Donald Trump called on his supporters to protest in the face of expected charges against the former president in New York connected to the payment of hush money to a porn star. Mr. Trump posted a message on his social media site Saturday morning, saying leaks indicated that he would be charged by the Manhattan district attorney’s office and arrested on Tuesday ‘BASED ON AN OLD & FULLY DEBUNKED (BY NUMEROUS OTHER PROSECUTORS!) FAIRYTALE.’” [Wall Street Journal, 3/18/23]
March 24, 2023: Trump Posted That A Charge Against Him Could Yield “Potential Death & Destruction.” According to a post to Truth Social by @realDonaldTrump, “What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country? Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely hates the USA” [Truth Social - @realDonaldTrump, 3/24/23]
March 25, 2023: House Committee Chairs Pressed DA Bragg To Cooperate With Their Request For Information. According to the Wall Street Journal, “House Republicans pressed Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to cooperate with their request for information about the potential indictment of former President Donald Trump over his role in paying hush money to a porn star. In a Saturday letter to Mr. Bragg, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), Oversight Chairman James Comer (R., Ky.), and House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil (R., Wis.) outlined their reasoning for why Congress should have access to communications, documents and testimony relating to the Manhattan district attorney’s investigation.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/25/23]
March 31, 2023: Manhattan DA’s Office Called House Republicans’ Accusations Of His Indictment Of Trump “Misleading And Meritless” And “Baseless And Inflammatory.” According to Politico, “Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg defended his office’s decision to indict Donald Trump in a letter to Republican lawmakers Friday, rejecting GOP accusations of political persecution as ‘baseless and inflammatory.; ‘That conclusion is misleading and meritless,’ wrote Leslie Dubeck, Bragg’s general counsel, in a six-page letter to three House Republican committee chairs who have sought internal details of the criminal probe.” [Politico, 3/31/23]
April 11, 2023: Manhattan DA Bragg Sued House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan Over A “Brazen And Unconstitutional Attack” On The Investigation Into Donald Trump. According to the New York Times, “The Manhattan district attorney on Tuesday sued Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio in an extraordinary step intended to keep congressional Republicans from interfering in the office’s criminal case against former President Donald J. Trump. The 50-page suit, filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, accuses Mr. Jordan of a ‘brazen and unconstitutional attack’ on the prosecution of Mr. Trump and a ‘transparent campaign to intimidate and attack’ the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg. Mr. Bragg last week unveiled 34 felony charges against Mr. Trump that stem from the former president’s attempts to cover up a potential sex scandal during and after the 2016 presidential campaign.” [New York Times, 4/11/23]
March 30, 2023: Manhattan Grand Jury That Had Heard Testimony In Stormy Daniels Investigation Voted To Indict Donald Trump. According to the Washington Post, “A Manhattan grand jury has voted to indict former president Donald Trump, making him the first person in U.S. history to serve as commander in chief and then be charged with a crime, and setting the stage for a 2024 presidential contest unlike any other. The indictment was sealed, which means the specific charge or charges are not publicly known. But the grand jury had been hearing evidence about money paid to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels during Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, allegedly to keep her from saying she’d had a sexual encounter with Trump years earlier. Trump is expected to turn himself in and appear in court on Tuesday at 2:15 p.m., said a person familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss plans that have not been publicly announced.” [Washington Post, 3/30/23]
Manhattan DA Bragg Said Trump’s “Unlawful Scheme” Violated Election Laws, Made False Business Records, And Committed Tax Crimes In Order To Influence The 2016 Presidential Election. According to the Statement of Facts in People v. Donald J. Trump from the Manhattan DA’s Office, “From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects. In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York. The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme.” [Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, 4/4/23]
The Falsification Of Business Records Charges Were Increased To Class E Felonies Because They Were Intended To Conceal Another Crime. According to Yahoo News, “The charge of falsification of business records can be prosecuted in New York state as a misdemeanor. But Bragg’s office bumped up all the charges to Class E felonies — the lowest level of felonies in the New York state penal code — on the grounds that the conduct was intended to conceal another underlying crime, according to the source.” [Yahoo News, 4/3/23]
The Maximum Sentence Was Four Years In Prison Per Offense, But Any Time Was Unlikely Because Of Trump’s Status As A First Time Offender. According to Yahoo News, “Under the New York State penal code, a conviction for the Class E felony of falsifying business records can result in a prison term of up to four years. But as a practical matter, that seems extremely unlikely. ‘No one gets jail time for that as a first offender,’ said a New York law enforcement official.” [Yahoo News, 4/3/23]
April 4, 2023: Trump Pleaded Not Guilty To 34 Felony Counts Of Falsifying Business Records. According to Politico, “Former President Donald Trump pleaded not guilty Tuesday to 34 felony charges connected to his alleged role in hush money payments to two women during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump, the first former president ever indicted, delivered his plea in a Manhattan courtroom a few hours after turning himself in to authorities. All 34 counts he faces are for ‘falsifying business records,’ a crime that carries a sentence of up to four years in prison when charged as a felony. Judges often sentence first-time offenders to probation, particularly in non-violent cases.” [Politico, 4/4/23]
April 17, 2023: The Manhattan DA’s Office Asked The Judge To Look Into A Possible Conflict Of Interest Involving Trump Lawyer Tacopina. According to ABC News, “Prosecutors in New York City on Monday asked the judge overseeing the criminal case against former President Donald Trump to seek additional information from one of Trump's attorneys who they believe may have a potential conflict of interest in the case. Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the closing weeks of the 2016 campaign. Trump has denied all charges. Trump's defense team includes Joe Tacopina, a lawyer Daniels once considered hiring as her attorney, and the Manhattan district attorney's office said Tacopina's representations so far are insufficient. ‘[T]he People request that the Court make certain additional inquiries of Mr. Tacopina and conduct a Gomberg inquiry of the defendant,’ executive assistant district attorney Susan Hoffinger wrote in a letter to the court, referring to a hearing that would establish that Trump knowingly opts to continue with Tacopina as his attorney notwithstanding any conflict.” [ABC News, 4/17/23]
April 25, 2023: The Manhattan DA’s Office Asked A Judge For An Order To Prohibit Trump From Discussing Evidence Turned Over To Him Prior To His Trial. According to Bloomberg, “Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office asked a judge to issue an order prohibiting former President Donald Trump from publicly discussing information prosecutors turn over to his lawyers before he’s tried on business fraud charges. ‘The risk that this defendant will use the covered materials inappropriately is substantial,’ Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Catherine McCaw wrote. ‘Defendant has a long history of discussing his legal matters publicly — including by targeting witnesses, jurors, investigators, prosecutors, and judges with harassing, embarrassing, and threatening statements on social media and in other public forums — and he has already done so in this case.’” [Bloomberg, 4/25/23]
May 4, 2023: Judge Merchan Ruled That Trump Could Not Talk About Evidence, Including Names And Personal Information, That Was Obtained By The DA And Turned Over To Trump’s Defense Team. According to the New York Post, “Former President Donald Trump has been banned from talking — or posting — about certain evidence uncovered in the Manhattan District Attorney’s ‘hush money’ criminal case. Justice Juan Merchan handed down the ruling Thursday during a Manhattan Supreme Court hearing after prosecutors sought a protective order to restrict Trump, 76, from publicly revealing any evidence handed over to his legal team as the case unfolds. The judge — who insisted he was not imposing a ‘gag order’ — said Trump was prohibited from talking about evidence specifically obtained by the DA’s Office and turned over to the defense to prepare for trial, including people’s names or personal information. ‘I am not going to do anything … to infringe on his First Amendment rights,’ the judge said. Merchan said Trump is still free to talk about information that is already on the public record, as well as the vast majority of evidence tied to the case that has comes from the defense.” [New York Post, 5/4/23]
Judge Merchan Blocked Subpoenas For Severance, Confidentiality And Non-Disclosure Agreements For 10 Trump Organization Employees, But Allowed Subpoenas For Seven Others To Be Granted. According to CBS News, “Merchan also partially blocked, and partially granted, a subpoena from Bragg seeking severance, confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements related to 17 current and former Trump Organization employees. Merchan wrote that prosecutors documented why seven of those people were relevant to the case, but not the other 10.” [CBS News, 7/28/23]
May 16, 2023: The Manhattan DA’s Office Said Trump Was Not Entitled To Additional Details About The Charges He Faces From The Stormy Daniels Hush Money Payment. According to ABC News, “Former President Donald Trump ‘has more than sufficient information to prepare his defense’ and is not entitled to a written statement with additional details about the criminal charges he is facing, the Manhattan district attorney's office argued Tuesday in a new court filing. Trump, who last month pleaded not guilty in a New York City courtroom to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a 2016 hush money payment, is seeking a bill of particulars that would contain details about the prosecutors' theory of the case that are not included in the indictment.” [ABC News, 5/16/23]
May 16, 2023: The Manhattan DA’s Filing Said Trump Allegedly Falsified Business Records In An Attempt To Conceal Violations Of State And Federal Law. According to Business Insider, “Assistant District Attorney Becky Mangold did tip the DA's hand slightly in the filing. Trump allegedly falsified business records to conceal violations of the following state and federal laws, the filing revealed.” [Business Insider, 5/16/23]
May 23, 2023: Prosecutors Turned Over Discovery Evidence To Trump’s Legal Team At The Hearing. According to CNN, “Prosecutors turned over discovery material to Trump’s lawyers in court during the hearing Tuesday. Scheduling deadlines in the case have been pushed back to give the defense more time to review the materials.” [CNN, 5/23/23]
May 26, 2023: Prosecutors In The Stormy Daniels Case Said In Court Documents That They Have A Recorded Conversation Between Trump And A Witness. According to CBS News, “Prosecutors in former President Donald Trump's Manhattan criminal case have released to his attorneys a recording of Trump and a witness, whose identity was not disclosed, according to a document the office made public Friday. The document, called an automatic discovery form, describes the nature of the charges against a defendant and a broad overview of the evidence that prosecutors will present at Trump's preliminary hearing or at trial. Trump's attorneys and media organizations, including CBS News, had repeatedly requested that such a form be made public in the weeks since Trump's arrest on April 4. […] The document lists the dates of 34 instances between Feb. 14, 2017 and Dec. 5, 2017 when he allegedly falsified records. In a section devoted to electronic evidence that will be turned over, a prosecutor for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office indicated they have disclosed to the defense a ‘recording of a conversation between defendant and a witness.’” [CBS News, 5/26/23]
June 20, 2023: The Manhattan DA’s Office Subpoenaed Trump’s Deposition In The E Jean Carroll Case. According to CBS News, “New York prosecutors have subpoenaed former President Donald Trump's deposition in a lawsuit filed by the writer E. Jean Carroll for use in the state's ‘hush money’ criminal case against him. In a court filing Tuesday, prosecutors maintained that upon reviewing portions of Trump's video deposition in the E. Jean Carroll case that were publicly released, ‘a number of the subject matters about which defendant testified under oath relate to facts at issue in this case and are therefore relevant and material to this proceeding.’” [CBS News, 6/20/23]
Trump Sought To Squash The Subpoena For The Deposition As Well As For Communications Between Trump Organization Personnel And White House Staff In 2017. According to CBS News, “In filings that have not been made public, Trump's legal team sought to quash that subpoena and another seeking a variety of communications between Trump Organization employees and White House staff between Inauguration Day 2017 and Dec. 31, 2017. Some of the individuals listed include former Trump CFO Allan Weisselberg, Ivanka Trump, aide Dan Scavino, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, former Trump Organization chief legal officer and Israel adviser Jason Greenblatt, former White House communications director Hope Hicks and others.” [CBS News, 6/20/23]
July 28, 2023: Merchan Indicated He Would Allow A Subpoena For Trump’s Deposition In The E Jean Carroll Case As Long As The Video Was Not Protected By A Confidentiality Agreement. According to CBS News, “Merchan indicated in the ruling he would not block another subpoena in which Bragg's office sought the lengthy videotaped deposition Trump gave to attorneys for writer E. Jean Carroll prior to a federal civil trial in which a jury found him liable for sexually abusing her. Portions of the deposition were played at the trial, but Merchan didn't outright order the tape be turned over to prosecutors. Instead, he instructed prosecutors to ask the federal judge to clarify if the rest of the video is still protected by a confidentiality order put in place before the trial.” [CBS News, 7/28/23]
August 3, 2023: A Federal Judge Ruled That Trump’s Deposition In The E Jean Carroll Trial And Related Materials Be Given To The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. According to the Messenger, “A federal judge has ordered that former President Donald Trump's full deposition, interview transcript, and any related materials from E. Jean Carroll's sexual assault case lawsuit filed against him be turned over to the Manhattan District Attorney's office. Prosecutors in Manhattan are seeking to use the footage of Trump being deposed to show how he ‘dealt with allegations of a sexual nature.’” [Messenger, 8/3/23]
Trump Sought To Squash A Subpoena For Communications Between Melania And Trump’s Longtime Assistant Rhona Graff From 2015 To 2017. According to CBS News, “Trump also sought to quash subpoenas over a longer period of time, from Jan. 1, 2015 through Jan. 20, 2017, of all of the emails between his wife, Melania Trump, and longtime Trump assistant Rhona Graff, as well as his travel itineraries for that period of time.” [CBS News, 6/20/23]
Merchan Blocked A Subpoena For Melania Trump’s Emails In The Stormy Daniels Case. According to CBS News, “A New York judge has ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump's effort to block a pair of Manhattan district attorney subpoenas seeking emails sent by former first lady Melania Trump and other documents in his New York criminal case. The judge, Juan Merchan, ruled that the subpoenas were overly broad. Prosecutors for Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg's office had sought to obtain those emails and documents as part of a felony case against Trump for alleged falsification of business records.” [CBS News, 7/28/23]
Merchan Squashed Other Subpoenas, Including Travel Itineraries, Emails From White House Officials, And Emails From Former Trump Executive Assistant Rhona Graff. According to CBS News, “The quashed subpoenas also sought nearly a year's worth of emails between Trump Organization employees and White House officials, more than two years of Trump's travel itineraries, and emails between former Trump executive assistant Rhona Graff and Melania Trump, as well as from Graff to former director of Oval Office operations Keith Schiller. ‘This request would yield significantly more responsive records than necessary,’ Merchan wrote of the subpoena related to Melania Trump.” [CBS News, 7/28/23]
May 4, 2023: Trump’s Legal Team Filed Papers To Move Case To Federal Court. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump is seeking to move his criminal hush-money case to federal court, away from the state judge whom he’s accused of being biased against him. Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, on Thursday afternoon filed papers formally requesting a transfer.” [Bloomberg, 5/4/23]
[New York Times, 5/4/23]
May 9, 2023: Judge Hellerstein Said The Case Could Proceed In New York State Court While The Motion To Move It To Federal Court Was Ongoing. According to ABC News, “‘In the meantime, proceedings may continue in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County,’ Hellerstein's order said.” [ABC News, 5/9/23]
June 1, 2023: Federal Judge Hellerstein Disclosed That He Did Work For Trump Equitable Fifth Avenue Decades Earlier. According to ABC News, “The federal judge in New York who will decide whether to move former President Donald Trump's criminal case from state court to federal court previously did work for a Trump entity while he was in private practice, according to a court filing Thursday. […] Judge Alvin Hellerstein, in a letter addressed to Trump's attorneys and the Manhattan district attorney's office, said that as a partner at the law firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, he once performed legal work for Trump Equitable Fifth Avenue, an entity that once owned Trump Tower in Manhattan. Hellerstein retired from Stroock & Stroock & Lavan in 1998.” [ABC News, 6/1/23]
May 30, 2023: The Manhattan DA Said His Case Against Trump Belonged In New York State Court Because Trump’s Actions “Had No Connection To His Official Duties And Responsibilities As President.” According to Bloomberg, “Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg says his hush-money prosecution of Donald Trump belongs in state court because the alleged criminal conduct ‘had no connection to his official duties and responsibilities as president.’” [Bloomberg, 5/30/23]
June 15, 2023: Trump Argued In A Court Filing To Move The Stormy Daniels Case To Federal Court. According to ABC News, “Former President Donald Trump tried again in a new court filing to get his criminal prosecution in New York moved to federal court, arguing the alleged crimes ‘took place while the president was in office.’ Trump's attorneys accused the Manhattan district attorney's office, known by the acronym DANY, of ‘deceptively mischaracterizing and ignoring the applicable facts and body of law’ by seeking to keep the case in state court. ‘According to DANY, the crux of its case was a purportedly 'illegal scheme that was largely perpetrated before defendant became [P]resident.' Such an alleged scheme, albeit nonexistent, could only violate federal, not state, campaign finance laws, as made clear by both the federal jurisprudence and the New York State election board,'’ the defense filing said.” [ABC News, 6/16/23]
June 27, 2023: Judge Hellerstein Indicated He Would Deny Trump’s Request To Move The Stormy Daniels Case To Federal Court. According to the New York Times, “A judge on Tuesday indicated that he was likely to deny a request from lawyers for Donald J. Trump to move a New York State criminal case against the former president to federal court. The federal judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein, said that he would issue a written ruling within two weeks, but was inclined not to transfer the case brought by the Manhattan district attorney’s office which stems from a hush-money payment before the 2016 presidential election. ‘There is no reason to believe that an equal measure of justice couldn’t be rendered by the state court,’ Judge Hellerstein said, after calling a central argument made by one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers ‘far-fetched.’” [New York Times, 6/27/23]
July 19, 2023: Federal Judge Hellerstein Ruled That The Manhattan District Attorney’s Case In The Stormy Daniels Affair Would Stay In State Court. According to Politico, “The Manhattan district attorney’s criminal case against former President Donald Trump will remain in state court instead of being moved to federal court, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. The ruling is a loss for Trump, who wanted the case moved to federal court. The felony charges from the Manhattan D.A.’s office accuse Trump of falsifying business records in connection with a scheme to pay hush money to silence affair allegations made by porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the 34 charges.” [Politico, 7/19/23]
July 28, 2023: Trump Appealed The Decision To Keep The Stormy Daniels Case In State Court. According to the Associated Press, “Donald Trump asked a federal appeals court Friday to reverse a federal judge’s decision to keep his hush-money criminal case in a New York state court that the former president claims is ‘very unfair’ to him. Trump’s lawyers filed a notice of appeal with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan after U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein last week rejected his bid to move the case to federal court, where his lawyers were primed to argue he was immune from prosecution. U.S. law allows criminal prosecutions to be moved from state to federal court if they involve actions taken by federal government officials as part of their official duties, but Hellerstein ruled that the hush-money case involved a personal matter, not presidential duties.” [Associated Press, 7/28/23]
November 14, 2023: Trump Dropped His Effort To Move The Stormy Daniels Case To Federal Court. According to the Messenger, “Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday dropped his effort to move a criminal case against him in connection with hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels from state court to federal court. The development, made public via a one-page notice from Trump's lawyers to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, means that the case will remain in state jurisdiction before Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan.” [Messenger, 11/14/23]
May 31, 2023: Trump Filed A Motion For To Request The Recusal Of Judge Merchan. According to the New York Times, “Former President Donald J. Trump is asking the judge overseeing his criminal case in Manhattan to step aside, citing ties between the judge’s family and Democratic causes, Mr. Trump’s lawyers said in a statement Wednesday. The motion for recusal, which has not yet been filed publicly, represents the latest effort by Mr. Trump’s lawyers to move his case away from the judge, Juan M. Merchan of State Supreme Court in Manhattan.” [New York Times, 5/31/23]
June 10, 2023: The New York Advisory Committee On Judicial Ethics Signaled That Judge Merchan Would Not Need To Recuse Himself From The Stormy Daniels Case. According to Reuters, “A New York judicial ethics committee signaled that the state judge overseeing the criminal case against former President Donald Trump over hush money payments to a porn star will not need to recuse himself as Trump has requested. The one-page opinion released on Saturday by New York's Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics does not identify anyone by name, but mirrors the case against Trump brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and overseen by Justice Juan Merchan of the state court there.” [Reuters, 6/12/23]
June 20, 2023: The Manhattan DA’s Office Said Trump’s Attempt To Move The Case To A Different Judge Should Be Rejected. According to Reuters, “Donald Trump's bid to oust the judge overseeing the criminal case against him over a hush-money payment to a porn star should be rejected, the Manhattan District Attorney's office said in a filing on Tuesday. Trump has a ‘history of baselessly accusing state and federal judges around the country of bias,’ prosecutors wrote in opposing Trump's motion for New York state Justice Juan Merchan to remove himself from the case.” [Reuters, 6/20/23]
August 11, 2023: Judge Marchan Rejected Trump’s Motion To Recuse Himself. According to the Associated Press, “The judge in Donald Trump’s Manhattan hush-money criminal case has rejected the former president’s demand to step aside, denying defense claims that he’s biased against the Republican front-runner because he’s given cash to Democrats and his daughter is a party consultant. New York Judge Juan Manuel Merchan acknowledged in a ruling late Friday that he made several small donations to Democratic causes during the 2020 campaign, including $15 to Trump’s Democratic rival Joe Biden, but said he is certain of his ‘ability to be fair and impartial.’” [Associated Press, 8/14/23]
April 30, 2024: A New York Appeals Court Rejected Trump’s Motion To Recuse Judge Merchan. According to ABC News, “An appellate court has denied former President Trump's bid to have Judge Juan Merchan recused from his hush money trial. Trump's application sought a stay of the proceedings and Merchan's recusal. Both were denied without explanation by the appellate judge.” [ABC News, 4/30/24]
October 4, 2023: Trump Moved To Have The Stormy Daniels Case Dismissed. According to CNN, “Former President Donald Trump urged a New York judge to dismiss criminal charges relating to hush money payments in sweeping arguments that included claims Trump was indicted to interfere in his 2024 presidential campaign. Trump’s lawyers argued that the Manhattan district attorney’s office waited five years after the investigation was initially launched and then only seated the grand jury that handed up the indictment weeks after Trump announced last fall that he was running for president again. ‘The indictment was filed six years after the conduct at issue, more than four-and-a-half years after DANY began to investigate it, and more than three years after DANY started presenting evidence to a grand jury,’ his attorneys wrote. ‘The delay has prejudiced President Trump, interfered with his ongoing presidential campaign, and violated his due process rights,’ they wrote.” [CNN, 10/4/23]
November 16, 2023: The Manhattan DA’s Office Urged The Court To Reject Trump’s Motion To Dismiss The Charges In The Stormy Daniels Case. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump’s bid to dismiss Manhattan criminal charges over hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels boils down to an argument that the former president deserves special treatment, prosecutors told a judge. ‘This argument is essentially an attempt to evade criminal responsibility because defendant is politically powerful,’ prosecutors in the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said Thursday in a court filing. ‘Courts have repeatedly rejected defendant’s demands for special treatment and instead have adhered to the core principle that the rule of law applies equally to the powerful as to the powerless.’” [Bloomberg, 11/16/23]
Prosecutors Argued That Trump Sought “Special Treatment” Because He Was Running For President. According to ABC News, “In their new filing, prosecutors argued the existence of a political campaign should have no bearing on the criminal prosecution. ‘Defendant repeatedly suggests that because he is a current presidential candidate, the ordinary rules for criminal law and procedure should be applied differently here. This argument is essentially an attempt to evade criminal responsibility because defendant is politically powerful,’ prosecutors said. ‘Courts have repeatedly rejected defendant's demands for special treatment and instead have adhered to the core principle that the rule of law applies equally to the powerful as to the powerless,’ they wrote.” [ABC News, 11/16/23]
November 21, 2023: Michael Cohen Moved To Quash A Subpoena From Trump For Being “Wildly Overbroad.” According to the Messenger, “Donald Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen asked a judge on Tuesday to quash a ‘wildly overbroad’ subpoena in the former president’s criminal hush-money case in New York City. ‘The subpoena issued to Mr. Cohen is an obvious and blatant act of witness intimidation, and merely the latest incident in a years-long pattern of harassment and retaliation by defendant Trump,’ the 33-page motion to quash states.” [Messenger, 11/21/23]
The Manhattan DA Agreed With Cohen That The Subpoena Was Overbroad. According to the Messenger, “On Nov. 9, 2023, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office also asked Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan to sideline the subpoena to Cohen on similar grounds. Both the DA’s request and Cohen’s ask notes that Trump sued his ex-fixer for half a billion dollars before withdrawing the lawsuit.” [Messenger, 11/21/23]
Tacopina Withdrew As Trump’s Attorney In The Stormy Daniels Case. According to the New York Times, “Joseph Tacopina, the trial lawyer on Donald J. Trump’s legal team with the most successes defending high-profile clients, will no longer represent the former president in his criminal trial in Manhattan, according to a notice sent to the court on Monday. […] His departure from the two cases comes as Mr. Trump enters a year of legal uncertainty. He faces four criminal indictments, and trials with dates that are up in the air. The trial in Manhattan, in which he is accused of falsifying business records to hide hush-money payments to a porn star during the 2016 election, could begin as early as March.” [New York Times, 1/15/24]
Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg Was Allegedly Negotiating A Plea Deal With Manhattan Prosecutors To Plead Guilty To Perjury For Lying During Trump’s Civil Fraud Trial. According to the New York Times, “Allen H. Weisselberg, a longtime lieutenant to Donald J. Trump, is negotiating a deal with Manhattan prosecutors that would require him to plead guilty to perjury, people with knowledge of the matter said. As part of the potential agreement with the Manhattan district attorney’s office, Mr. Weisselberg would have to admit that he lied on the witness stand in Mr. Trump’s recent civil fraud trial, the people said.” [New York Times, 2/1/24]
Weisselberg Was Not Expected To Be A Witness Against Trump In The Stormy Daniels Case. According to the New York Times, “The deal being negotiated would most likely not require Mr. Weisselberg, 76, to turn on his former boss. Although Mr. Weisselberg was involved in the action at the heart of that case — a hush-money payment meant to bury a potential sex scandal just before the 2016 election — prosecutors are not expected to call him as a witness. And the investigation that most required Mr. Weisselberg’s help, the district attorney’s inquiry into Mr. Trump’s finances, may no longer be a priority for prosecutors.” [New York Times, 2/1/24]
Weisselberg’s Perjury Charges Could Discredit His Previous Testimony In Dispute Of The Prosecution’s Evidence In The Stormy Daniels Case. According to the New York Times, “Although the potential agreement is unlikely to immediately affect Mr. Trump, it could strengthen Mr. Bragg’s hand before the former president’s trial. It could deter other witnesses in Mr. Trump’s circle from lying on the stand. And perjury charges could discredit Mr. Weisselberg, who has disputed details of the prosecution’s evidence in the case involving the 2016 election.” [New York Times, 2/1/24]
Judge Merchan Ruled That The Trial Would Begin As Scheduled On March 25. According to Politico, “Former President Donald Trump’s first criminal trial will start on March 25 as scheduled, a judge ruled in New York on Thursday, denying Trump’s attempts to delay or dismiss the case. The case involves hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels.” [Politico, 2/15/24]
February 26, 2024: Manhattan DA Bragg Asked For A Limited Gag Order Be Imposed On Trump. According to ABC News, “Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on Monday asked a judge to impose a limited gag order on former President Donald Trump, who is charged in New York with falsifying business records related to hush money he paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. In their request, prosecutors cited what they called Trump's ‘longstanding and perhaps singular history’ of attacking people he considers to be adversaries, including those associated with his other criminal and civil cases.” [ABC News, 2/26/24]
Bragg Asked That Trump Be Barred From Making Public Statements About All People Involved In The Trial Except For Bragg Himself. According to ABC News, “The Manhattan district attorney's office wants the judge to bar Trump from making public statements about witnesses, jurors, court staff and prosecutors other than the elected DA, Alvin Bragg.” [ABC News, 2/26/24]
Trump Opposed Bragg’s Request For A Limited Gag Order. According to Reuters, “Lawyers for Donald Trump asked a court on Monday to reject a prosecution request for a gag order at his March 25 criminal trial over hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels, arguing it would infringe on his right to free speech. ‘President Trump's political opponents have, and will continue to, attack him based on this case,’ his lawyers wrote. ‘The voters have the right to listen to President Trump's unfettered responses.’ They said the order sought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office would prevent Trump, the Republican frontrunner to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden, from speaking on a campaign issue in the run-up to the Nov. 5 U.S. presidential election. Gag orders restricting defendants from speaking publicly about certain aspects of legal proceedings may be imposed to try to prevent intimidation of witnesses or jurors, or to protect court staff from threats.” [Reuters, 3/4/24]
March 26, 2024: Judge Merchan Imposed A Limited Gag Order Against Trump. According to the New York Times, “The New York judge presiding over one of Donald J. Trump’s criminal trials imposed a gag order on Tuesday that prohibits him from attacking witnesses, prosecutors and jurors, the latest effort to rein in the former president’s wrathful rhetoric about his legal opponents. The judge, Juan M. Merchan, imposed the order at the request of the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which brought the case against Mr. Trump. The district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, has accused Mr. Trump of covering up a potential sex scandal during and after his 2016 campaign.” [New York Times, 3/26/24]
Trump Complained About Judge Merchan’s Daughter Prior To, And After, The Releasing Of The Gag Order
March 26, 2024: Hours Before The Gag Order Was Announced, Trump Complained About Judge Merchan’s Daughter. According to Rolling Stone, “LIKE A TODDLER who did not get their way, Trump threw a fit online the day after a New York judge finalized the start date for his criminal hush-money trial. Judge Juan Merchan on Monday rejected Trump’s efforts to further delay the trial and scheduled jury selection to begin on April 15, leading Trump to spend the rest of the day bashing everyone involved in the case, including Judge Merchan. He continued his assault on Tuesday, writing on his Truth Social page: ‘he hates me!’ He then dragged Merchan’s daughter into the argument as evidence. ‘His daughter is a senior executive at a Super Liberal Democrat firm that works for Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, the Democrat National Committee, (Dem)Senate Majority PAC, and even Crooked Joe Biden,’ Trump wrote.” [Rolling Stone, 3/26/24]
March 27, 2024: Trump Attacked Judge Merchan And His Daughter After The Judge Put Trump Under A Gag Order. According to the Associated Press, “Donald Trump lashed out Wednesday at the New York judge who put him under a gag order ahead of his April 15 hush-money criminal trial, making a fallacious claim about his daughter and urging him to step aside from the case. In a social media post, the former president suggested without evidence that Judge Juan M. Merchan was kowtowing to his daughter’s interests as a Democratic political consultant. He also made a claim — later repudiated by court officials — that she had posted a social media photo showing Trump behind bars. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, complained on his Truth Social platform that the gag order issued Tuesday was ‘illegal, un-American, unConstitutional.’ He said that Merchan, a veteran Manhattan jurist, was ‘wrongfully attempting to deprive me of my First Amendment Right to speak out against the Weaponization of Law Enforcement’ by Democratic rivals.” [Associated Press, 3/27/24]
Trump Claimed That Judge Merchan’s Daughter Had Attacked Trump On Social Media, While The New York State Court System Said That The Account Trump Cited No Longer Belonged To Merchan’s Daughter. According to the Associated Press, “Trump claimed that Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, whose firm has worked on campaigns for President Joe Biden and other Democrats, had recently posted a photo on social media depicting her ‘obvious goal’ of seeing him jailed. In a statement, a spokesperson for New York’s state court system said that claim was false and that the social media account Trump was referencing no longer belongs to Loren Merchan. It appears to have been taken over by someone else after she deleted it about a year ago, court spokesperson Al Baker said. The account on X, formerly known as Twitter, ‘is not linked to her email address, nor has she posted under that screenname since she deleted the account. Rather, it represents the reconstitution, last April, and manipulation of an account she long ago abandoned,’ Baker said.” [Associated Press, 3/27/24]
March 28, 2024: Trump Attacked Judge Merchan’s Daughter For Third Time In A Week. According to Rolling Stone, “For a third time this week, Donald Trump went on an unhinged social media attack targeting the daughter of the judge in his upcoming hush money trial — this time calling her out by name. ‘Judge Juan Merchan is totally compromised, and should be removed from this TRUMP Non-Case immediately’ Trump wrote on his Truth Social account Thursday, adding that his daughter ‘is a Rabid Trump Hater, who has admitted to having conversations with her father about me, and yet he gagged me.’ Rolling Stone has withheld her name as she is not involved in the case.” [Rolling Stone, 3/28/24]
The Gag Order Was Expanded To Cover Family Members After Trump’s Attacks
April 1, 2024: The Gag Was Expanded To Cover The Families Of Judge Merchan And DA Bragg, But Not The Judge And DA Themselves. According to the New York Times, “The New York judge overseeing Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial later this month expanded a gag order on Monday to bar the former president from attacking the judge’s family members, who in recent days have become the target of Mr. Trump’s abuse. Justice Juan M. Merchan last week issued an order prohibiting Mr. Trump from attacking witnesses, prosecutors, jurors and court staff, as well as their relatives. That order, however, did not cover Justice Merchan himself or the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, who brought the criminal case against the former president. And although the ruling issued on Monday still does not apply to the judge or the district attorney, Justice Merchan, granting a request from Mr. Bragg’s office, amended the gag order so that it does now cover their families. In his ruling, the judge cited recent attacks against his daughter, and rejected Mr. Trump’s argument that his statements were ‘core political speech.’” [New York Times, 4/1/24]
April 25, 2024: Prosecutors Accused Trump Of Four Violations Of His Gag Order. According to the New York Times, “Prosecutors on Thursday accused former President Donald J. Trump of violating a gag order four additional times, saying that he continues to defy the judge’s directions not to attack witnesses, prosecutors and jurors in his hush-money trial. ‘He’s doing what the order tells him not to do,’ said Christopher Conroy, a prosecutor for the Manhattan district attorney. As Mr. Conroy laid out what he said were violations, Mr. Trump whispered to his lawyer Todd Blanche and frowned. After they spoke, Mr. Blanche rubbed his face several times. With the latest allegations, prosecutors now say that Mr. Trump has violated the gag order 15 times in less than two weeks. The judge in the case, Juan M. Merchan, is expected to rule soon on earlier violations and could hold the former president in contempt or issue a fine.” [New York Times, 4/25/24]
May 9, 2024: Judge Merchan Rejected Trump’s Motion To Narrow The Gag Order. According to The Hill, “Former President Trump’s hush money judge rejected the former president’s request to narrow his gag order so he can speak publicly about porn actor Stormy Daniels now that she has completed her testimony in Trump’s ongoing criminal trial. Trump’s gag order limits his attacks against witnesses, among others, forcing the former president to stop pummeling some of his frequent targets on social media or risk jail time. On Thursday afternoon, hours after Daniels was excused, Trump attorney Todd Blanche argued that the witness had changed her version of events, referencing the defense’s lines of attack during cross examination. ‘He needs an opportunity to respond to the American people,’ Blanche said, adding that the reasons for the gag order are over. ‘She is no longer a witness,’ Blanche said. Judge Juan Merchan denied the motion from the bench, maintaining the restrictions that prevent Trump from criticizing the adult film star, one of prosecutors’ highest-profile witnesses. ‘That’s just not the track record,’ Merchan said. ‘The reason why the gag order is in place to begin with is precisely because of the nature of these attacks — the vitriol.’” [The Hill, 5/9/24]
June 25, 2024: Judge Merchan Partially Lifted The Gag Order On Trump Concerning Witnesses And Jurors. According to NPR, “Former President Donald Trump can now speak out about the witnesses and jurors in his New York criminal trial. The gag order in place throughout the trial was partially lifted on Tuesday in a new order from New York Judge Juan Merchan. In May, Trump became the first president to be convicted of a felony when the jury found him guilty of 34 felony counts of falsified business records. For the entire length of the trial, Trump was prohibited from making statements about potential witnesses, jurors or court staff and their families. Some limitations remain after Merchan’s order Tuesday. Citing ‘ample evidence to justify continued concern for the jurors,’ Merchan left in place protections that prohibit Trump from naming or releasing identifying information about the jurors.” [NPR, 6/25/24]
The Order Remained In Effect Concerning Prosecutors, Court Staff, And Their Families. According to NPR, “Trump still can’t make comments about the prosecutors, court staff and their family until he is sentenced on July 11.” [NPR, 6/25/24]
February 26, 2024: Bragg Asked That Evidence About Michael Cohen’s Credibility Be Barred. According to the ABC News, “In a series of motions filed Monday, prosecutors also asked the judge to bar the defense from introducing evidence or argument about Cohen's credibility. Cohen was accused of committing perjury when he testified in October in Trump's civil fraud trial.” [ABC News, 2/26/24]
February 26, 2024: Trump Moved To Have Michael Cohen, Karen McDougal, And Stormy Daniels Barred From Testifying. According to The Hill, “Former President Trump’s lawyers in his hush-money case on Monday demanded a New York judge block key witnesses from testifying in Trump’s first criminal trial set to begin next month. Trump attorney Todd Blanche moved to block testimony from Michael Cohen, Trump’s ex-fixer, and two women he paid to stay quiet about affairs they alleged with Trump: Porn actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Trump’s reimbursements to Cohen are the thrust of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s (D) prosecution of Trump, who denies the affairs and pleaded not guilty to his 34 charges of falsifying business records. The 47-page motion attacks the witnesses’ credibility at length, casting Cohen as a ‘liar’ and suggesting Daniels would offer ‘false’ and ‘salacious’ testimony.” [The Hill, 2/26/24]
March 6: Trump’s Legal Team Said They Would Not Seek An Acquittal Based On Selective Prosecution. According to ABC News, “In Wednesday's filing, Trump's lawyers also tempered their longstanding argument regarding selective prosecution -- that Trump was targeted by Bragg for political reasons -- and acknowledged their plans not to ask the jury for an acquittal based on that argument. ‘While we disagree with the Court's ruling, we acknowledge that the constitutional question presented is not one for the jury,’ defense lawyers wrote.” [ABC News, 3/6/24]
March 7: Judge Merchan Ruled That The Names Of The Jurors In The Stormy Daniels Case Would Not Be Made Public. According to CNN, “The New York judge overseeing Donald Trump’s criminal trial beginning later this month agreed to limit access to juror information, citing the possibility of harassment. Judge Juan Merchan granted motions by prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office to restrict who can know the names of jurors to Trump, the attorneys, staff and consultants in the case, forbidding them from being shared with anyone else. Merchan said he found ‘compelling’ prosecutors’ argument that Trump has a history of publicly attacking jurors involved in other cases.” [CNN, 3/7/24]
Judge Merchan Ruled That Trump Could Not Have Access To The Jurors Home Addresses, Which Would Be Restricted To The Attorneys Only. According to CNN, “The judge also said he would limit who can have knowledge of jurors addresses to only the attorneys in the case, making clear that Trump and anyone else cannot know where the jurors live or work. ‘The Court further finds good cause, on the record before it, ‘that there is a likelihood of bribery, jury tampering, or of physical injury or harassment of juror(s),’’ Merchan wrote, quoting the legal standard.” [CNN, 3/7/24]
March 14: The Manhattan DA’s Office Said They Would Not Oppose A 30-Day Delay To The Start Of The Trial After Receiving Records From Federal Prosecutors. According to Politico, “Donald Trump’s criminal trial due to start later this month could be postponed after the Manhattan district attorney’s office said in a court filing Thursday that it would accept a 30-day delay in order to review records from federal prosecutors that are related to the case. Any delay in the trial, scheduled to begin March 25, would be a victory for Trump, who has been fighting vigorously to postpone trials in all four of his criminal cases. The Manhattan case, over a hush money payment Trump allegedly orchestrated during the 2016 election to silence a porn star who claimed a sexual encounter with him, is set to be the first of the cases to go to trial.” [Politico, 3/14/24]
DA Bragg Said The Documents Were Recently Turned Over By Federal Prosecutors After Trump Submitted A Subpoena For Them In January. According to Politico, “Bragg responded Thursday that federal prosecutors only recently turned over a litany of documents in response to a subpoena that Trump served in January. Bragg said there was no basis to dismiss the case, but said he wouldn’t oppose a trial delay of up to 30 days to allow Trump to review the documents.” [Politico, 3/14/24]
DA Bragg Said That Federal Prosecutors Previously Declined To Turn Over The Documents When The Manhattan DA’s Office Asked For Them. According to Bloomberg, “Bragg’s office said federal prosecutors had ‘previously declined’ to turn over some of their evidence and only on Wednesday produced 31,000 additional pages, including material that appears relevant to the hush-money case, as a result of the Trump subpoenas.” [Bloomberg, 3/14/24]
Trump Asked The Court To Dismiss The Case Or Postpone The Trial By 90 Days. According to Politico, “In a motion submitted to the court last week that was made public Thursday, Trump requested that the case be dismissed outright or postponed at least 90 days. He accused Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office of failing to turn over thousands of pages of documents from federal prosecutors that could potentially help Trump’s case.” [Politico, 3/14/24]
March 15, 2024: The Stormy Daniels Trial Was Delayed For At Least 30 Days. According to CNN, “‘Trial on this matter is adjourned for 30 days from the date of this letter on consent of the People. The court will set the new trial date, if necessary, when it rules on Defendants motion following the hearing,’ the judge added.” [CNN, 3/15/24]
April 15, 2024: Date Proposed By The Manhattan DA’s Office For The Stormy Daniels Trial To Begin. According to the Associated Press, “New York prosecutors on Thursday urged a judge to start Donald Trump’s hush money criminal trial on April 15, saying the defense’s calls for further delays or dismissal of the former president’s case because of a last-minute evidence dump were a ‘red herring.’” [Associated Press, 3/21/24]
Prosecutors Said That Most Records Received From The U.S. Attorney’s Office In Manhattan Were Not Relevant To The Case. According to the Associated Press, “The vast majority of records that Trump’s lawyers received in recent weeks — more than 100,000 pages from a prior federal investigation into the matter — were ‘entirely immaterial, duplicative or substantially duplicative’ of evidence they’d already been given, the Manhattan district attorney’s office said. One batch containing 31,000 documents had fewer than 270 that were relevant to Trump’s case and had not previously been given to his lawyers, prosecutors said. The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan finished giving evidence to Trump’s lawyers on March 15.” [Associated Press, 3/21/24]
March 18, 2024: Judge Merchan Denied Trump’s Motion To Prevent Cohen And Daniels From Testifying. According to CNN, “Donald Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen and adult film star Stormy Daniels will be allowed to testify at the former president’s New York criminal trial, a judge ruled Monday. Judge Juan Merchan denied a motion from Trump’s attorneys to prevent Cohen and Daniels – two key witnesses in the Manhattan district attorney’s case – from testifying at Trump’s hush money trial, which could begin next month.” [CNN, 3/18/24]
Judge Merchan Ruled That McDougal Could Testify. According to CNN, “The judge also ruled he will allow testimony from former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who alleged she had an affair with Trump, though he granted there would be limitations on her testimony that would be discussed further at trial.” [CNN, 3/18/24]
Judge Merchan Ruled That The “Access Hollywood” Tape Would Not Be Played, But Could Be Discussed. According to CNN, “The judge also ruled that he would allow testimony about Trump’s infamous ‘Access Hollywood’ tape – but that playing the tape itself to jurors was ‘not necessary.’” [CNN, 3/18/24]
April 1, 2024: Trump Asked For A “Significant” Delay In The Trial Because Of Press Coverage. According to CNBC, “Attorneys for Donald Trump have asked a judge for a ‘significant’ delay of his fast-approaching criminal hush money trial, arguing the Republican presidential nominee cannot get a fair jury due to ‘prejudicial pretrial publicity.’ The trial on charges of falsifying business records must adjourn until that press coverage ‘abates,’ Trump’s lawyers wrote last week in a filing in New York Supreme Court.” [CNBC, 4/1/24]
April 8, 2024: Trump’s Attempt To Move The Stormy Daniels Trial Out Of Manhattan Was Rejected. According to the New York Times, “One week before Donald J. Trump is set to face a criminal trial in Manhattan, an appeals court judge on Monday rejected his effort to pause the case and move it to a different location. The judge, Lizbeth Gonzalez, issued the decision Monday afternoon after hearing arguments from Mr. Trump’s lawyers and lawyers from the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which has accused the former president of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal.” [New York Times, 4/8/24]
May 23, 2024: The New York Appellate Division Rejected Trump’s Request For A Change Of Venue. According to ABC News, “The court also denied Trump's request for a change of venue for the trial, which Trump had sought before the trial began last month.” [ABC News, 5/23/24]
April 9, 2024: A New York Appeals Court Judge Refused To Delay Trump’s Criminal Trial While Trump Pursued Legal Action Against Judge Merchan. According to the New York Times, “A New York appeals court judge on Tuesday rejected Donald J. Trump’s latest attempt to delay his criminal case in Manhattan, another blow to the former president’s increasingly desperate attempts to prevent the trial from starting next week. The appeals court judge, Cynthia S. Kern, denied Mr. Trump’s bid to pause the case while he pursues legal action against the judge presiding over the trial. Mr. Trump brought the action against the trial judge, Juan M. Merchan, in hopes that the appeals court would both delay the criminal case and throw out a gag order that Justice Merchan imposed on him.” [New York Times, 4/9/24]
May 23, 2024: The New York Appellate Division Rejected Trump’s Request To Force Judge Merchan To Recuse Himself. According to ABC News, “New York's Appellate Division has upheld Judge Juan Merchan's decision not to recuse himself from former President Trump's hush money case. Trump's defense team had sought Merchan's recusal based on his daughter's work for a consulting firm with Democratic clients. A panel of appellate judges ruled that Trump failed to prove the judge overstepped his authority by denying a defense motion for recusal. ‘Petitioner has failed to establish that the court acted in excess of its jurisdiction by denying his motion,’ today's order said. ‘Petitioner also has not established that he has a clear right to recusal.’ The judges also found that the defense appeal was procedurally improper since they waited too long to appeal Merchan's August 2023 recusal order, then rushed to the Appellate Division before Merchan ruled on their more recent recusal motion.” [ABC News, 5/23/24]
April 10, 2024: Trump’s Attempt To Delay The Stormy Daniels Trial Until The Appeals Court Reconsidered Judge Merchan’s Rulings Was Rejected. According to the New York Times, “Lawyers for Donald J. Trump have spent this week seeking to stave off the former president’s trial on charges that he covered up a sex scandal. They tried again Wednesday. Again, they failed. In Mr. Trump’s latest last-minute bid to delay a trial that starts Monday, he filed a civil action in an appeals court against the judge in the case, Juan M. Merchan. It sought to delay the trial while the appeals court reconsidered several of the judge’s rulings. A single appellate court judge, Ellen Gesmer, promptly rejected Mr. Trump’s request. Mr. Trump can now have his action heard by a full panel of five appellate court judges, but it would be nearly impossible for the court to act before the trial begins.” [New York Times, 4/10/24]
May 23, 2024: The New York Appellate Division Upheld Judge Merchan’s Decision Rejecting Trump’s Presidential Immunity Argument. According to ABC News, “The appellate court also upheld Merchan's decision denying Trump's argument that some of his social media posts were covered by presidential immunity. The appeals court said Trump could include both appeals in its general appeal of the verdict should he be found guilty.” [ABC News, 5/23/24]
April 12, 2024: Trump’s Bid To Delay The Stormy Daniels Trial Because Of Negative “Prejudicial” Publicity Was Rejected. According to the Associated Press, “The judge in Donald Trump's hush money criminal case on Friday turned down the former president’s request to postpone his trial because of publicity about the case. It was the latest in a string of delay denials that Trump got from various courts this week as he fought to stave off the hush money case, set to begin Monday with jury selection. Among other things, Trump's lawyers had argued that the jury pool was deluged with what the defense saw as ‘exceptionally prejudicial’ news coverage of the case. The defense maintained that was a reason to hold off the case indefinitely. Judge Juan M. Merchan wrote that Trump ‘appears to take the position that his situation and this case are unique and that the pre-trial publicity will never subside. However, this view does not align with reality.’” [Associated Press, 4/12/24]
April 8, 2024: Judge Merchan Released A 42 Question-Questionnaire For Jury Selection. According to NBC News, “The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump's hush money case in New York has approved a questionnaire for jury selection and instructions for prospective jurors in the trial, which is set to begin next week. In a letter Monday, state Judge Juan Merchan provided attorneys in the case with a jury questionnaire that consists of 42 numbered questions on a range of topics. The form does not ask about party affiliation, political contributions or voting history. Merchan pushed back against a contention by Trump's attorneys that potential jurors’ political affiliations and whether they like Trump is important to jury selection, saying that ‘contrary to defense counsel’s arguments, the purpose of jury selection is not to determine whether a prospective juror likes or does not like one of the parties.’” [NBC News, 4/8/24]
April 17, 2024: The Manhattan DA’s Office Wanted To Ask Trump About Other Cases Where He Or His Company Were Found Liable If Trump Took The Stand. According to Reuters, “Prosecutors on Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial want to ask the former U.S. president about civil cases in which he was found liable for sexual abuse and fraud if he chooses to testify, according to a document made public on Wednesday. It will be up to Justice Juan Merchan to decide whether the prosecutors with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office can ask Trump about those cases during his possible cross-examination, or whether they would be too prejudicial to Trump and not relevant enough to the trial.” [Reuters, 4/17/24]
April 18, 2024: 12 Jurors Selected For The Stormy Daniels Trial. According to the New York Times, “With a jury of 12 now seated, we are just days away from opening statements in the trial of Donald Trump, a key moment in what is already a landmark case. After some early drama, resulting in the dismissal of two previously seated jurors, Justice Juan Merchan swore in 12 Manhattanites today, completing the panel that will be asked to render a verdict in the first criminal trial of a former American president. ‘We have our jury,’ said the judge at 4:35 p.m.” [New York Times, 4/18/24]
April 22, 2024: Judge Merchan Ruled That Trump Could Be Cross-Examined About Defaming E Jean Carroll, The Civil Fraud Case, The Trump Foundation Case, And His Violations Of Various Gag Orders. According to The Hill, “A New York judge said Monday that Manhattan prosecutors can bring up several civil lawsuits involving former President Trump if he chooses to testify in his ongoing criminal trial. After hearing arguments Friday, Judge Juan Merchan ruled that prosecutors can cross-examine Trump about six of the 13 prior court determinations they requested to raise in their efforts to impugn the former president’s credibility in front of jurors. Merchan ruled that prosecutors are permitted to question Trump about two rulings — one by a judge, the other by a jury — finding that Trump defamed advice columnist E. Jean Carroll by denying her claims of sexual assault. The judge said prosecutors can also raise the decision in Trump’s civil fraud trial finding that he fraudulently manipulated property values as well as rulings finding that Trump violated the gag order in that case. Trump can also face questioning about a 2018 ruling in a lawsuit against his foundation.” [The Hill, 4/22/24]
April 30, 2024: Trump Was Fined $9,000 For Nine Gag Order Violation. According to the Associated Press, “Donald Trump was held in contempt of court Tuesday and fined $9,000 for repeatedly violating a gag order that barred him from making public statements about witnesses, jurors and some others connected to his New York hush money case. If he does it again, the judge warned, he could be jailed. Prosecutors had alleged 10 violations, but New York Judge Juan M. Merchan found there were nine. The ruling was a stinging rebuke for the Republican former president, who had insisted he was exercising his free speech rights.” [Associated Press, 4/30/24]
Judge Merchan Wrote That “Incarceratory Punishment” May Be Imposed If Trump Continued To Violate The Order. According to the Associated Press “Merchan wrote that Trump ‘is hereby warned that the Court will not tolerate continued willful violations of its lawful orders and that if necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, it will impose an incarceratory punishment.’” [Associated Press, 4/30/24]
May 6, 2024: Trump Was Fined $1,000 For Another Gag Order Violation. According to the Associated Press, “The judge presiding over Donald Trump’s hush money trial has fined him $1,000 for violating his gag order and sternly warned the former president that additional violation could result in jail time. The fine marks the second sanction for Trump for inflammatory comments about witnesses since the start of the trial last month. He was fined $9,000 last week for nine violations. Judge Juan M. Merchan warned Monday that additional gag order violations could potentially result in jail time, though he said that was ‘the last thing I want to do.’” [Associated Press, 5/6/24]
May 14, 2024: The New York Court Of Appeals Upheld Trump’s Gag Order. According to the New York Times, “A New York State appeals court on Tuesday upheld a gag order imposed on former President Donald J. Trump in his criminal trial in Manhattan, rejecting arguments that the measure had violated Mr. Trump’s First Amendment rights. The judge overseeing the trial, Juan M. Merchan, initially issued the order in March, barring Mr. Trump from threatening many participants in the proceeding, including jurors, witnesses, line prosecutors and staff members of the court. The order does not cover the judge himself or Alvin K. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, who brought the case against the former president. Since then, Justice Merchan has twice held Mr. Trump in contempt for violating the order, imposing $10,000 in fines. The judge has also warned Mr. Trump that if he continues to break the rules, he could face time in jail. In its decision Tuesday, a five-judge panel of the appeals court wrote that Justice Merchan had ‘properly determined’ that Mr. Trump’s ‘public statements posed a significant threat to the integrity of the testimony of witnesses and potential witnesses in this case.’” [New York Times, 5/14/24]
May 15, 2024: Trump Appealed His Gag Order To New York’s Highest Court. According to the Associated Press, “Donald Trump is seeking to have New York’s highest court intervene in his fight over a gag order that has seen him fined $10,000 and threatened with jail for violating a ban on commenting about witnesses, jurors and others connected to his hush money criminal trial. The former president’s lawyers filed a notice of appeal Wednesday, a day after the state’s mid-level appellate court refused his request to lift or modify the restrictions. The filing was listed on a court docket, but the document itself was sealed and not available.” [Associated Press, 5/15/24]
May 7, 2024: Trump’s Request For A Mistrial Denied. According to NBC News, “Trump’s lawyers also argued that some of Daniels’ account of the 2006 encounter ‘was unduly and inappropriately prejudicial.’ They then requested a mistrial. Trump lawyer Todd Blanche told the judge that Daniels’ unfair claims included her testimony that Trump didn’t use a condom and that she thinks she ‘blacked out’ for a part of it. ‘There’s no way to unring the bell, in our view,’ Blanche said during a dramatic exchange with prosecutors. Judge Juan Merchan shot down the mistrial motion but acknowledged that ‘there were things that would have been better left unsaid,’ adding that he would strike some of Daniels' testimony from the record.” [NBC News, 5/7/24]
May 9, 2024: Trump’s Second Request For A Mistrial Was Rejected. According to the New York Times, “Justice Juan M. Merchan ended a long day of testimony on Thursday by issuing a blistering ruling from the bench denying a request for a mistrial in former President Donald J. Trump’s criminal case in Manhattan. The ruling by Justice Merchan marked the second time this week that he rejected an attempt by one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers to seek a mistrial, although the frustration he displayed in court on Thursday afternoon was far beyond the emotion he showed after turning down the defense’s previous request on Tuesday.” [New York Times, 5/9/24]
May 7, 2024: Judge Merchan Rebuked Trump For “Cursing Audibly” During Stormy Daniels’ Testimony. According to Business Insider, “In a private conversation on Tuesday with prosecutors and Donald Trump's lawyers, the judge overseeing the former president's hush-money trial rebuked him for ‘cursing audibly’ during Stormy Daniels's testimony. New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan said Trump's behavior might have the effect of intimidating Daniels — who was testifying as a key witness in the case — and threatened to hold him in contempt of court once again. ‘I understand that your client is upset at this point, but he is cursing audibly, and he is shaking his head visually, and that's contemptuous,’ Merchan told Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche. ‘It has the potential to intimidate the witness, and the jury can see that.’” [Business Insider, 5/7/24]
June 6, 2024: Trump Asked For The Gag Order To Be Lifted Following The Conclusion Of The Trial. According to the New York Times, “Donald J. Trump’s lawyers on Tuesday asked the judge who oversaw the former president’s criminal trial to lift a gag order on their client as the presidential campaign intensifies. The lawyers said in a letter to the judge, Juan M. Merchan, that the end of the trial on Thursday nullified the need for the gag order, which bars the former president from attacking witnesses, the jury and others involved in the case. Mr. Trump was convicted of 34 felonies, with a jury determining that he had falsified documents related to a hush-money payment his former fixer made to a porn star in 2016. ‘Now that the trial is concluded, the concerns articulated by the government and the court do not justify continued restrictions on the First Amendment rights of President Trump,’ the lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, wrote in the letter.” [New York Times, 6/4/24]
April 22, 2024: Prosecutors Laid Out Their Case That Trump Conspired To Corrupt The 2016 Election In Their Opening Statement. Matthew Colangelo, a senior aide to the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, then seized on the conspiracy in the criminal case. Over the course of a 45-minute opening, as Mr. Bragg watched from the front row, Mr. Colangelo calmly walked the jury through the prosecution’s argument that Mr. Trump orchestrated the plot to corrupt the 2016 election. The scheme, he explained, involved hush-money deals with three people who had salacious stories to sell: a porn star, a Playboy model and a doorman at one of Mr. Trump’s buildings. Once Mr. Trump was president, Mr. Colangelo added, he agreed to ‘cook the books’ to cover up Mr. Cohen’s $130,000 payment to the porn star, Stormy Daniels. When Mr. Trump reimbursed Mr. Cohen, Mr. Colangelo said, Mr. Trump and his company falsified internal records, disguising the repayments as routine legal expenses. Mr. Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, one for each false check, ledger and invoice.” [New York Times, 4/22/24]
The Defense Said The Charges Were Just A “Business Records Violation” And “There’s Nothing Wrong With Trying To Influence An Election.” According to the New York Times, “ But Mr. Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche sought to undercut the prosecution’s lofty rhetoric with a more innocuous distillation of the case: a ‘business records violation.’ He called it ‘just 34 pieces of paper.’ […] Mr. Blanche, for his part, disputed that any accusations amounted to election interference. ‘I have a spoiler alert: There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election,’ he said. ‘It’s called democracy. They put something sinister on this idea as if it were a crime. You’ll learn it’s not.’” [New York Times, 4/22/24]
April 23, 2024: Pecker Testified That He Would Help Trump Suppress Harmful Stories During The 2016 Campaign. According to the Associated Press, “A veteran tabloid publisher testified Tuesday that he pledged to be Donald Trump ‘s ‘eyes and ears’ during his 2016 presidential campaign, recounting how he promised the then-candidate that he would help suppress harmful stories and even arranged to purchase the silence of a doorman. The testimony from David Pecker was designed to bolster the prosecution’s premise of a decades-long friendship between Trump and the former publisher of the National Enquirer that culminated in an agreement to give the candidate’s lawyer a heads-up on negative tips and stories so they could be quashed. The effort to suppress unflattering information was designed to illegally influence the election, prosecutors have alleged in striving to elevate the gravity of the first trial of a former American president and the first of four criminal cases against Trump to reach a jury.” [Associated Press, 4/23/24]
Pecker Said Cohen Was A Shadow Editor Of The National Enquirer’s Pro-Trump Coverage. According to the Associated Press, “Pecker painted Cohen as a shadow editor of the National Enquirer’s pro-Trump coverage, directing the tabloid to go after whichever Republican candidate was gaining momentum. ‘I would receive a call from Michael Cohen, and he would direct me and direct Dylan Howard which candidate and which direction we should go,’ Pecker said, referring to the tabloid’s then-editor. Pecker said he underscored to Howard that the agreement with the Trump operation was ‘highly, highly confidential.’ He said he wanted the tabloid’s bureau chiefs to be on the lookout for any stories involving Trump and said he wanted them to verify the stories before alerting Cohen. ‘I did not want anyone else to know this agreement I had and what I wanted to do,’ the ex-publisher added.” [Associated Press, 4/23/24]
Pecker Testified That The National Enquirer Paid A Trump Tower Doorman $30,000 For The Rights To A Story That Trump Fathered A Child With A Trump World Tower Employee. According to the Associated Press, “In another instance, Pecker recounted a $30,000 payment from the National Enquirer to a Trump Tower doorman for the rights to a rumor that Trump had fathered a child with an employee at Trump World Tower. The tabloid concluded the story was not true, and the woman and Trump have denied the allegations. As Pecker described receiving the tip in court, Trump shook his head. Pecker said upon hearing the rumor, he immediately called Cohen, who said it was ‘absolutely not true’ but that he would look into whether the people involved had indeed worked for Trump’s company. ‘I made the decision to purchase the story because of the potential embarrassment it had to the campaign and to Mr. Trump,’ Pecker said. In response to the prosecutor’s question about who he understood the boss to be, Pecker replied: ‘Donald Trump.’ Explaining why he decided to have the National Enquirer foot the bill, Pecker testified: ‘This was going to be a very big story. I believe it was important that this story be removed from the marketplace.’” [Associated Press, 4/23/24]
April 25, 2024: Pecker Testified That Days Before Trump’s Inauguration, Trump Thanked Him For Preventing Damaging Stories From Getting Out. According to the New York Times, “Days before Donald J. Trump became president in 2017, a cadre of advisers, officials and allies descended on his office at Trump Tower: a future secretary of state, his soon-to-be chief of staff, the F.B.I. director — and the publisher of The National Enquirer. The publisher, David Pecker, may have seemed out of place, but he had just performed an indispensable and confidential service to the Trump campaign: He had paid off a Playboy model, Karen McDougal, who had said she had an affair with Mr. Trump, and a doorman who had heard that Mr. Trump had fathered a child out of wedlock. The future president, triumphant, thanked Mr. Pecker for his service. ‘He said, ‘I want to thank you for handling the McDougal situation,’ and then he also said, ‘I wanted to thank you for the doorman situation,’’ Mr. Pecker testified at Mr. Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan Thursday, leaving it unclear if anyone else heard the exchange. ‘He said that the stories could be very embarrassing.’” [New York Times, 4/25/24]
Pecker Testified That McDougal’s Story Was Bought To Prevent It From Hurting Trump’s Campaign. According to the New York Times, “Mr. Pecker introduced the jury to a dark art in the world of supermarket tabloids, the practice known as ‘catch and kill’ — buying the rights to a story with no intention of publishing it. The National Enquirer used the tactic to silence Ms. McDougal and the doorman with his account of an out-of-wedlock child, which turned out to be false. He took jurors behind the scenes of the shady machinations, detailing how he had bought Ms. McDougal’s story for $150,000 and packaged the payment in a deal with other services that she would supposedly provide, including writing columns. Those services, he acknowledged, were camouflage for what he knew could have been an illegal donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign. In a powerful moment for the prosecution, Mr. Pecker acknowledged a clear-cut motive for keeping the model’s story under wraps: protecting Mr. Trump’s chance of winning the White House.
‘We didn’t want the story to embarrass Mr. Trump or embarrass or hurt the campaign,’ Mr. Pecker testified.” [New York Times, 4/25/24]
Pecker Testified That The Trump Campaign Was Concerned About The Affair With Daniels Getting Out After The “Access Hollywood” Tape Was Released. According to the New York Times, “The Trump campaign was particularly concerned about Ms. Daniels’s story. Mr. Pecker explained to the jury that he had learned Ms. Daniels was looking to sell her story just as Mr. Trump’s campaign was reeling from the publication of the ‘Access Hollywood’ recording, in which Mr. Trump boasted of grabbing women by their genitals. That tape, he said, ‘was very embarrassing, very damaging to the campaign.’ Mr. Pecker then told Mr. Cohen, the fixer, of Ms. Daniels’s efforts to sell her story of having had sex with Mr. Trump. Mr. Cohen ultimately paid her off, to the tune of $130,000. Mr. Pecker warned Mr. Cohen that if Ms. Daniels went public, Mr. Trump would be furious.” [New York Times, 4/25/24]
Pecker Testified That He Was Not Willing To Buy Daniels’ Story. According to the New York Times, “But Mr. Pecker had already shelled out the $150,000 to Ms. McDougal, and he balked at paying Ms. Daniels, leaving it to Mr. Cohen to strike the hush-money deal with her. ‘After paying out the doorman, after paying out Karen McDougal, we’re not paying out any more moneys,’ Mr. Pecker recalled telling Mr. Cohen.” [New York Times, 4/25/24]
Pecker Testified That He Advised Cohen To Buy The Daniels Story To Prevent Trump’s Wrath. According to the Associated Press, “At the same time, Pecker advised that someone — just not him — should do something to prevent the story from going public. “I said to Michael, ‘My suggestion to you is that you should buy the story and you should take it off the market because if you don’t and it gets out, I believe the boss will be very angry with you.’” [Associated Press, 4/25/24]
April 26, 2024: Defense Attorneys Questioned Pecker’s Memory And Previous Statements As He Concluded His Testimony. According to the Associated Press, “Donald Trump’s defense team attacked the credibility of prosecutors’ first witness in his hush money case on Friday, seeking to discredit testimony detailing a scheme to bury negative stories to protect the Republican’s 2016 presidential campaign. On the witness stand for a fourth day, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker was grilled about his memory and past statements as the defense tried to poke holes in potentially crucial testimony in the first criminal trial of a former American president.” [Associated Press, 4/26/24]
April 26, 2024: Longtime Trump Executive Assistant Graff Testified That She Added Daniels And McDougal’s Contact Information Into The Trump Organization’s Computer System. According to the Associated Press, “The second witness called to the stand was Rhona Graff, Trump’s longtime executive assistant. Graff, who started working for Trump in 1987 and left the Trump Organization in April 2021, has been described as his gatekeeper and right hand. Graff testified that she believed she was the one who added contact information for Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal to the Trump Organization’s computer system. The women’s listings were shown in court, with Daniels named in the system simply as ‘Stormy.’ Graff later noted that Trump never used computers.” [Associated Press, 4/26/24]
April 26, 2024: Banker Gary Farro Testified About The Bank Account That Michael Cohen Wanted To Use For The Stormy Daniels Payment. According to the Associated Press, “The case will resume Tuesday with the third prosecution witness, Gary Farro, a banker. Farro testified Friday about helping Cohen form a bank account for the limited liability company he used to facilitate the Daniels payment. Farro said Cohen led him to believe the firm, Essential Consultants LLC, would be involved in real estate consulting.” [Associated Press, 4/26/24]
Robert Browning, Executive Director Of The Archives At C-SPAN, Testified About Videos Of Trump Discussing Women Who Accused Him Of Sexual Assault. According to the New York Times, “Prosecutors on Tuesday called a seemingly low-profile witness to testify in the Donald J. Trump hush-money trial: Robert Browning, executive director of archives at C-SPAN, the cable television network that broadcasts government proceedings. But Mr. Browning ended up playing an important role. Mr. Browning spent about 20 minutes on the stand, and prosecutors began with a straightforward question: What is C-SPAN? Then they played a series of key clips from the network, starting with a Trump campaign rally in October 2016 at which the candidate attacked two women who had accused him of sexual assault. The decision by prosecutors to introduce the videos through Mr. Browning’s testimony was a way to contend with a ruling that the judge, Juan M. Merchan, had made at the trial’s start. The judge stopped the prosecution from presenting direct evidence about the many women who had accused Mr. Trump of assault as the 2016 campaign neared its end. But Justice Merchan allowed prosecutors to give a taste of that evidence to the jury in a different way: by playing the videos of Mr. Trump’s reactions to the allegations by the women.” [New York Times, 4/30/24]
April 30, 2024: Daniels’ And McDougal’s Former Lawyer Davidson Testified About The Negotiations Over Selling The Rights To Their Stories That They Had Sexual Affairs With Trump. According to the New York Times, “The most significant was Keith Davidson, a lawyer who represented the porn star Stormy Daniels when she received the $130,000 hush-money payment at the center of the case. Mr. Davidson negotiated the payout with Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, in the waning days of the 2016 presidential campaign in order to silence Ms. Daniels’s account of a sexual encounter with Mr. Trump. Mr. Davidson began his testimony by recounting his representation of another woman, Karen McDougal, a Playboy model who said she’d had an affair with Mr. Trump in 2006. He negotiated a payout from The National Enquirer that kept Ms. McDougal’s story from going public. In a striking stretch of testimony, Mr. Davidson read aloud for the jury a series of off-color text exchanges from 2016, telling an Enquirer editor that he had a ‘blockbuster Trump story’ about Mr. Trump cheating on his wife with Ms. McDougal. When some of Ms. McDougal’s women friends urged her to go to ABC News instead, Mr. Davidson warned that the story might slip away if The Enquirer didn’t pay, and fast. ‘Time is of the essence,’ Mr. Davidson wrote. ‘The girl is being cornered by the estrogen mafia,’ a message that Mr. Davidson, mortified by reading his years-old remarks to the jury, called ‘a very unfortunate, regrettable text.’” [New York Times, 4/30/24]
May 2, 2024: Trump’s Defense Argued That Daniels’ Lawyer Tried To Extort Trump. According to the New York Times, “Less than two weeks before Election Day 2016, a Beverly Hills lawyer’s two-word text message confirmed a transaction that Manhattan prosecutors say might have saved the candidacy of Donald J. Trump. ‘Funds received,’ it read. The message was sent by Keith Davidson, who in 2016 represented Stormy Daniels, a porn star who had threatened to go public with a damaging story about Mr. Trump shortly before that year’s presidential election. It was read aloud during Mr. Trump’s criminal trial on Thursday as prosecutors continued their questioning of Mr. Davidson, the first time that jurors have seen direct evidence of the hush-money payment at the case’s center. A defense lawyer, Emil Bove, in a furious cross-examination after prosecutors were finished, painted a suddenly red-faced Mr. Davidson as a serial extortionist. He accused Mr. Davidson of shaking down the Trump campaign, as Mr. Bove said he had other celebrities, including the reality television star who calls herself Tila Tequila and Charlie Sheen, the actor.” [New York Times, 5/2/24]
The Jury Heard A Tape Of Trump Instructing Cohen To Pay Pecker “With Cash” For The McDougal Story. According to the New York Times, “Two voices reverberated in the courtroom. The first was loud, deep and unctuous, the second was casual — until money came up. They were discussing a deal made during the 2016 presidential campaign to silence a woman who claimed to have had an extramarital affair with the Republican candidate. The first voice on the recording belonged to Michael D. Cohen, a former personal lawyer and fixer for Donald J. Trump. The second was the candidate himself, Mr. Trump, who on Thursday sat mutely as jurors heard his words. The Manhattan district attorney’s office used the tape, surreptitiously made by Mr. Cohen, to bring the trial’s two main characters together for the first time. The recording vividly captured how Mr. Cohen reported details of a key transaction to his then boss. On it, Mr. Cohen discusses a hush-money deal that the parent company of The National Enquirer made on Mr. Trump’s behalf with the former Playboy model Karen McDougal, as well as the question of how to deal with ‘the financing’ — that is, repaying — the supermarket tabloid’s publisher, David Pecker. ‘What financing?’ Mr. Trump asked, suddenly snapping to attention. He then directed Mr. Cohen to ‘pay with cash.’ (Mr. Pecker, the jurors already know, was never repaid.) The existence of the recording, made by Mr. Cohen about two months before the election, was previously known. But it demonstrated for the jury the direct involvement of the future president in what prosecutors have said was a conspiracy to help him get elected.” [New York Times, 5/2/24]
May 3, 2024: Former Senior Trump Hope Hicks Testified About Trump’s Damage-Control Efforts During The 2016 Campaign. According to Reuters, “Hope Hicks, a former top aide to Donald Trump, testified on Friday that he told her in the final days of the 2016 presidential election to deny that he had a sexual relationship with porn star Stormy Daniels. Hicks' testimony gave jurors an inside look at the campaign's damage-control efforts when Trump faced multiple accusations of unflattering sexual behavior in the waning weeks of his successful White House campaign. Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges of falsifying business records to cover up a $130,000 payment made at that time to Daniels, who was threatening to go public with her story of their 2006 sexual encounter.” [Reuters, 5/3/24]
Hicks Testified That She Found It Out Of Character When Trump Told Her Cohen Had Paid The Hush Money Out Of The “Kindness Of His Heart.” According to Reuters, “She said Trump told her that his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid off Daniels to ‘protect him from a false allegation’ out of the "kindness of his own heart.’ Hicks said she thought that would have been out of character for Cohen. ‘I didn’t know Michael to be an especially charitable person or selfless person,’ she said.” [Reuters, 5/3/24]
Former Trump Organization Controller McConney Testified That He Helped Arrange Cohen’s Reimbursement For the Daniels Payment. According to the New York Times, “Jeffrey S. McConney worked as the corporate controller at the Trump Organization and, prosecutors say, helped arrange the reimbursement for a $130,000 hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, who has long claimed to have had an affair with Donald J. Trump. That reimbursement is at the center of the criminal case against Mr. Trump. Prosecutors in the Manhattan district attorney’s office have accused Mr. Trump of falsifying business records by mislabeling the reimbursements to Michael D. Cohen, his former personal lawyer and fixer, as ‘legal expenses.’ Mr. Cohen made the payment to Ms. Daniels in the last days of the 2016 campaign.” [New York Times, 5/6/24]
McConney Testified That The First Payment To Cohen Was Approved By Trump Organization CFO Weisselberg And Agreed To By Don Jr. And Eric Trump. According to the New York Times, “Mr. Colangelo, the prosecutor, walked Mr. McConney through each of Mr. Cohen’s monthly invoices sent to the Trump Organization. The first came via email in February 2017, and Mr. Cohen was direct: ‘Pursuant to the retainer agreement kindly remit payment,” he wrote Mr. McConney. Mr. Weisselberg chimed in to approve, emailing Mr. McConney to say that he could release the money for Mr. Cohen, “per agreement with Don and Eric.” That was a reference to Mr. Trump’s adult sons, who took over the company when their father became president.” [New York Times, 5/6/24]
McConney Then Instructed Accounts Payable Supervisor Tarasoff To Release The Funds To Cohen And Label Them As “Legal Expenses.” According to the New York Times, “Mr. McConney then instructed Ms. Tarasoff, to pay and to note the charge in Mr. Trump’s ledger as ‘legal expenses’ that pertained to a ‘retainer,’ the very statements that prosecutors say are false. He explained that the company’s accounting software had a variety of descriptions for payments, and, ‘We were paying a lawyer, so I said to put it — posted it to legal expenses.’” [New York Times, 5/6/24]
Accounts Payable Supervisor Tarasoff Testified That Trump Himself Signed The Checks To Cohen. According to the New York Times, “Ms. Tarasoff took the stand herself on Monday afternoon to answer questions about the process; her testimony was granular yet essential. With Ms. Tarasoff, prosecutors introduced the checks, which Mr. Trump signed with a black Sharpie.” [New York Times, 5/6/24]
May 7, 2024: Daniels Testified About Her Sexual Encounter With Trump. According to NBC News, “Adult film actor Stormy Daniels took the witness stand at Donald Trump's New York criminal trial Tuesday, testifying under oath about the sexual encounter she says she had with him in 2006 and the $130,000 deal for her silence that was struck during the closing days of the 2016 presidential campaign. In a remarkable day of testimony with the former president sitting roughly 10 feet away from her, Daniels recounted the tryst in detail. She also talked about Trump's supposed efforts to get her on his TV show and her decision to come forward with her story, as well as the payoff and the fallout from doing so. During cross-examination, which at times became heated, Daniels tangled with one of Trump’s attorneys, Susan Necheles, who accused her of making up a series of false claims to ‘extort’ Trump, then a presidential candidate.” [NBC News, 5/7/24]
Daniels Testified That Interest In Her Story Was Limited Until After The “Access Hollywood” Tape. According to NBC News, “Daniels said Tuesday that Gina Rodriguez, her manager, spoke to her about going public with her story for money in 2015 after Trump announced he was running for president. Rodriguez didn’t have much success shopping the story until after the release in October 2016 of the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape, in which Trump was recorded in 2005 bragging that he could grope women without their consent. She said that Rodriguez then told her that Trump and Cohen were ‘interested in paying’ for the story and that she agreed, because it meant the story — which her husband didn’t know about — wouldn’t become public. ‘I didn't care about the amounts. It was just, 'Get it done,'‘ she said. Prosecutors say Trump reimbursed Cohen the money in payments that were falsely described as legal expenses. They have charged him with 34 counts of falsifying business records. Trump has pleaded not guilty.” [NBC News, 5/7/24]
May 9, 2024: Trump’s Defense Accused Stormy Daniels Of Changing Her Story. According to the Associated Press, “Donald Trump’s defense attorney on Thursday accused Stormy Daniels of slowly altering the details of an alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Trump, trying to persuade jurors that a key prosecution witness in the former president’s hush money trial cannot be believed. ‘The details of your story keep changing, right?’ attorney Susan Necheles asked at one point. ‘No,’ Daniels said. As the jury looked on, the two women traded barbs over what Necheles said were inconsistencies in Daniels’ description of the encounter with Trump in a hotel room. He denies the whole story. ‘You made all this up, right?’ Necheles asked. ‘No,’ Daniels shot back.” [Associated Press, 5/9/24]
May 7, 2024: Trump’s Longtime Publicist Franken, Testified About The Authenticity Of Trump’s Books According to NBC News, “Before Daniels, prosecutors called a longtime publishing executive to authenticate and read excerpts from some of Trump’s books. Sally Franklin, an executive at Penguin Random House, read one from ‘Trump: Think Like a Billionaire’ that talked about how closely Trump tracks his money — which prosecutors are likely to use to show he was well aware of what he was paying Cohen back for. ‘I always sign my checks so I know where my money is going,’ he said in the excerpt.” [NBC News, 5/7/24]
May 9, 2024: Trump Organization Junior Bookkeeper Manochio Testified About Mailing Cohen’s Checks To The White House For Trump To Sign. According to the New York Times, “After Ms. Daniels left the stand, prosecutors called witnesses more directly related to the records. They questioned Rebecca Manochio, a junior bookkeeper at the Trump Organization, who described mailing Mr. Cohen’s checks, his reimbursements for payments to Ms. Daniels, to Washington for Mr. Trump to sign during his presidency.” [New York Times, 5/9/24]
May 9, 2024: White House Aide Westerhout Testified That There Was A Scheduled Meeting Between Cohen And Trump Weeks After Trump Took Office. According to the New York Times, “They also called Madeleine Westerhout, one of Mr. Trump’s most trusted aides in the early White House years. She sat at a desk right outside the Oval Office and coordinated many of his communications, including a crucial meeting with Mr. Cohen just weeks into his term. Mr. Cohen is expected to testify that they discussed the plan to falsify the records — recording the payments as ordinary ‘legal expenses’ — and Ms. Westerhout confirmed the meeting was scheduled. She also confirmed that Mr. Trump paid close attention to checks he signed in the White House.” [New York Times, 5/9/24]
May 10, 2024: Former Trump Organization Executive Assistant Westerhout Testified About How Documents Moved In And Out Of The Trump White House. According to the New York Times, “Friday’s most substantive witness was Madeleine Westerhout, a former executive assistant during Mr. Trump’s presidency who had direct insight into how documents flowed in and out of the Oval Office. Ms. Westerhout testified that Mr. Trump would sign checks sent from his family business, the Trump Organization, often stapled to the related invoices. She said she saw him sign them at the Resolute Desk and sometimes, in Sharpie. She also testified that she had helped schedule a February 2017 meeting between Mr. Cohen and Mr. Trump in the White House. There, Mr. Cohen is expected to testify, he and Mr. Trump discussed reimbursement for the $130,000 payment to Ms. Daniels.” [New York Times, 5/10/24]
May 13, 2024: Cohen Testified That Trump Thought The Daniels Story Would Be A “Total Disaster” If It Got Out. According to NBC News, “Michael Cohen — the most pivotal witness in the Manhattan district attorney’s historic criminal case against Donald Trump — testified Monday about the hush money deals he said he helped arrange at the direction of his former boss to benefit Trump's 2016 presidential campaign — including burying one woman’s allegation that Cohen feared would be ‘catastrophic’ if it ever became public. Trump, Cohen said in Manhattan criminal court in New York City, desperately wanted to silence porn actress Stormy Daniels, whose claims of a 2006 sexual encounter Trump feared would be a ‘total disaster’ for his campaign. ‘Women are going to hate me’ if her story becomes public, Cohen quoted Trump as telling him.” [NBC News, 5/13/24]
Cohen Testified That Trump Ordered Him To Pay Daniels Hush Money. According to the New York Times, “In a moment that seemingly crystallized the prosecution’s assertion that Trump was complicit in paying hush money to Daniels, Cohen said Trump ordered him to do it before the 2016 election after consulting with some ‘very smart people.’ ‘He expressed to me, ‘Just do it,’’ he said, adding, ‘I was doing everything and more to protect my boss.’” [New York Times, 5/13/24]
Cohen Testified That “Everything” Required Trump’s Approval. According to the New York Times, “During the afternoon, Cohen also identified a series of conversations to Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer for the Trump Organization (currently doing a five-month stint at Rikers Island for perjury), as well as to Pecker, of The National Enquirer, who said that he wouldn’t pay to kill Daniels’s story, having never been paid back the $150,000 he gave McDougal. So Cohen said he would take care of it himself. But before he did, Cohen says he called Trump one more time to make sure that he ‘approved of what I was doing’ and that he would be reimbursed. ‘Everything,’ Cohen said, ‘required Mr. Trump’s sign off.’” [New York Times, 5/13/24]
May 14, 2024: Cohen Testified That He Repeatedly Lied In Order To Protect Trump. According to Rolling Stone, “Michael Cohen is back in court Tuesday for a second day of testimony in Donald Trump’s criminal trial, detailing to the jury how he repeatedly lied about his role in orchestrating hush money payments to ‘protect’ the former president. In 2018, when the public learned that Cohen had arranged a $130,000 payment in 2016 to porn star Stormy Daniels in order to buy her silence about an alleged affair with the former president, the lawyer denied that Trump’s campaign or company had anything to do with the arrangement. Cohen said that ‘while crafting the statement, we elected to state that neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction. That’s a true statement, but it’s misleading.’ ‘It was neither the Trump organization or the Trump campaign, it was Donald J. Trump himself,’ he said, adding when questioned that the choice had been made to ‘protect Mr. Trump, to stay on message, to demonstrate continued loyalty.’ Cohen confirmed that Trump personally approved the statement.” [Rolling Stone, 5/14/24]
Cohen Testified That Trump Told Him Not To Worry About The Investigation Into The Stormy Daniels Payment Because, “I’m The President Of The United States.” According to Reuters, “In 2018, after the U.S. Justice Department began investigating the Daniels payment, FBI agents raided Cohen's home. He said he called Trump in a panic. ‘He said to me, 'Don't worry, I'm the president of the United States ... you're going to be OK,'’ Cohen said. That was the last time they spoke directly, Cohen added. Instead, Cohen testified, lawyer Robert Costello, who was close to Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani, offered a ‘back channel’ to Trump. In emails shown to jurors, Costello passed along Giuliani's assurances that he had ‘friends in high places.’ Meanwhile, Trump was defending Cohen on social media and decrying the idea that he might "flip" and cooperate with prosecutors.” [Reuters, 5/14/24]
Cohen Was Cross-Examined About His Turning On Trump. According to Reuters, “Donald Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen faced aggressive questioning on Tuesday from the Republican presidential candidate's defense lawyers, who sought to undermine Cohen's testimony that Trump was intricately involved in a scheme to buy a porn star's silence. Trump attorney Todd Blanche used Cohen's own words to paint a picture of a turncoat who went from revering the former president to reviling him, even calling Trump a ‘dictator douchebag,’ a ‘boorish cartoon misogynist’ and a ‘Cheeto-dusted cartoon villain.’ Cohen, who spent more than a decade working as Trump's fixer, had already answered prosecutors' questions for about nine hours on the witness stand on Monday and Tuesday.” [Reuters, 5/14/24]
Trump’s Defense Sought To Destroy Cohen’s Credibility. According to the New York Times, “Donald J. Trump’s lawyers on Thursday took their best shot at Michael D. Cohen, the star witness in the former president’s criminal trial in Manhattan, grilling Mr. Cohen about a medley of misrepresentations, manipulations and outright lies. Seeking to destroy Mr. Cohen’s credibility, a defense lawyer, Todd Blanche, portrayed him as an unrepentant criminal and a serial deceiver who took the stand only to exact revenge on Mr. Trump. He argued that Mr. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s loyal lawyer and fixer until a falling-out years ago, had changed his story about matters big and small: whether he had wanted a White House job, whether he had sought a presidential pardon and whether he had lied during the trial about a phone call he said he had with Mr. Trump.” [New York Times, 5/16/24]
The Focus Of The Cross Examination On Cohen Has Been On His Unrepentant Lying. According to the New York Times, “Mr. Blanche has not addressed those two meetings, but instead focused much of his cross-examination on what he described as Mr. Cohen’s obsession with hurting Mr. Trump, and his unrepentant lying.” [New York Times, 5/16/24]
May 20, 2024: Michael Cohen Testified That He Stole $30,000 From Trump Meant For A Tech Company. According to Reuters, “Cohen, 57, said he paid roughly $20,000 in cash in a paper bag to a tech company out of the $50,000 that it was owed and kept the rest. The Trump Organization later reimbursed him $100,000 in total. He said he stole the money because he was upset about his annual bonus being cut after he fronted $130,000 of his own money to buy the silence of porn star Stormy Daniels, who was threatening shortly before the 2016 election to go public with her account of an alleged sexual encounter with Trump.” [Reuters, 5/20/24]
Costello, A Legal Advisor To Cohen, Testified That Cohen Told Him That Trump “Knew Nothing” About The Stormy Daniels Payment. According to the New York Times, “Costello said he and Cohen spoke after the F.B.I. raided Cohen’s home in April 2018 and that Cohen told him that Trump ‘knew nothing’ about the payments to a porn star at the center of the case. He added that Cohen said ‘that he did this on his own, and he repeated this numerous times.’” [New York Times, 5/20/24]
Costello Was Admonished By Judge Merchan For His Behavior On The Witness Stand. According to the New York Times, “But Costello’s testimony was overshadowed by his behavior, which included saying ‘Jeez,’ after a objection by prosecutors, one of many. Merchan sent the jury away and then scolded Costello for not displaying ‘proper decorum’ in the courtroom and giving him ‘side eye.’ After a moment, Merchan then cleared reporters from the courtroom to continue to reprimand Costello — a dramatic step that put the defense on notice about controlling its witness. After the press left, Merchan warned Costello that ‘your conduct is contemptuous,’ and warned him that his testimony could be stricken. ‘If you try to stare me down one more time,’ Merchan said, ‘I will remove you from the stand.’” [New York Times, 5/20/24]
Both Sides Rested Their Cases
May 20, 2024: Prosecutors Rested Their Cases. According to Reuters, “Shortly after Cohen left the witness stand, prosecutors rested their case and Trump's lawyers began calling witnesses of their own.” [Reuters, 5/20/24]
May 21, 2024: The Defense Rested Their Case Without Trump Taking The Stand. According to the Associated Press, “Donald Trump’s lawyers rested their defense Tuesday without the former president taking the witness stand in his New York hush money trial. ‘Your honor, the defense rests,’ Trump lawyer Todd Blanche told the judge following testimony from a former federal prosecutor who had been called to attack the credibility of the prosecution’s key witness.” [Associated Press, 5/21/24]
May 28, 2024: Trump’s Defense Team Made Their Closing Argument. According to the New York Times, “For nearly three hours on Tuesday, Donald J. Trump’s lawyer did his level best to persuade the jury to acquit his client, wielding a scalpel to attack nearly every strand of the criminal case against the former president.” [New York Times, 5/28/24]
The Prosecution Made Their Closing Statement. According to the New York Times, “Then it was a prosecutor’s turn. Rather than using a fine blade, he swung a sledgehammer. Throughout a marathon closing argument that nearly outlasted daylight, the prosecutor delivered a sweeping rebuke of the former president, seeking to persuade the jury of 12 New Yorkers that Mr. Trump had falsified records to cover up a sex scandal involving a porn star. The prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, wove together witness testimony and documents to drive home the key points of the weekslong case, the first criminal trial of an American president.” [New York Times, 5/28/24]
May 29, 2024: The Jury Deliberated For Five Hours Without Reaching A Verdict. According to Politico, “His fate now rests with the 12 people his lawyers and prosecutors chose more than a month ago. After receiving final instructions from the judge on Wednesday morning, those 12 Manhattanites deliberated for nearly five hours before being excused for the day without reaching a verdict.” [Politico, 5/29/24]
The Jury Asked To Review Testimony Concerning How Trump, Cohen, And Pecker Worked To Bury Negative Stories During The 2016 Campaign. According to Politico, “The only insight at all into the jury’s thinking came in the form of two jury notes. The first note provided tea leaves for jury watchers. The panel requested to review testimony from four moments in the trial when key witnesses described events central to the allegation that Trump conspired with his former fixer, Michael Cohen, and tabloid publisher David Pecker to bury negative stories during the 2016 campaign. The testimony requested delves into the pivotal 2015 Trump Tower meeting, a 2016 phone call between Pecker and Trump and evidence about why Pecker backed out of a deal to turn over Karen McDougal’s story to Cohen. (McDougal, a former Playboy model, said she’d had an affair with Trump.) All of the testimony relates to the conspiracy prosecutors alleged is at the heart of the case.” [Politico, 5/29/24]
The Jury Asked Judge Merchan To Reread His Instructions. According to Politico, “In a second note, jurors made another request that served as a Rorschach test for court observers: Could Merchan please reread his 55-page jury instructions?” [Politico, 5/29/24]
May 30, 2024: Trump Found Guilty On 34 Felony Counts Of Falsifying Records. According to the New York Times, “Donald J. Trump was convicted on Thursday of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal that threatened to derail his 2016 presidential campaign, capping an extraordinary trial that tested the resilience of the American justice system and transformed the former commander in chief into a felon. The guilty verdict in Manhattan — across the board, on all 34 counts — will reverberate throughout the nation and the world as it ushers in a new era of presidential politics. Mr. Trump will carry the stain of the verdict during his third run for the White House as voters now choose between an unpopular incumbent and a convicted criminal.” [New York Times, 5/30/24]
July 11, 2024: Trump Motioned To Dismiss His Felony Convictions. According to the New York Times, “Donald J. Trump has asked the judge who oversaw his criminal hush-money trial in Manhattan to throw out his felony conviction now that the Supreme Court has granted Mr. Trump broad immunity from prosecution for official actions he took as president. In a filing made public on Thursday — the same day Mr. Trump had been initially set to be sentenced for his crimes — his lawyers argued that the recent Supreme Court ruling invalidated the verdict that the former president was guilty on charges of falsifying records related to the hush money during his 2016 presidential run.” [New York Times, 7/11/24]
Trump’s Legal Team Argued That Allowing Testimony From White House Aides And Statements Trump Made While President “Tainted” The Case. According to the New York Times, “In the filing this week, Mr. Trump’s lawyers cited the trial testimony of two aides who worked for the then-president, including Hope Hicks, his communications director, about events in the White House. The testimony, the defense said, included “official communications.” They also argued that the Manhattan prosecutors should not have invoked tweets and other public statements Mr. Trump made as president. ‘Because of the implications for the institution of the presidency, the use of official-acts evidence was a structural error under the federal Constitution that tainted’ the case, wrote Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, who added, ‘These transgressions resulted in the type of deeply prejudicial error that strikes at the core of the government’s function.’” [New York Times, 7/11/24]
July 25, 2024: Judge Engoron Declined To Recuse Himself From The Trump Civil Fraud Case. According to CNN, “The judge who found Donald Trump liable for fraud and ordered the former president to pay $454 million said he will not recuse himself from the case. Trump asked Judge Arthur Engoron to step aside from the case, which is on appeal, alleging he engaged in ‘prohibited communications’ with a real estate lawyer about the case before his decision was rendered earlier this year. ‘I am supremely confident in my ability to continue to serve, as I always have, impartially,’ Engoron wrote in an order Thursday. The judge said that over three years into the litigation, his recusal would result in ‘immense prejudice.’” [CNN, 7/25/24]
August 1, 2024: Trump Again Asked Judge Merchan To Recuse Himself, This Time Because Of His Daughter’s Work For Kamala Harris’ Past Campaigns. According to the New York Times, “Former President Donald J. Trump is urging the judge who oversaw his Manhattan criminal trial to step aside, claiming in a legal filing that the judge has indirect ties to Vice President Kamala Harris and therefore an ‘actual conflict and appearances of impropriety.’ In a letter to the judge released on Thursday — two months after Mr. Trump was convicted of falsifying documents to hide a sex scandal — Mr. Trump’s lawyers said that the judge’s daughter ‘has a longstanding relationship with Harris,’ who is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and Mr. Trump’s election opponent. Mr. Trump’s legal team cited the daughter’s ‘work for political campaigns’ as a Democratic consultant, an argument that many ethics experts had previously rejected.” [New York Times, 8/1/24]
August 1, 2024: A New York Appeals Court Upheld Trump’s Gag Order Through Sentencing. According to the Associated Press, “Two months after his felony conviction, Donald Trump still isn’t allowed to say everything he wants about his historic hush money criminal case. After a New York appeals court upheld his gag order on Thursday, he won’t be for a while. The state’s mid-level appellate court denied the Republican former president and current nominee’s latest bid to lift the restrictions, swatting away a last-minute argument that he’s being unfairly muzzled while Vice President Kamala Harris, his likely Democratic opponent, pits herself as an ex-prosecutor taking on a ‘convicted felon.’ A five-judge panel ruled that trial Judge Juan M. Merchan was correct in keeping parts of the gag order until Trump is sentenced because the case is still pending and his conviction doesn’t constitute a change in circumstances that would warrant lifting it. ‘The fair administration of justice necessarily includes sentencing,’ the judges wrote.” [Associated Press, 8/1/24]
August 5, 2024: The Supreme Court Rejected Missouri’s Attempt To Stop Sentencing In The Stormy Daniels Case. According to Reuters, “The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a bid by the state of Missouri to halt Donald Trump's upcoming sentencing for his conviction in New York on felony charges involving hush money paid to a porn star and left a related gag order until after the Nov. 5 presidential election. The decision by the justices came in response to Missouri's lawsuit claiming that the case against Trump infringed on the right of voters under the U.S. Constitution to hear from the Republican presidential nominee as he seeks to regain the White House. The Supreme Court's order was unsigned. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito indicated they would have taken up Missouri's case but added that they ‘would not grant other relief.’” [Reuters, 8/5/24]
August 14, 2024: Judge Merchan Rejected A Third Trump Recusal Request. According to Reuters, “A New York judge declined for a third time to step aside from the case in which Donald Trump was convicted of charges involving hush money paid to a porn star, dismissing the former U.S. president's claim of conflict of interest related to political consultancy work by the judge's daughter. As he did last April and in August 2023, Justice Juan Merchan in a decision released on Wednesday denied a request by Trump's lawyers that he recuse himself from the first case involving criminal charges against a former U.S. president. Merchan is scheduled to sentence Trump on Sept. 18. ‘Defendant has provided nothing new for this Court to consider. Counsel has merely repeated arguments that have already been denied by this and higher courts’ and were ‘rife with inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims,’ Merchan wrote in the ruling, dated August 13.” [Reuters, 8/14/24]
August 14, 2024: Trump Requested Sentencing In The Stormy Daniels Case Be Moved To After The Presidential Election. According to ABC News, “Former President Trump is seeking to push back sentencing in his criminal hush money case until after the 2024 presidential election, arguing that the current sentencing date of Sept. 18 advances what his attorneys call prosecutors' ‘naked election-interference objectives.’ Judge Juan Merchan has already delayed sentencing once, at Trump's request, following the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision on presidential immunity. Trump was originally scheduled to be sentenced on July 11. Judge Merchan ruled last month that he would rule on Trump's immunity claim on Sept. 16 and impose sentencing two days later.” [ABC News, 8/15/24]
August 19, 2024: Prosecutors Took No Position On Trump’s Request To Delay Sentencing In The Stormy Daniels Case Until After The Election. According to ABC News, “Prosecutors in New York are taking no position on former President Donald Trump's request to delay sentencing of his ‘hush money’ conviction until after the November election. Instead, the Manhattan district attorney's office said in a letter Monday it would defer to Judge Juan Merchan. Trump is currently scheduled to be sentenced Sept. 18 after a jury convicted him of all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels. Trump had originally been scheduled to be sentenced on July 11, but Merchan said last month he would rule on Trump's immunity claim on Sept. 16 and impose sentencing two days later.” [ABC News, 8/19/24]
August 29, 2024: Trump Asked That The Stormy Daniels Case Be Moved To Federal Court. According to Politico, “Donald Trump asked a federal court late Thursday to intervene in his New York hush money criminal case, seeking a pathway to overturn his felony conviction and indefinitely delay his sentencing scheduled for next month. Lawyers for the former president and current Republican nominee asked the federal court in Manhattan to seize the case from the state court where it was brought and tried, arguing that the historic prosecution violated Trump’s constitutional rights and ran afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity.” [Politico, 8/29/24]
September 3, 2024: Trump’s Attempt To Move The Stormy Daniels Case To Federal Court Was Rejected. According to the Associated Press, “A federal judge on Tuesday swiftly rejected Donald Trump’s request to intervene in his New York hush money criminal case, spurning the former president’s attempt at an end-run around the state court where he was convicted and is set to be sentenced in two weeks. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein’s ruling — just hours after Trump’s lawyers asked him to weigh the move — upends the Republican presidential nominee’s plan to move the case to federal court so that he could seek to have his conviction overturned in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling.” [Associated Press, 9/3/24]
Trump Appealed The Decision To The 2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals. According to the Associated Press, “Trump’s lawyers challenged the decision, filing a notice of appeal late Tuesday in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump and his lawyers ‘will continue to fight to move this Hoax into federal court where it should be put out of its misery once and for all,’ his campaign spokesperson, Steven Cheung, said in a statement.” [Associated Press, 9/3/24]
September 16, 2024: Date Scheduled For Judge Merchan’s Ruling Concerning Presidential Immunity. According to MSNBC, “Trump’s lawyers cited the ruling in seeking to push the Sept. 18 sentencing. Merchan had previously set Sept. 16 to rule on Trump’s motion to overturn his guilty verdicts based on the immunity ruling, and his lawyers signaled to the judge that if he rules against them on that motion, then they’ll immediately appeal prior to sentencing.” [MSNBC, 9/6/24]
November 26, 2024: Date Of Trump’s Sentencing In The Stormy Daniels Case. According to the New York Times, “The judge overseeing Donald J. Trump’s criminal case in Manhattan postponed his sentencing until after Election Day, a significant victory for the former president as he seeks to overturn his conviction and win back the White House. In a ruling on Friday, the judge, Juan M. Merchan, cited the ‘unique time frame this matter currently finds itself in’ and rescheduled the sentencing for Nov. 26. He had previously planned to hand down Mr. Trump’s punishment on Sept. 18, just seven weeks before Election Day, when Mr. Trump will face off against Vice President Kamala Harris for the presidency.” [New York Times, 9/6/24]
Trump Vowed To Appeal, Which Cannot Occur Until After His Sentencing. According to Bloomberg, “Yes, and he immediately vowed to contest the verdict, saying the fight was ‘long from over.’ But he can only appeal his conviction in New York state after his sentencing. The first step would be a Manhattan appeals court. Eventually an appeal could make its way to New York’s Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court in Albany; Trump could eventually ask the US Supreme Court to weigh in.” [Bloomberg, 5/30/24]
February 10, 2021: Fulton County District Attorney Willis Opened A Criminal Investigation Into Efforts By Trump To Overturn The Results Of The 2020 Presidential Election In Georgia. According to the New York Times, “Prosecutors in Georgia have started a criminal investigation into former President Donald J. Trump’s attempts to overturn Georgia’s election results, including a phone call he made to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in which Mr. Trump pressured him to ‘find’ enough votes to help him reverse his loss. On Wednesday, Fani T. Willis, the recently elected Democratic prosecutor in Fulton County, sent a letter to numerous officials in state government, including Mr. Raffensperger, requesting that they preserve documents related to ‘an investigation into attempts to influence’ the state’s 2020 presidential election. Of particular note in Ms. Willis’s letter was the wider scope of the investigation. Potential violations of state law include ‘the solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration,’ the letter states.” [New York Times, 2/10/21]
January 24, 2022: Fulton County Judges Approved Willis’ Request For A Special Grand Jury. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The judges on Fulton County’s Superior Court bench on Monday cleared the way for a special grand jury to be used for District Attorney Fani Willis’ investigation of former President Donald Trump and his efforts to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results. Chief Judge Christopher S. Brasher wrote that a majority of the judges had agreed to the request issued by Willis’ office late last week.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1/24/22]
May 2022: The Special Grand Jury Issued The First Round Of Subpoenas To Georgia Election Officials, Including Raffensperger. According to WXIA, “Willis has run into a similar issue with certain witnesses telling her office that they would only testify if sent a subpoena. Subpoenas for the case 11Alive received through an open records request show from the Georgia Secretary of State's Office that several staff members have been requested to testify before the jury. The list includes Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Chief Operating Officer Gabriel Sterling, General Counsel Ryan Germany, former Head of Elections Division Chris Harvey, former Chief Investigator Frances Watson, and former executive assistant Victoria Thompson.” [WXIA, 5/31/22]
January 9, 2023: Fulton County Special Grand Jury Completed Its Work And The Judge Overseeing It Ordered It Dissolved. According to a tweet from Sam Gringlas, “The Fulton County special grand jury has completed its work and the judge has ordered it dissolved. The special grand jury has been investigating efforts by former President Trump and his allies to interfere with Georgia's 2020 election result. #gapol” [Twitter – Gringlas, 1/9/23]
February 16, 2023: Judge McBurney Released Excerpts From The Fulton County Grand Jury Report. According to Bloomberg, “Excerpts were released from the final report of a Georgia grand jury investigating 2020 election interference by former President Donald Trump and allies. The introduction, the conclusion, and a section expressing concern that witnesses may have lied under oath were released under an order from Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney. But details about who the grand jurors said should — or should not — face charges will remain sealed, at least for now, to protect their right to due process, the judge said.” [Bloomberg, 2/16/23]
February 21, 2023: Fulton County Grand Jury Foreperson Kohrs Said The Jury Recommended Over A Dozen Indictments. According to NBC News, “The Georgia grand jury that investigated possible interference in the 2020 election by Donald Trump and his allies recommended indicting over a dozen people, the jury foreperson said Tuesday — a list she said ‘might’ include the former president. ‘There are certainly names that you will recognize, yes. There are names also you might not recognize,’ Emily Kohrs said in an interview that aired on NBC News’ ‘Nightly News.’” [NBC News, 2/21/23]
Fulton County Grand Jury Foreperson Said “There Are Definitely Some Names You Expect” On The List Of Indictment Recommendations. According to NBC News, “The Georgia grand jury that investigated possible interference in the 2020 election by Donald Trump and his allies recommended indicting over a dozen people, the jury foreperson said Tuesday — a list she said ‘might’ include the former president. […] ‘There are definitely some names you expect,’ she said, declining to name any specific names in accordance with the instructions of the judge who presided over the grand jury.” [NBC News, 2/21/23]
Fulton County Grand Jury Foreperson Said She Didn’t Expect “Any Giant Plot Twists.” According to NBC News, “The Georgia grand jury that investigated possible interference in the 2020 election by Donald Trump and his allies recommended indicting over a dozen people, the jury foreperson said Tuesday — a list she said ‘might’ include the former president. […] ‘I don’t think that there are any giant plot twists coming. I don’t think there's any giant ‘that’s not the way I expected this to go at all’ moments,’ she said. ‘I would not expect you to be shocked." [NBC News, 2/21/23]
Fulton County Grand Jury Foreperson Said Indictment Recommendation List “Might” Include Trump. According to NBC News, “The Georgia grand jury that investigated possible interference in the 2020 election by Donald Trump and his allies recommended indicting over a dozen people, the jury foreperson said Tuesday — a list she said ‘might’ include the former president. […] Asked whether the list ‘could include Trump, Kohrs said, ‘Potentially. It might.’ [NBC News, 2/21/23]
Fulton County Investigation Grand Jury Foreperson Said That The Grand Jury Decided Not To Invite Trump To Testify Because It Was Not Worth The Fight. According to Politico Playbook, “— But she also may have crossed the line. She revealed, for instance, that the grand jury decided not to invite Trump to testify because it wasn’t worth the fight that he would put up. (Though she also wanted to swear him in: ‘I thought it’d be really cool to get sixty seconds with President Trump, of me looking at him and being like, ’Do you solemnly swear,’’ she told NBC News.) She disclosed some of the evidence, including that the grand jury heard lots of recordings of Trump. She also revealed that their final report recommended indictments for over a dozen individuals and she strongly hinted that Trump was among them. (‘You're not going to be shocked,’ she told the Times. ‘It's not rocket science.’) Some of these revelations do seem like they could be in the category of grand jury deliberations.” [Politico - Playbook, 2/23/23]
March 6, 2023: The Georgia House Passed A Measure To Create A New State Board To Punish Or Remove District Attorneys. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The Georgia House approved a measure to create a new state board that could punish or oust district attorneys, the latest step in an ongoing campaign by Republicans to exert oversight over prosecutors they see as skirting their duties. The measure passed the House 98-75 on Monday over the objections of Democrats and prominent prosecutors. Among them is Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who is leading an ongoing probe of Donald Trump and has framed the proposals as racist and reactionary.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 3/6/23]
March 15, 2023: Five Grand Jury Members Gave Interviews Detailing Parts Of The Investigation Into Trump. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “In an exclusive interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, five of the 23 special grand jurors recounted what it was like to be a pivotal — but anonymous — part of one of the most momentous criminal investigations in U.S. history; one which could lead to indictments of former President Donald Trump and his allies.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 3/15/23]
The Grand Jury Members Revealed A Phone Call Between Trump And Former Georgia House Speaker Ralston Where Trump Pushed For A Special Session To Overturn The Election. According to the Associated Press, “A special grand jury that investigated whether Donald Trump and his allies illegally meddled in the 2020 election in Georgia heard a recording of the former president pushing a top state lawmaker to call a special session to overturn his loss in the state, according to a newspaper report. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Wednesday that it spoke to five members of the special grand jury who said they heard a recording of a phone call between Trump and Georgia House Speaker David Ralston that had not previously been reported and has not been made public. Ralston, who died in November, did not call a special session in the weeks after the November 2020 election.” [Associated Press, 3/16/23]
Grand Juror Recalled That Senator Graham Said That If Someone Told Trump Aliens Stole Ballots, He Would Have Believed It. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “One grand juror recalled U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham’s testimony about Trump’s state of mind in the months after the 2020 election. ‘He said that during that time, if somebody had told Trump that aliens came down and stole Trump ballots, that Trump would’ve believed it,’ the juror said.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 3/15/23]
May 1, 2023: Ray Smith III, Who Represented Trump In His Attempt To Reverse Trump’s Loss In Georgia, May Be A Target Of The Fulton County DA’s Investigation. According to Politico, “Ray Smith III, a lawyer who represented President Donald Trump in litigation aimed at reversing Georgia’s 2020 election results, has indicated he may be a target of Atlanta-area District Attorney Fani Willis’ criminal probe. Smith’s attorney, Bruce Morris, characterized Smith as ‘something between a target and witness’ in Willis’ nearly completed investigation, according to documents filed Wednesday in a federal civil lawsuit in Washington D.C. That characterization was revealed by lawyers for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit — two former Georgia election workers who are suing Rudy Giuliani for defamation.” [Politico, 5/17/23]
May 2023: The Fulton County Investigation Broadened To Include Activities Outside Of Georgia. According to the Washington Post, “An Atlanta-area investigation of alleged election interference by former president Donald Trump and his allies has broadened to include activities in Washington, D.C., and several other states, according to two people with knowledge of the probe — a fresh sign that prosecutors may be building a sprawling case under Georgia’s racketeering laws.” [Washington Post, 6/2/23]
Fulton County DA Willis Sought Information On the Hiring By The Trump Campaign Of Two Firms To Find Voter Fraud. According to the Washington Post, “In recent days, Willis has sought information related to the Trump campaign hiring two firms to find voter fraud across the United States and then burying their findings when they did not find it, allegations that reach beyond Georgia’s borders, said the two individuals, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly about the investigation. At least one of the firms has been subpoenaed by Fulton County investigators.” [Washington Post, 6/2/23]
Willis Asked Simpatico Software Systems And Berkeley Research Group About States Where Trump Contested The Results. According to the Washington Post, “Among Willis’s latest areas of scrutiny is the Trump campaign’s expenditure of more than $1 million on two firms to study whether electoral fraud occurred in the 2020 election, the two individuals said. The Post first reported earlier this year that the work was carried out in the final weeks of 2020, and the campaign never released the findings because the firms, Simpatico Software Systems and Berkeley Research Group, disputed many of Trump’s theories and could not offer any proof that he was the rightful winner of the election. In recent days, Willis’s office has asked both firms for information — not only about Georgia, but about other states as well. Trump contested the 2020 election result in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.” [Washington Post, 6/2/23]
July 11, 2023: A Grand Jury Was Selected That Was Expected To Decide Whether To Indict Trump For Trying To Overturn The 2020 Presidential Election In Georgia. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Fulton County court officials selected two grand juries Tuesday, one of which is expected to decide whether to hand up an indictment against former President Donald Trump and other well-known political and legal figures for alleged criminal interference in the 2020 presidential election. Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney presided over the hours-long process, addressing a diverse group of about 100 potential jurors sitting in red chairs in a drab but expansive jury assembly room. Among them were a teacher, a former firefighter, an investigator and an illustrator. After instructing news reporters not to photograph the potential jurors, McBurney said the two 23-member panels would meet for two months in secret and would be expected to decide whether to approve criminal charges in hundreds of cases. It is unclear which one will consider the case focusing on Trump and his allies.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 7/11/23]
July 24, 2023: In A Filing To The Georgia Court Of Appeals, The Fulton County DA’s Office Opposed Releasing The Special Grand Jury Report “At Least Until Final Charging Decisions Have Been Made.” According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Fulton County prosecutors are asking the public to wait a little longer to review the final report issued by a special grand jury that investigated interference in Georgia’s 2020 election. With just weeks until Fulton District Attorney Fani Willis is expected to seek indictments against former President Donald Trump and others, her office asked the Georgia Court of Appeals on Monday to block release of the report ‘at least until final charging decisions have been made.’ In their report, the grand jurors recommended multiple people be criminally charged, several members previously told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 7/25/23]
July 31, 2023: The Fulton County Grand Jury Subpoenaed Journalist George Chidi. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “An independent journalist who stumbled upon the December 2020 meeting of ‘alternate’ GOP electors at the Georgia Capitol was subpoenaed to be a witness before two Fulton County grand juries, one of which is expected to decide in the weeks ahead whether to indict former President Donald Trump and others.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 8/1/23]
The Fulton County Grand Jury Subpoenaed Jen Jordan And Bee Nguyen According to WXIA, “Two prominent Georgia Democrats are the latest figure to confirm receiving a subpoena in Fulton County's Trump investigation grand jury proceedings. Jen Jordan, a former state senator and the Democratic Party nominee for attorney general last year, told 11Alive she'd been subpoenaed.to testify before the grand jury in Atlanta. Bee Nguyen, another former state representative who challenged Brad Raffensperger in the race for secretary of state, also confirmed she has received a subpoena.” [WXIA, 8/1/23]
August 7, 2023: Former Lt. Governor Geoff Duncan Was Subpoenaed By The Grand Jury. According to the Messenger, “Georgia’s former Republican Lieutenant Gov. Geoff Duncan received a subpoena Monday to testify before a Fulton County grand jury this month. CNN was the first to report the news on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. Now a CNN commentator, Duncan was among the most prominent Republicans to openly contradict former President Donald Trump’s false claims regarding fraud in the 2020 election.” [Messenger, 8/7/23]
March 20, 2023: Trump Lawyers Asked Judge To Toss Final Report Of Special Grand Jury. According to CNN, “Attorneys for former President Donald Trump have asked for a judge to toss the final report and evidence from a special grand jury in Georgia that spent months investigating efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election.” [CNN, 3/20/23]
Trump Lawyers Asked Judge To Disqualify Fulton County DA’s Office From Overseeing Investigation. According to CNN, “Trump’s attorneys also are asking that a judge disqualify the Fulton County District Attorney’s office from overseeing the investigation, according to a new court filing.” [CNN, 3/20/23]
Trump Lawyers Alleged Process Was Unconstitutional And That The Fulton County DA’s Office Violated Prosecutorial Standards. According to CNN, “‘President Donald J. Trump hereby moves to quash the SPGJ’s [special purpose grand jury’s] report and preclude the use of any evidence derived therefrom, as it was conducted under an unconstitutional statute, through an illegal and unconstitutional process, and by a disqualified District Attorney’s Office who violated prosecutorial standards and acted with disregard for the gravity of the circumstances and the constitutional rights of those involved,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in the filing.” [CNN, 3/20/23]
April 28, 2023: Alternative Elector Cathy Latham Joined Trump’s Lawsuit To Try To Bury The Special Grand Jury Report. According to WXIA, “One of the ‘fake’ electors for former President Donald Trump is working to stop Atlanta prosecutors from proceeding with their investigation into alleged criminal interference in Georgia's 2020 presidential election. An attorney for Cathy Latham, the former chair of the Coffee County Republican Party, filed a motion Friday joining Trump's efforts to bury a special purpose grand jury report that recommends more than a dozen people be indicted for their actions. Both Latham and Trump want Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her office barred from any further investigation or prosecutions related to the election. The pair also argue evidence uncovered by the special purpose grand jury was ‘unconstitutionally derived’ and no prosecutor should be able to use it. Latham, a retired school teacher, was one of 16 Republicans who cast Electoral College ballots falsely claiming Trump won the 2020 presidential election.” [WXIA, 4/28/23]
May 15, 2023: Fulton County DA Fani Willis Opposed Trump’s Motion To Block The Release Of The Special Grand Jury Report, Saying It Was “Procedurally Flawed And Advance Arguments That Lack Merit.” According to WSB, “Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has filed her response to former President Donald Trump’s legal team’s request to block the release of a special grand jury report and have Willis removed from the case. In March, Trump’s legal team filed the motion, which was 483 pages long, saying the former president didn’t think the special purpose grand jury, the district attorney, or the judge overseeing it were fair. In her response Monday, Willis said the motions should be dismissed because they ‘are procedurally flawed and advance arguments that lack merit.’” [WSB, 5/15/23]
May 19, 2023: Judge McBurney Rejected Trump’s Request To Respond To A Filing From Fulton County DA Fani Willis. According to the Valdosta Daily Times, “A Georgia judge said late last week he has heard enough in the ongoing dispute between former president Donald J. Trump and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney denied a request from Trump who now wants to respond to the most recent court filing by Willis, who is investigating the former president and his allies for alleged interference in Georgia’s 2020 election. […] McBurney denied that request in a May 19 order. ‘To date, the Court has received well over five hundred pages of briefing, argument, and exhibits on the issues raised by former President Trump and Ms. Latham. There will be no more briefing unless it is solicited, in writing, by the Court,’ McBurney stated.” [Valdosta Daily Times, 5/22/23]
May 24, 2023: Trump Asked Judge McBurney To Reconsider His Rejection Of Trump’s Request To Respond To A Filing From The Fulton County DA’s Office. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Lawyers for former President Donald Trump on Wednesday asked a Fulton County judge to reconsider his decision to deny their request to respond to a District Attorney’s Office filing in the ongoing investigation into possible criminal meddling with the 2020 election. In March, Trump’s legal team filed a motion to disqualify the DA’s office from the case and to quash the final report of and evidence obtained by a special purpose grand jury that investigated the issue. A lawyer for alternate GOP elector Cathy Latham, who is a target of the probe, later filed a motion to join Trump’s motion. Because of Latham’s filing, Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney gave the DA’s office an additional two weeks to respond. After the DA’s May 1 response, which said Trump’s motion should be denied, Trump’s lawyers asked McBurney to give them a chance to respond.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/24/23]
July 14, 2023: Trump Sought A Court Order To Throw Out Evidence Collected By The Special Grand Jury And To Disqualify District Attorney Willis. According to CNN, “Donald Trump is seeking a new court order to essentially neutralize the Fulton County investigation into the former president’s conduct after he lost the 2020 election, as potential indictments loom in Georgia. Trump’s lawyers filed petitions this week attempting to throw out the evidence collected last year by a special grand jury, banning prosecutors from presenting that material to a newly empaneled grand jury that has charging powers, and disqualifying District Attorney Fani Willis from any related proceedings.” [CNN, 7/14/23]
July 17, 2023: The Georgia Supreme Court Issued A Unanimous Decision Against Trump’s Attempt To Shut Down The Fulton County Investigation. According to Politico, “Georgia’s highest court has unanimously rebuffed a last-ditch bid by former President Donald Trump to try to head off a potential indictment for tampering with the results of the 2020 presidential election in that state. In a five-page decision issued Monday afternoon, all nine justices of the Georgia Supreme Court said Trump’s lawyers had failed to make a persuasive case for shutting down the inquiry led by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. She has signaled that indictments are possible in the election-related probe in the next few weeks as a grand jury convenes to consider possible charges.” [Politico, 7/17/23]
July 20, 2023: Trump Filed Another Motion To Disqualify Fulton County DA Willis From The 2020 Election Investigation. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Former President Donald Trump renewed his attempt to disqualify Fulton County’s district attorney from overseeing the 2020 election investigation just weeks before she’s expected to seek state charges against him. In a court motion filed Thursday, Trump’s lawyers claimed DA Fani Willis has a conflict of interest and should be removed from the case because she is using the probe as a way to attract campaign donations. ‘She is fundraising for her reelection campaign on the back of this case,’ they argued.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 7/21/23]
July 20, 2023: A Trump Motion For Relief In Fulton County Superior Court Was Moved To Georgia’s 7th Judicial District After Chief Judge Glanville Recused All Of Fulton County’s Judges. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Trump’s attorneys then sought relief in Fulton County Superior Court and it was assigned to Superior Court Judge Shukura Ingram. But in an order issued Thursday, Chief Judge Ural Glanville recused all of Fulton’s judges. His order also included a footnote that was dismissive of Trump’s bid to disqualify Willis and bar her from using evidence obtained by the special grand jury. Glanville said a judge from Georgia’s 7th Judicial Circuit, which encompasses 14 counties across the northwestern part of the state, will be assigned to hear Trump’s motion.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 7/21/23]
July 31, 2023: Trump’s Request To Suppress The Evidence Gathered By The Special Grand Jury Was Rejected. According to Bloomberg, “A state judge in Georgia rejected former President Donald Trump’s demands that he suppress all evidence gathered last year by a special purpose grand jury in Atlanta and expunge its report on the 2020 election.” [Bloomberg, 7/31/23]
July 31, 2023: Judge McBurney Rejected Trump’s Request To Disqualify DA Willis. According to Bloomberg, “In a nine-page ruling on Monday, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney also said he won’t disqualify Fani Willis, the county district attorney, from the investigation.” [Bloomberg, 7/31/23]
August 4, 2023: Trump Dropped Second Lawsuit Attempting To Disqualify DA Willis. According to Reuters, “Lawyers for Donald Trump have dropped a second longshot bid to disqualify the Georgia prosecutor investigating whether the former president illegally interfered with the state's 2020 presidential election. The pending motion, which was to be heard next week, was rendered unnecessary because of a judge's ruling on Monday in an earlier, similar motion by Trump's team, the lawyers said in a filing on Thursday in Fulton County Superior Court.” [Reuters, 8/4/23]
April 18, 2023: The DA’s Office Sought To Disqualify Kimberly Debrow, The Attorney For 10 Of The Electors, For Failing To Inform Her Clients About Potential Immunity Deals. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The DA’s office filed the motion in an attempt to disqualify from the case attorney Kimberly Burroughs Debrow, who is representing 10 of the electors. In the explosive motion, prosecutors allege that Debrow failed to inform her clients about the potential immunity deals after they were offered last summer.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 4/18/23]
Electors Told Prosecutors They Were Never Presented Immunity Offers. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Prosecutors said they had been told by Debrow and her then-co-counsel, Holly Pierson, on Aug. 5, 2022, that none of their clients were interested in immunity. But during interviews with the electors last week, some electors ‘told members of the investigation team that no potential offer of immunity was ever brought to them in 2022, which is in direct conflict with ... Ms. Pierson’s representation to this court,’ prosecutors alleged.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 4/18/23]
Interviews With The Alternate Electors Were Conducted On April 12 And 14, 2023. According to Politico, “In a court filing Tuesday, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis noted that her office conducted those interviews on April 12 and April 14, suggesting an active and ongoing investigation. Willis disclosed in the filing that more than one of the false electors had described potential violations of Georgia state law by another one.” [Politico, 4/18/23]
Co-Counsel Pierson Said The Allegations From The DA Were “Entirely False.” According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “In a written statement, Pierson called the DA’s allegations ‘entirely false.’ ‘Sadly, the DA’s office continues to seem more interested in media attention, trampling on the constitutional rights of innocent citizens, and recklessly defaming its perceived opponents than in the facts, the law, or the truth,’ Pierson said.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 4/18/23]
May 10, 2023: Fulton County DA Fani Willis Dropped Her Motion To Disqualify Kimberly Bourroughs Debrow From Representing Alternate Electors After Two Of Debrow’s Clients Hired New Lawyers. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis on Wednesday backed off a push to disqualify the attorney jointly representing eight Georgia Republicans who served as ‘alternate’ presidential electors for Donald Trump in 2020. In a new court filing, Willis indicated she was dropping a complaint she’d lodged against Kimberly Bourroughs Debrow last month. She said her concerns were effectively addressed after two of Debrow’s previous clients, who had not been offered immunity deals by prosecutors, hired new lawyers.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/10/23]
April 2023: Fulton County DA’s Office Offered Immunity Deals To Some Alternate Republican Electors Who Cast Illegitimate Electoral College Votes For Trump. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The Fulton County District Attorney’s office has offered immunity deals to some of the alternate GOP electors who met at the Georgia Capitol and cast phony Electoral College votes for Donald Trump following the 2020 election.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 4/18/23]
Court Filing By The DA’s Office Disclosed That Several Alternate Republican Electors Accused Another Alternate Elector Of “Violations Of Georgia Law.” According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The Fulton County District Attorney’s office has offered immunity deals to some of the alternate GOP electors who met at the Georgia Capitol and cast phony Electoral College votes for Donald Trump following the 2020 election. In a court motion filed Tuesday, the DA’s office also disclosed that it has been interviewing several of those Republicans in recent weeks, and that some of them accused a fellow elector of committing ‘acts that are violations of Georgia law,’ the motion stated, without revealing specifics.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 4/18/23]
May 5, 2023: At Least Eight Alternate Electors Accepted Immunity Deals With The Fulton County District Attorney’s Office. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “At least eight of the Georgia Republicans who served as ‘alternate’ presidential electors in 2020 have accepted immunity deals with the Fulton County District Attorney’s office in exchange for their testimony, according to the lawyer representing the group.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/5/23]
May 2023: Lawyers Representing Georgia Republican Party Chair David Shafer Said He Should Not Be Charged In The Attempt To Overturn The 2020 Election Because He Was Just Following Advice Provided By Trump’s Attorneys. According to CNN, “Lawyers representing David Shafer, the embattled chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, are arguing their client should not be charged with any crimes for his actions following the 2020 election because he was following advice provided by attorneys working for former President Donald Trump, according to a letter sent to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis last week. Specifically, Shafer’s attorneys say their client was relying on ‘repeated and detailed advice of legal counsel’ when he organized a group of ‘contingent’ electors from Georgia and served as one himself, thus ‘eliminating any possibility of criminal intent or liability,’ according to a copy of the May 5 letter.” [CNN, 5/8/23]
August 22, 2023: Trump Co-Defendant And Former Georgia GOP Party Chair Shafer Filed Documents In A Petition That Said Georgia’s Fake Electors Acted At The Direction Of Trump. According to Politico, “Former Georgia Republican Party Chair David Shafer said attorneys for former President Donald Trump, his campaign and the local GOP were responsible for urging him to assemble a slate of false presidential electors that are now at the heart of a sprawling racketeering case. Shafer is among the 18 defendants indicted in Fulton County, Georgia, alongside Trump as part of a conspiracy to subvert the 2020 election. ‘Mr. Shafer and the other Republican Electors in the 2020 election acted at the direction of the incumbent President and other federal officials,’ Shafer’s attorney wrote in a petition seeking to move the Fulton County case to federal court.” [Politico, 8/22/23]
Shafer Released Documents Showing The Trump Campaign’s Involvement In Assembling The Fake Electors. According to Politico, “To bolster his proposition, Shafer provided new documents that underscore the Trump campaign’s close involvement in efforts to assemble a group of pro-Trump activists on Dec. 14, 2020 to sign documents claiming to be Georgia’s legitimate presidential electors. Those false electors were later used by Trump allies to attempt to foment a conflict on Jan. 6, 2021 and derail the transfer of power to President Joe Biden.” [Politico, 8/22/23]
August 24, 2023: Trump Co-Defendant Shawn Still Said He Signed False Papers Claiming To Be A Legitimate Presidential Elector At Trump’s Direction. According to Politico, “Shawn Still, a Georgia Republican charged alongside former President Donald Trump in a racketeering conspiracy to subvert the 2020 election, says he signed false papers claiming to be a legitimate presidential elector at Trump’s direction. ‘Mr. Still, as a presidential elector, was also acting at the direction of the incumbent president of the United States,’ his attorney Thomas Bever argued Thursday in a court filing seeking to transfer the case against him to federal court. ‘The president’s attorneys instructed Mr. Still and the other contingent electors that they had to meet and cast their ballots on Dec. 14, 2020.’” [Politico, 8/24/23]
Still Made The Claim In A Filing To Move His Case To Federal Court. According to Politico, “Still’s argument is part of an effort to pluck his case out of the state courts and instead have his legal fate decided by a federal judge in the Northern District of Georgia. He contends that because Trump effectively instructed him to cast the ballot — based in part on legal advice from campaign and party lawyers — he was acting with the imprimatur of the federal government. That entitles him to immunity from state prosecution under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, he says.” [Politico, 8/24/23]
Trump Was Charged With 13 Felonies. According to the Washington Post, “Former president Donald Trump and 18 others were criminally charged in Georgia in connection with efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory in the state, according to an indictment made public late Monday night. Trump was charged with 13 counts, including violating the state’s racketeering act, soliciting a public officer to violate their oath, conspiring to impersonate a public officer, conspiring to commit forgery in the first degree and conspiring to file false documents.” [Washington Post, 8/15/23]
Trump Was Charged With Violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act, By Trying To Overturn The 2020 Election In Georgia
Charges Against Trump Included RICO, Soliciting A Public Officer To Violate Their Oath, Conspiring To Impersonate A Public Official, Conspiring To Commit Forgery, And Conspiring To File False Documents. According to the Washington Post, “Trump was charged with 13 counts, including violating the state’s racketeering act, soliciting a public officer to violate their oath, conspiring to impersonate a public officer, conspiring to commit forgery in the first degree and conspiring to file false documents.” [Washington Post, 8/15/23]
Trump Charged On Counts 1, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 27, 28, 29, 38, And 39 In The Indictment. According to the indictment in The State Of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al., “THE STATE OF GEORGIA V. DONALD JOHN TRUMP Counts 1,5, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 27-29, 38-39.” [Indictment, “The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al.,” Fulton County Superior Court, Case No. 23SC188947, filed 8/14/23]
Count One: Violation Of The Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations) Act O.C.G.A. 16-14-4(c)
Trump And 18 Others Were Charged With Violating Georgia’s RICO Act. According to the indictment in The State Of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al., “The Grand Jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, do hereby charge and accuse: DONALD JOHN TRUMP, RUDOLPH WILLIAM LOUIS GIULIANI, JOHN CHARLES EASTMAN, MARK RANDALL MEADOWS, KENNETH JOHN CI-IESEBRO, JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK, JENNA LYNN ELLIS, RAY STALLINGS SMITH III, ROBERT DAVID CHEELEY, MICHAEL A. ROMAN, DAVID JAMES SHAFER, SHAWN MICAH TRESI-IER STILL, STEPHEN CLIFFGARD LEE, HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD, TREVIAN C. KUTTI, SIDNEY KATHERINE POWELL, CATHLEEN ALSTON LATHAM, SCOTT GRAHAM HALL, and MISTY HAMPTON with the offense of VIOLATION OF THE GEORGIA RICO (RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS) ACT, O.C.G.A. 16-14-4(c), for the said accused, individually and as persons concerned in the commission of crime, and together with unindicted co-conspirators, in the State of Georgia and County of Fulton, on and between the 4th day of November 2020 and the 15th day of September 2022, while associated with an enterprise, unlawfully conspired and endeavored to conduct and participate in, directly and indirectly, such enterprise through pattern of racketeering activity in violation of O.C.G.A. 16-14-4(b), as described below and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace, and dignity thereof.” [Indictment, “The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al.,” Fulton County Superior Court, Case No. 23SC188947, filed 8/14/23]
The Maximum Sentence For Violating The RICO Act Is 20 Years In Prison. According to the Washington Post, “You’ll see it referred to as RICO. It allows prosecutors to combine several alleged crimes — in this case, conspiracy to defraud the state, false statements and writings, impersonating a public officer, forgery, computer theft and dozens of others — into one racketeering charge that calls for up to 20 years in prison.” [Washington Post, 8/14/23]
Count Five: Solicitation Of Violation Of Oath By Public Officer O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-7 & 16-10-1
Trump Was Charged For Trying To Convince Georgia House Speaker Ralston To Call A Special Session To Appoint Trump Electors. According to the indictment in The State Of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al., “And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, do charge and accuse DONALD JOHN TRUMP with the offense of SOLICITATION OF VIOLATION OF OATH BY PUBLIC OFFICER, O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-7 16-10-1, for the said accused, in the County of Fulton and State of Georgia, on or about the 7th day of December 2020, unlawfully solicited, requested, and importuned Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives David Ralston, public officer, to engage in conduct constituting the felony offense of Violation of Oath by Public Officer, O.C.G.A. 16-10-1, by calling for special session of the Georgia General Assembly for the purpose of unlawfully appointing presidential electors from the State of Georgia, in willful and intentional Violation of the terms of the oath of said person as prescribed by law, with intent that said person engage in said conduct, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.” [Indictment, “The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al.,” Fulton County Superior Court, Case No. 23SC188947, filed 8/14/23]
Count Nine: Conspiracy To Commit Impersonating A Public Officer O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-8 & 16-10-23
Trump, Among Others, Was Charged With Conspiring To Make The Fake Electors Present Themselves As The Legitimate Electors From Georgia. According to the indictment in The State Of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al., “And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, do charge and accuse DONALD JOHN TRUMP, RUDOLPH WILLIAM LOUIS GIULIANI, JOHN CHARLES EASTMAN, KENNETH JOHN CHESEBRO, RAY STALLINGS SMITH III, ROBERT DAVID CHEELEY, and MICHAEL A. ROMAN with the offense of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT IMPERSONATING PUBLIC OFFICER, O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-8 16-10-23, for the said accused, individually and as persons concerned in the commission of crime, and together with indicted and unindicted co-conspirators, in the County of Fulton and State of Georgia, on and between the 6th day of December 2020 and the 14th day of December 2020, unlawfully conspired to cause certain individuals to falsely hold themselves out as the duly elected and qualified presidential electors from the State of Georgia, public officers, with intent to mislead the President of the United States Senate, the Archivist of the United States, the Georgia Secretary of State, and the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia into believing that they actually were such officers.” [Indictment, “The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al.,” Fulton County Superior Court, Case No. 23SC188947, filed 8/14/23]
Count 11: Conspiracy To Commit Forgery In The First Degree O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-8 & 16-9-1(b)
Trump, Among Others, Was Charged With Conspiracy To Make A False Electoral Certificate To Present To The National Archivist. According to the indictment in The State Of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al., “And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, do charge and accuse DONALD JOHN TRUMP, RUDOLPH WILLIAM LOUIS GIULIANI, JOHN CHARLES EASTMAN, KENNETH JOHN CHESEBRO, RAY STALLINGS SMITH III, ROBERT DAVID CHEELEY, and MICHAEL A. ROMAN with the offense of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FORGERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE, O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-8 16-91(b), for the said accused, individually and as persons concerned in the commission of crime, and together with indicted and unindicted co-conspirators, in the County of Fulton and State of Georgia, on and between the 6th day of December 2020 and the 14th day of December 2020, unlawfully conspired, with the intent to defraud, to knowingly make document titled ‘CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM GEORGIA,’ writing other than check, in such manner that the writing as made purports to have been made by authority of the duly elected and qualified presidential electors from the State of Georgia, who did not give such authority, and to utter and deliver said document to the Archivist of the United States.” [Indictment, “The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al.,” Fulton County Superior Court, Case No. 23SC188947, filed 8/14/23]
Count 13: Conspiracy To Commit False Statements And Writings O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-8 & 16-10-20
Trump, Among Others, Was Charged With Conspiracy To Claim That The Fake Electors Were The Elected And Qualified Electors From Georgia. According to the indictment in The State Of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al., “And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, do charge and accuse DONALD JOHN TRUMP, RUDOLPH WILLIAM LOUIS GIULIANI, JOHN CHARLES EASTMAN, KENNETH JOHN CHESEBRO, RAY STALLINGS SMITH III, ROBERT DAVID CHEELEY, and MICHAEL A. ROMAN with the offense of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FALSE STATEMENTS AND WRITINGS, O.C.G.A. §§ 16 4-8 16-10-20, for the said accused, individually and as persons concerned in the commission of crime, and together with indicted and unindicted co-conspirators, in the County of Fulton and State of Georgia, on and between the 6th day of December 2020 and the 14th day of December 2020, unlawfully conspired to knowingly and willfully make and use false document titled ‘CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM GEORGIA,’ with knowledge that said document contained the false statement, ‘WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, being the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Georgia, do hereby certify the following,’ said document being within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Georgia Secretary of State and the Office of the Governor of Georgia, departments and agencies of state government.” [Indictment, “The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al.,” Fulton County Superior Court, Case No. 23SC188947, filed 8/14/23]
Count 15: Conspiracy To Commit Filing False Documents O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-8 & 16-10-20.1(b)(1)
Trump, Among Others, Was Charged With Conspired To File The Fake Certificate From The Fake Electors In An Official Proceeding. According to the indictment in The State Of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al., “And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, do charge and accuse DONALD JOHN TRUMP, RUDOLPH WILLIAM LOUIS GIULIANI, JOHN CHARLES EASTMAN, KENNETH JOHN CHESEBRO, RAY STALLINGS SMITH III, ROBERT DAVID CHEELEY, and MICHAEL A. ROMAN with the offense of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FILING FALSE DOCUMENTS, O.C.G.A. §§ 16-48 16- 10-20.1(b)(1), for the said accused, individually and as persons concerned in the commission of crime, and together with indicted and unindicted co-conspirators, in the County of Fulton and State of Georgia, on and between the 6th day of December 2020 and the 14th day of December 2020, unlawfully conspired to knowingly file, enter, and record document titled ‘CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM GEORGIA,’ in court of the United States, having reason to know that said document contained the materially false statement, ‘WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, being the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Georgia, do hereby certify the following.’” [Indictment, “The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al.,” Fulton County Superior Court, Case No. 23SC188947, filed 8/14/23]
Count 17: Conspiracy To Commit Forgery In The First Degree O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-8 & 16-9-1(b)
Trump, Among Others, Was Charged With Conspiracy To Claim That They Were Filling An Electoral College Vacancy In Georgia Without Authority To Do So. According to the indictment in The State Of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al., “And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, do charge and accuse DONALD JOHN TRUMP, RUDOLPH WILLIAM LOUIS GIULIANI, JOHN CHARLES EASTMAN, KENNETH JOHN CHESEBRO, RAY STALLINGS SMITH III, ROBERT DAVID CHEELEY, and MICHAEL A. ROMAN with the offense of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FORGERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE, O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-8 16-9-1(b), for the said accused, individually and as persons concerned in the commission of crime, and together with indicted and unindicted co-conspirators, in the County of Fulton and State of Georgia, on and between the 6th day of December 2020 and the 14th day of December 2020, unlawfully conspired, with the intent to defraud, to knowingly make document titled ‘RE: Notice of Filling of Electoral College Vacancy,’ writing other than check, in such manner that the writing as made purports to have been made by the authority of the duly elected and qualified presidential electors from the State of Georgia, who did not give such authority, and to utter and deliver said document to the Archivist of the United States and the Office of the Governor of Georgia.” [Indictment, “The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al.,” Fulton County Superior Court, Case No. 23SC188947, filed 8/14/23]
Count 19: Conspiracy To Commit False Statements And Writings O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-8 & 16-10-20
Trump, Among Others, Was Charged With Conspiracy To Use The Fake Certificate Knowing That The Certificate Made False Statements Because The Electors Proclaimed In The Certificate Were Fake. According to the indictment in The State Of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al., “And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, do charge and accuse DONALD JOHN TRUMP, RUDOLPH WILLIAM LOUIS GIULIANI, JOHN CHARLES EASTMAN, KENNETH JOHN CHESEBRO, RAY STALLINGS SMITH III, ROBERT DAVID CHEELEY and MICHAEL A. ROMAN with the offense of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FALSE STATEMENTS AND WRITINGS, O.C.G.A. §§ 16- 4-8 16-10-20, for the said accused, individually and as persons concerned in the commission of crime, and together with indicted and unindicted co-conspirators, in the County of Fulton and State of Georgia, on and between the 6th day of December 2020 and the 14th day of December 2020, unlawfully conspired to knowingly and willfully make and use false document titled ‘RE: Notice of Filling of Electoral College Vacancy,’ with knowledge that said document contained the false statements that DAVID JAMES SHAFER was Chairman of the 2020 Georgia Electoral College Meeting and SHAWN MICAH TRESHER STILL was Secretary of the 2020 Georgia Electoral College Meeting, said document being within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Georgia Secretary of State and the Office of the Governor of Georgia, departments and agencies of state government.” [Indictment, “The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al.,” Fulton County Superior Court, Case No. 23SC188947, filed 8/14/23]
Count 27: Filing False Documents O.C.G.A. § 16-10-20.1(b)(1)
Trump And Trump Lawyer Eastman Were Charged With Filing A Court Document Containing False Election Fraud Claims. According to the indictment in The State Of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al., “And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, do charge and accuse DONALD JOHN TRUMP and JOHN CHARLES EASTMAN with the offense of FILING FALSE DOCUMENTS, O.C.G.A. 16-10-20.1(b)(1), for the said accused, individually and as persons concerned in the commission of crime, and together with unindicted co-conspirators, in the County of Fulton and State of Georgia, on or about the 3lst day of December 2020, knowingly and unlawfully filed document titled ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF’ in the matter of Trump v. Kemp, Case 1:20-cv05310MHC, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, court of the United States, having reason to know that said document contained at least one of the following materially false statements: l. That ‘as many as 2,506 felons with an uncompleted sentence’ voted illegally in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia; That ‘at least 66,247 underage’ people voted illegally in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia; That ‘at least 2,423 individuals’ voted illegally in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia ‘who were not listed in the State's records as having been registered to vote’; That ‘at least 1,043 individuals’ voted illegally in the November 3, 2020, presidential election ‘who had illegally registered to vote using postal office box as their habitation’; That ‘as many as 10,315 or more’ dead people voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia; That ‘[d]eliberate misinformation was used to instruct Republican poll watchers and members of the press to leave the premises for the night at approximately 10:00 pm. on November 3, 2020’ at State Farm Arena in Fulton County, Georgia; contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.” [Indictment, “The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al.,” Fulton County Superior Court, Case No. 23SC188947, filed 8/14/23]
Count 28: Solicitation Of Violation Of Oath By A Public Officer O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-7 & 16-10-1
Trump And Chief Of Staff Meadows Were Charged With Trying To Convince Georgia Secretary Of State Raffensperger To Violate His Oath. According to the indictment in The State Of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al., “And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, do charge and accuse DONALD JOHN TRUMP and MARK RANDALL MEADOWS with the offense of SOLICITATION OF VIOLATION OF OATH BY PUBLIC OFFICER, O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-7 16-10-1, for the said accused, individually and as persons concerned in the commission of crime, and together with unindicted co-conspirators, in the County of Fulton and State of Georgia, on or about the 2nd day of January 2021, unlawfully solicited, requested, and importuned Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, public officer, to engage in conduct constituting the felony offense of Violation of Oath by Public Officer, O.C.G.A. l6- 10-1, by unlawfully altering, unlawfully adjusting, and otherwise unlawfully influencing the certified returns for presidential electors for the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia, in willful and intentional violation of the terms of the oath of said person as prescribed by law, with intent that said person engage in said conduct, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.” [Indictment, “The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al.,” Fulton County Superior Court, Case No. 23SC188947, filed 8/14/23]
Count 29: False Statements And Writings O.C.G.A. § 16-10-20
Trump Was Charged With Making False Statements About The Election On The Phone Call With Raffensperger. According to the indictment in The State Of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al., “And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, do charge and accuse DONALD JOHN TRUMP with the offense of FALSE STATEMENTS AND WRITINGS, O.C.G.A. 16-10-20, for the said accused, in the County of Fulton and State of Georgia, on or about the 2nd day of January 2021, knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully made at least one of the following false statements and representations to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs, and Georgia Secretary of State General Counsel Ryan Germany: 1. That anywhere from 250,000 to 300,000 ballots were dropped mysteriously into the rolls in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia; 2. That thousands of people attempted to vote in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia and were told they could not because ballot had already been cast in their name; 3. That 4,502 people voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia who were not on the voter registration list; 4. That 904 people voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia who were registered at an address that was post office box; 5. That Ruby Freeman was professional vote scammer and known political operative; 6. That Ruby Freeman, her daughter, and others were responsible for fraudulently awarding
at least 18,000 ballots to Joseph R. Biden at State Farm Arena in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia; 7. That close to 5,000 dead people voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia; 8. That 139% of people voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Detroit;
9. That 200,000 more votes were recorded than the number of people who voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Pennsylvania; 10. That thousands of dead people voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Michigan; 11. That Ruby Freeman stuffed the ballot boxes; 12. That hundreds of thousands of ballots had been ‘dumped’ into Fulton County and another county adjacent to Fulton County
in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia; 13. That he won the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia by 400,000 votes; said statements being within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Georgia Secretary of State and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, departments and agencies of state government, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.” [Indictment, “The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al.,” Fulton County Superior Court, Case No. 23SC188947, filed 8/14/23]
Count 38: Solicitation Of Violation Of Oath By Public Officer O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-7 & 16-10-1
Trump Was Charged With Soliciting Raffensberger To Violate His Oath By “Decertifying The Election” Months After The Election Was Certified. According to the indictment in The State Of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al., “And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, do charge and accuse DONALD JOHN TRUMP with the offense of SOLICITATION OF VIOLATION OF OATH BY PUBLIC OFFICER, O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-7 and 16-10-1, for the said accused, in the County of Fulton and State of Georgia, on or about the 17th day of September 2021, unlawfully solicited, requested, and importuned Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, public officer, to engage in conduct constituting the felony offense of Violation of Oath by Public Ofiicer, O.C.G.A. 16-101, by unlawfully ‘decertifying the Election, or whatever the correct legal remedy is, and announce the true winner,’ in willful and intentional violation of the terms of the oath of said person as prescribed by law, with intent that said person engage in said conduct, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.” [Indictment, “The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al.,” Fulton County Superior Court, Case No. 23SC188947, filed 8/14/23]
Count 39: False Statements And Writings O.C.G.A. § 16-10-20
Trump Was Charged With Lying To Raffensberger About The 2020 Election When Asking Him To Decertify The Election In September 2021. According to the indictment in The State Of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al., “And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, do charge and accuse DONALD JOHN TRUMP with the offense of FALSE STATEMENTS AND WRITINGS, O.C.G.A. 16-10-20, for the said accused, in the County of Fulton and State of Georgia, on or about the 17th day of September 2021, knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully made the following false statement and representation to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger: l. ‘As stated to you previously, the number of false and/or irregular votes is far greater than needed to change the Georgia election result’; said statement being within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Georgia Secretary of State and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, departments and agencies of state government, and county and city law enforcement agencies, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.” [Indictment, “The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al.,” Fulton County Superior Court, Case No. 23SC188947, filed 8/14/23]
Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, And Jeffrey Clark Were Among Those Charged Alongside Trump. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “But the Georgia case is far different because it also charges a large cast of alleged accomplices – from former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former state Republican Party chairman David Shafer. Also charged: state Sen. Shawn Still; attorneys John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, Bob Cheeley, Ray Smith III and Kenneth Chesebro; former assistant U.S. attorney general Jeffrey Clark; former Coffee County GOP chairwoman Cathy Latham; Atlanta bail bondsman Scott Hall; former Coffee County elections director Misty Hampton; GOP strategist Michael Roman; publicist Trevian Kutti; Illinois pastor Stephen Cliffguard Lee; and Harrison Floyd, who briefly ran for a suburban Atlanta U.S. House seat before serving as director of Black Voices for Trump.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 8/14/23]
All Defendants Were Charged With Violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the Washington Post, “A total of 41 charges are brought against 19 defendants in the 98-page indictment. Not all face the same counts, but all have been charged with violating the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Willis said she has given those charged until Aug. 25 to surrender.” [Washington Post, 8/15/23]
Areas Of Misconduct Included The Raffensperger Phone Call, The Fake Electors Scheme, False Testimony Before The Georgia Legislature, And The Copying Of Election Data From Coffee County Voting Machines. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The charges are the culmination of a 2 1/2-year criminal investigation launched by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis shortly after Trump’s leaked Jan. 2, 2021, phone call with Brad Raffensperger, during which he asked the Georgia secretary of state to ‘find’ him 11,780 votes. The indictment lays out several different areas of alleged criminal misconduct. The phone calls Trump made to Georgia officials, including Raffensperger and Gov. Brian Kemp. The ‘alternate’ GOP electors who cast Electoral College votes for Trump on Dec. 14, 2020 while the official Democratic electors cast votes for Joe Biden. The false testimony given to state House and Senate committees, which led to threats and harassment of Fulton County poll workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss. The copying of sensitive Georgia elections data in Coffee County, some 200 miles southeast of Atlanta, the day after the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 8/14/23]
The Case Was Assigned To Fulton County Superior Court Judge McAfee. According to The Hill, “Fulton County Superior Court judge Scott McAfee is now tasked with overseeing the Georgia case brought against former President Trump and 18 others late Monday night in connection to the former president’s and his allies’ efforts to overturn the 2020 election in the state.” [The Hill, 8/15/23]
August 23, 2023: Three Of Trump’s Co-Defendants – Lawyers Giuliani, Powell, And Ellis - Surrendered To Authorities In Atlanta. According to CNN, “Three of Donald Trump’s key election lawyers, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis, surrendered Wednesday on charges in the Georgia election subversion case. The scene of Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and a notable former federal prosecutor, walking into the Fulton County jail represented another remarkable moment in the ongoing investigation into Trump and his efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat. One of Trump’s most outspoken attorneys in 2020, Giuliani was charged with 13 crimes, including breaking the state’s racketeering act, engaging in various criminal conspiracies, and soliciting a public officer in the state to violate their oath.” [CNN, 8/23/23]
August 21, 2023: Bond For Trump Was Set At $200,000. According to WSB, “Former President Donald Trump’s bond has been set at $200,000. Channel 2′s camera’s spotted Trump’s Georgia attorneys entering the Fulton County Courthouse shortly before 2:30 p.m. Monday.” [WSB, 8/21/23]
Conditions Of Trump’s Bond Included No Acts Of Intimidation, Including Social Media Posts, To Any Codefendant, Witness, Unindicted Co-Conspirator, Or Victim. According to WSB, “Part of his bond conditions include: “the Defendant shall perform no act to intimidate any person known to him or her to be a codefendant or witness in this case or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice. ‘This shall include, but is not limited to, the following: ‘a. The Defendant shall make no direct or indirect threat of any nature against any codefendant; ‘b. The Defendant shall make no direct or indirect threat of any nature against any witness including, but not limited to, the individuals designated in the Indictment as an unindicated co-conspirators Individual 1 through Individual 30; ‘c. The Defendant shall make no direct or indirect threat of any nature against any victim; d. ‘The Defendant shall make no direct or indirect threat of any nature against the community or to any property in the community; ‘e. The above shall include, but are not limited to, posts on social media or reposts of posts made by another individual on social media.’” [WSB, 8/21/23]
August 24, 2023: Trump Was Booked At The Fulton County Jail. According to the New York Times, “Former President Donald J. Trump surrendered at the Fulton County jail in Atlanta on Thursday and was booked on 13 felony charges for his efforts to reverse his 2020 election loss in Georgia.” [New York Times, 8/24/23]
Trump Was Assigned Identification Number P01135809. According to the New York Times, “Mr. Trump spent about 20 minutes there, submitting to some of the routines of criminal defendant intake. He was fingerprinted and had his mug shot taken. He was assigned an identification number, P01135809. But the process was faster than for most defendants; minutes after he entered the jail, Mr. Trump’s record appeared in Fulton County’s booking system, which listed him as having ‘blond or strawberry’ hair, a height of 6 feet 3 inches and a weight of 215 pounds — 24 pounds less than the White House doctor reported Mr. Trump weighing in 2018.” [New York Times, 8/24/23]
August 29, 2023: The Fulton County DA’s Office Informed The Court That They Want To Try All 19 Defendants Together. According to the Messenger, “Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis informed a judge on Tuesday that state prosecutors still want to try former President Donald Trump together with his 18 co-defendants, including attorney Kenneth Chesebro, who is currently slated to be tried in October.” [Messenger, 8/29/23]
Deputy District Attorney Wooten Argued That Severing Defendants From The Case Was Improper. According to the Messenger, “‘The State maintains its position that severance is improper at this juncture and that all Defendants should be tried together, but at an absolute minimum, the Court should set Defendant Powell’s trial and that of any other defendant who may file a speedy trial demand on the same date as Defendant Chesebro’s,’ Deputy District Attorney John Will Wooten wrote in a four-page legal brief.” [Messenger, 8/29/23]
August 31, 2023: Trump Pleaded Not Guilty And Waived His Arraignment In Georgia. According to the New York Times, “Former President Donald J. Trump pleaded not guilty on Thursday and waived his arraignment in the Georgia criminal case charging him and 18 of his allies with interfering in the 2020 election. […] ‘I do hereby waive formal arraignment and enter my plea of not guilty,’ Mr. Trump stated in a two-page filing on Thursday morning. He wrote that he had discussed the charges with his lawyer, Steven H. Sadow, adding: ‘I fully understand the nature of the offenses charged,’ and that he waived his right to appear at arraignment, which had been scheduled to take place in Atlanta next Wednesday along with those of Mr. Trump’s co-defendants.” [New York Times, 8/31/23]
Defendants Sought To Move Their Cases To Federal Court
August 15, 2023: Former Trump Chief Of Staff Meadows Tried To Move His Charges In The Election Interference Case To Federal Court. According to Politico, “Mark Meadows, who was Donald Trump’s chief of staff during the 2020 election and the ensuing efforts to overturn its results, is trying to transfer his Georgia state prosecution to federal court with the goal of having the charges against him dismissed. In court papers filed Tuesday, lawyers for Meadows argued that the case against him should be moved out of Georgia state court so that Meadows can argue in federal court that he is immune from the prosecution under the U.S. Constitution. The charges against him, his lawyers said, amount to ‘state interference in a federal official’s duties’ in violation of the Constitution’s supremacy clause. Meadows intends to file a separate request for ‘prompt dismissal’ of the charges, his lawyers added.” [Politico, 8/15/23]
Clark, Shafer, Latham, And Still Filed To Move Their Cases To Federal Court. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark has separately filed for federal removal, as have three Georgia Republicans who served as ‘alternate’ GOP electors: David Shafer, Cathy Latham and state Sen. Shawn Still. Trump is expected to do so as well. If Jones rules in favor of removal for even one defendant, it’s possible that the entire case for all 19 defendants would be moved to federal court. Any decision is expected to be appealed, potentially all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Jones scheduled hearings for Clark’s and Still’s motions for Sept. 18.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 8/27/23]
September 7, 2023: Trump Notified The Court That He Might Try To Move His Case To Federal Court. According to CNN, “Former President Donald Trump on Thursday formally notified the judge overseeing the Georgia election subversion case that he ‘may’ try to move his state case into federal court. Trump’s lawyers have previously said they would try to move the case, which could help him get the charges dropped by invoking immunity protections for federal officials.” [CNN, 9/7/23]
September 5, 2023: DA Willis Argued That The Fake Presidential Electors Could Not Move Their Cases To Federal Court Because “Repeating A Fiction Does Not Make The Statement True.” According to Politico, “Georgia prosecutors contended Tuesday that the GOP activists who falsely claimed to be legitimate presidential electors — three of whom are now charged as Donald Trump’s alleged co-conspirators — were playing an elaborate game of pretend that crossed criminal boundaries. ‘Defendant’s argument is akin to claiming that a homemade badge could transform him into a genuine United States Marshal with all the powers afforded that position,’ Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis argued in a 27-page brief rejecting an effort by one of those false electors, Shawn Still, to transfer the criminal case out of state court and into federal court. ‘Repeating a fiction does not make the statement true.’” [Politico, 9/5/23]
September 8, 2023: Chief Of Staff Meadows’s Effort To Move His Case To Federal Court Was Denied By Judge Jones. According to the Washington Post, “A federal judge denied a request Friday from former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to move the Georgia election-interference case against him from state to federal court, a shift he had sought on the grounds that he was a federal officer at the time of the actions that led to his indictment. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Steve C. Jones in the Atlanta-based Northern District of Georgia represents a setback for Meadows, who had asked for removal under a federal law that allows people charged with crimes while carrying out their official duties to be prosecuted in federal court, even in cases involving state law and state prosecutors.” [Washington Post, 9/8/23]
Judge Jones Ruled Meadow’s Actions Were Outside His Role As Chief Of Staff. According to the Washington Post, “Meadows had hoped a move to federal court could lead to a quick dismissal of the case against him because he had argued to Jones that as a federal officer, he is immune from prosecution for acts taken in the course of his normal work. Instead, Jones found that the actions ‘at the heart of the State’s charges against Meadows were taken on behalf of the Trump campaign with the ultimate goal of affecting state election activities and procedures.’ He added: ‘Meadows himself testified that working for the Trump campaign would be outside the scope of a White House Chief of Staff.’” [Washington Post, 9/8/23]
Meadows Appealed The Decision. According to Politico, “Meadows filed an appeal to the 11th Circuit on Friday night. ‘The Court concludes that Meadows has not shown that the actions that triggered the State’s prosecution related to his federal office,’ U.S. District Judge Steve Jones wrote in his decision, while emphasizing that he was not ruling on the right of any other defendant to have the case against them moved to the federal system.” [Politico, 9/8/23]
September 11, 2023: Meadows Requested That The Decision Remanding His Case Back To State Court Be Stayed. According to Reuters, “He also asked the U.S. district court for northern Georgia to stay the effect of its order remanding his case to state court pending his appeal to the 11th Circuit. In that filing, Meadows' lawyers argued that several aspects of the district court's order departed from precedent, including failing to credit Meadows' account of his conduct and duties and raising the burden on Meadows to justify the removal of his case from state court.” [Reuters, 9/11/23]
September 12, 2023: Judge Jones Rejected Meadows’ Request For An Emergency Stay Of The Ruling, Sending His Case Back To State Court. According to CNBC, “A federal judge denied former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ request for an emergency stay of a ruling that sent his Georgia election interference case back to state court, a court filing showed Wednesday. Meadows, former President Donald Trump’s final chief of staff, had asked U.S. District Judge Steve Jones to pause his ruling pending an appeal in a higher court. But Jones sided with Atlanta District Attorney Fani Willis, who on Tuesday urged the judge to reject Meadows’ latest effort to try and move his case to federal court. Meadows ‘has not shown he is entitled to an emergency stay,’ Jones ruled in an order dated Tuesday and made public Wednesday morning on the docket in U.S. District Court in Atlanta.” [CNBC, 9/13/23]
Meadows’ Appeal Was Rejected By A Three-Judge Panel On The 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals. According to the Messenger, “U.S. District Judge Steve Jones rejected Meadows in September, and the former Trump aide appealed that ruling to the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit. A three-judge panel heard oral arguments on the matter in mid-December before upholding Jones' decision on the very next business day. Notably, the 11th Circuit's judges upheld Jones’ ruling that Meadows failed to provide a ‘colorable’ defense and did not prove that the alleged acts supporting the charges against him were carried out under the official responsibilities of his office. That's the requirement under the federal statute that would have allowed him to move his case out of state court.” [Messenger, 1/2/24]
Meadows Asked The 11th Circuit For An En Banc Rehearing Of His Bid To Move His Part Of The Georgia RICO Case To Federal Court. According to the Messenger, “Former President Donald Trump's White House chief of staff pleaded on Tuesday for a new hearing in front of a full slate of a dozen federal judges in his bid to get his portion of Georgia's election racketeering case moved into federal court. The petition for a rehearing en banc was expected from Mark Meadows, one of the original 18 co-defendants charged alongside Trump in Fulton County over alleged efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.
February 28, 2024: The 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals Denied Mark Meadows’ Attempt To Move His RICO Trial To Federal Court. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “An appeals court has denied Mark Meadows’ request for a hearing as he seeks to have his Fulton County election interference case removed to federal court. On Wednesday the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Meadows’ request for a rare ‘en banc’ hearing before all of the court’s 12 judges. That means Meadows last hope is an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meadows is the former chief of staff to then-President Donald Trump. Last year Fulton County prosecutors charged him with two felonies for his role in Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2/28/24]
July 28, 2024: Former Trump Chief Of Staff Mark Meadows Asked The Supreme Court To Move His RICO Case To Federal Court. According to The Hill, “Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’s attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the Georgia election racketeering case and move it to federal court, pointing to the high court’s recent ruling granting former President Trump some immunity in his federal election subversion case. In a petition to the Supreme Court, Meadows’s lawyers said the Georgia case has ‘framed the case as about ‘federal meddling in matters of state authority,’ and argued a federal forum is needed to address questions over Meadows’s actions while serving as Trump’s chief of staff.” [The Hill, 7/28/24]
September 20, 2023: Former Georgia GOP Chair Shafer, State Senator Still, And Coffee County Georgia GOP Chair Latham Argued That They Acted As Federal Officers When They Acted As Fake Electors. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Three Republicans who cast Electoral College votes for Donald Trump after the 2020 presidential election were acting as federal officers and doing what the law allowed, defense lawyers told a federal judge on Wednesday. The Trump electors — former Georgia GOP Chairman David Shafer, state Sen. Shawn Still and former Coffee County GOP Chairwoman Cathy Latham — are charged in Fulton County with conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election. They are seeking to get their cases removed from Fulton Superior Court to U.S. District Court in Atlanta.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/20/23]
Shafer, Still, And Latham Sought Removal Of The Case To Federal Court. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Three Republicans who cast Electoral College votes for Donald Trump after the 2020 presidential election were acting as federal officers and doing what the law allowed, defense lawyers told a federal judge on Wednesday. The Trump electors — former Georgia GOP Chairman David Shafer, state Sen. Shawn Still and former Coffee County GOP Chairwoman Cathy Latham — are charged in Fulton County with conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election. They are seeking to get their cases removed from Fulton Superior Court to U.S. District Court in Atlanta.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/20/23]
September 29, 2023: Former DOJ Official Clark’s Motion To Move His Case To Federal Court Denied. According to CNN, “Trump-era Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark cannot move his Georgia election subversion case from state to federal court, a judge ruled Friday. The ruling from US District Judge Steve Jones is the latest blow to the Georgia defendants who are trying to move their state prosecutions into the federal system, where they could get more favorable trial conditions or increase their chances of getting the criminal charges dropped altogether by invoking immunity protections for US government officials.” [CNN, 9/29/23]
Trump Decided Not To Try To Move His Case To Federal Court
September 28, 2023: Trump Decided Not To Try To Move His Case To Federal Court. According to CNN, “Former President Donald Trump will not attempt to move the criminal charges brought against him by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to federal court, his lawyers revealed in a court filing Thursday. The move comes as a surprise, as Trump was largely expected to try to move the Georgia case as part of a bid to invoke immunity protections for federal officials. Under federal law, criminal cases can be removed to federal court if the alleged behavior relates to their government duties.” [CNN, 9/28/23]
The Fulton County DA’s Office Outlined What The Trump RICO Trial Would Look Like
September 6, 2023: The Fulton County DA’s Office Estimated That Trump’s RICO Trial Would Take At Least Four Months. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “In a hearing Wednesday, a member of Willis’ staff estimated that a trial would take at least four months to complete and potentially much longer if defendants took the stand. A trial for at least two of defendants, who have demanded a speedy trial, has been set for Oct. 23.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/6/23]
The Fulton County DA’s Office Expected To Call More Than 150 Witnesses At Trial. According to CNN, “Prosecutor Nathan Wade threw out some big numbers at Wednesday’s hearing: The Fulton County district attorney’s office expects its case against the 19 defendants would take about four months – and prosecutors expect to call more than 150 witnesses.” [CNN, 9/6/23]
September 13, 2023: Trump Waived His Right To A Speedy Trial In Georgia. According to the Associated Press, “Former President Donald Trump and some other defendants are waiving their right to seek a speedy trial in the Georgia case in which they are accused of participating in an illegal scheme to overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential election. The filings are part of the legal maneuvering as Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis seeks to try all 19 defendants together starting next month. Most of the defendants have sought to separate their cases from some or all of the others, with many saying they will not be ready by Oct. 23, when a trial has been set for two defendants who have already filed demands for a speedy trial. The judge has expressed skepticism that all defendants could go to trial that day.” [Associated Press, 9/13/23]
Powell And Chesebro’s Accepted Plea Deals After Their Cases Were Severed Into A Separate Trial
September 14, 2023: Trump And 16 Co-Defendants Severed From Powell And Chesebro’s October Trial. According to the Associated Press, “A Georgia judge ruled Thursday that former President Donald Trump and 16 others will be tried separately from two defendants who are set to go to trial next month in the case accusing them of participating in an illegal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Lawyers Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro had filed demands for a speedy trial, and Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee set their trial to begin Oct. 23. Trump and other defendants had asked to be tried separately from Powell and Chesebro, with some saying they could not be ready by the late October trial date.” [Associated Press, 9/14/23]
September 19, 2023: Judge McAfee Granted Chesebro And Powell’s Requests To Interview Grand Jury Witnesses. According to ABC News, “The judge overseeing the Fulton County election interference case will allow attorneys for two of Donald Trump's codefendants to interview the grand jurors who returned the indictment, according to a new order on Tuesday, after the attorneys raised concerns that it was not ‘properly returned.’ Judge Scott McAfee ruled that the attorneys for Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell -- who are headed to trial next month -- can speak with grand jurors but said the Court would ‘guide and maintain oversight" of the process to ensure that "privileged matters remain protected.’ Each interview must be voluntary and be conducted in the presence of the court, the order said.” [ABC News, 9/20/23]
September 29, 2023: Trump Co-Defendant Chesebro’s Motion To Suppress Evidence Rejected. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee on Friday denied a motion by former Trump campaign attorney Kenneth Chesebro to toss out emails and memos he wrote detailing a plan to use a Republican slate of electors in Georgia and six other swing states won by Democrat Joe Biden. Chesebro’s lawyers had argued that the documents were protected under attorney-client privilege and should not be used against him in the sweeping election interference case brought by Fulton District Attorney Fani Willis. In an order issued Friday morning, McAfee said those protections are only meant to shield lawyers who are not suspects in a crime, and he referred to the defense motion as a ‘strained reading’ of Georgia law.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/29/23]
October 2, 2023: The Fulton County District Attorney’s Office Subpoenaed Former NYPD Commissioner Kerik To Testify In The First RICO Trial. According to CNN, “The Fulton County district attorney’s office has issued a subpoena to former New York Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik to testify in the first trial later this month in the case stemming from election subversion plots in Georgia, according to his lawyer.” [CNN, 10/2/23]
October 4, 2023: Trump Co-Defendant Chesebro Moved To Dismiss The Case Against Him Due To An Alleged Paperwork Error. According to ABC News, “Three weeks before the scheduled start of his trial in Fulton County, a defendant in the Georgia election interference case is seeking to have the indictment against him dismissed based on an alleged paperwork error made by one of the lead special prosecutors in the case.” [ABC News, 10/4/23]
October 5, 2023: Trump Co-Defendant Powell’s Motion To Dismiss The Charges Against Her Rejected. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “A Fulton County judge Thursday rejected attorney Sidney Powell’s request to dismiss charges against her alleging she tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. Powell asked Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee to dismiss racketeering and other conspiracy charges related to a breach of voter software in Coffee County in January 2021 because of prosecutorial misconduct. At a hearing Thursday, Powell attorney Brian Rafferty argued his client was not involved in the Coffee events and prosecutors may be hiding evidence that would exonerate her. Deputy District Attorney Will Wooten said Rafferty offered no evidence of misconduct. He called the accusations ‘outrageous,’ ‘not true,’ ‘absurd’ and ‘unsupported.’ McAfee rejected Powell’s motion on procedural grounds. He said he had no authority to dismiss the charges at this stage of the case. And he said it should be up to a jury to determine Powell’s guilt or innocence.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/5/23]
October 5, 2023: The Fulton County DA Sought Testimony From Trump Lawyer Epshteyn And Five Other Witnesses In The Upcoming RICO Trial Of Chesebro And Powell. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Fulton prosecutors on Thursday provided hints about their plans in the upcoming trial of two of the now 18 defendants in their 2020 election interference case. The District Attorney’s office filed petitions seeking testimony from six witnesses who live outside of Georgia. Among them was Boris Epshteyn, a lawyer in former President Donald Trump’s inner circle; former Atlanta libel attorney Lin Wood; and several GOP officials in other swing states that Trump contested three years ago. The documents amount to a preview of the DA’s approach in the coming racketeering trial involving Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell, jury selection for which will begin on Oct. 20. Both demanded a speedy trial, which prompted a Fulton judge to separate them from the case’s other defendants, including Trump, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s onetime personal attorney.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/5/23]
October 10, 2023: Judge McAfee Ordered RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel And Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones To Testify. According to CNN, “The judge presiding over the Georgia election subversion case signed orders Tuesday to compel Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and pro-Trump conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to testify at the first trial in the sprawling case. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee granted a request from District Attorney Fani Willis to order the testimony from these two high-profile witnesses. The development raises the stakes for the trial of Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell. They have pleaded not guilty. The judge determined that McDaniel and Jones are both ‘a necessary and material witness in this prosecution’ and said they ‘will be required to be in attendance and testify,’ according to court filings.” [CNN,.10/10/23]
October 11, 2023: Trump Co-Defendants Chesebro And Powell Moved To Dismiss The RICO Charges Against Them. According to the Messenger, “Attorneys for pro-Trump lawyers Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell, co-defendants in the Georgia racketeering case against Donald Trump, argued again Wednesday to dismiss RICO charges against their clients. They insist the state law was misapplied. But prosecutors brought ‘the godfather’ of Georgia RICO — the state's version of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act — to court to argue against them.” [Messenger, 10/11/23]
October 16, 2023: The Jury Questionnaire For the Chesebro-Powell RICO Trial Had More Than 100 Questions. According to the Messenger, “The first step in the upcoming five-month trial of Donald Trump co-defendants Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell will be a lengthy jury questionnaire aimed at testing whether or not potential jurors can keep an open mind. Georgia prosecutors and defense attorneys debated which questions will make the final questionnaire during an hour long Monday morning hearing before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee. Chesebro and Powell are the first defendants in the Georgia election racketeering case to go to trial after they invoked their right to a speedy trial under Georgia law. […] The jury questionnaire has more than 100 questions in it and will be filled out on Friday by 450 Fulton County residents, the first batch of 900 summoned in a process McAfee said he expects to last through the morning.” [Messenger, 10/16/23]
October 16, 2023: Two Members Of The Grand Jury Agreed To Be Interviewed By Lawyers For Chesebro And Powell. Attorneys for pro-Trump lawyers Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro are expected to get a chance to interview at least two Fulton County grand jurors who handed down the sweeping election-racketeering indictment against them, former President Donald Trump and 16 others. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee during a Monday morning hearing said the two grand jurors had ‘expressed interest’ in being interviewed, following a motion last month from Chesebro’s defense team to quiz them.” [Messenger, 10/16/23]
October 18, 2023: Judge McAfee Ruled That Chesebro’s Memos Were Subject To The Crime-Fraud Exception To Attorney-Client Privilege. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “In one order made public late Wednesday, McAfee also rejected Chesebro’s request to exclude from the trial key evidence in the case - memos in which Chesebro outlined how the Trump campaign could use Republican electors in states Biden won to help overturn the election. Chesebro argued they should be excluded because they are protected by attorney-client privilege. But in his ruling, the judge rejected that defense, saying the memos are not subject to protection because there is some basis to believe they were used in the commission of a crime. Though not a determination of guilt, McAfee’s ruling on the memos indicates he believes there is some evidence that Chesebro committed a crime.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/18/23]
Sidney Powell Accepted A Plea Deal
October 19, 2023: Sidney Powell Accepted A Plea Deal. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Attorney Sidney Powell has reached a plea deal with prosecutors in the Fulton County election probe.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/19/23]
Powell Received A $6,000 Fine, Six Years Probation, And Agreed To Testify. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution “Powell was charged with racketeering and other counts for her role in a Coffee County election system data breach. Under a deal announced Thursday in Fulton County Superior Court, she will receive six years probation and pay a $6,000 fine. She also agreed to testify truthfully in the case.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/19/23]
Kenneth Chesebro Accepted A Plea Deal
October 20, 2023: Trump Lawyer Chesebro Accepted A Plea Deal. According to the Messenger, “Pro-Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro struck a guilty plea deal on Friday in the Georgia election racketeering indictment, the third original co-defendant to strike a cooperation agreement with prosecutors ahead of trials for Donald Trump and 15 others, according to multiple media reports.” [Messenger, 10/20/23]
Chesebro Pled Guilty To Felony Conspiracy To Commit Filing False Documents. According to WSB, “According to the deal, Chesebro pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents.” [WSB, 10/20/23]
Chesebro Received Five Years Probation, Agreed To Pay $5,000 In Restitution, And To Testify. According to WSB, “Chesebro agreed to five years of probation, pay $5,000 in restitution, community service hours and to write an apology letter to the citizens of Georgia. He will also have to truthfully testify and cannot have contact with witnesses or another co-defendants.” [WSB, 10/20/23]
Co-Defendants Moved To Have Separate Trials
August 25, 2023: Trump Co-Defendant Powell Requested A Speedy Trial. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Former Trump campaign attorney Sidney Powell on Friday became the second defendant to demand a speedy trial. Under Georgia law, a speedy trial demand means a case has to be tried by the end of two terms of court. In Fulton County that effectively means a trial must begin before early November.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 8/27/23]
August 30, 2023: Trump Opposed DA Willis’ Request To Try All 19 Co-Defendants Together In October. According to ABC News, “Former President Donald Trump's attorney filed a motion Wednesday opposing Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' new request to try all 19 defendants in her Georgia election interference case together. The Trump filing urged the judge to stick with his earlier ruling that only Kenneth Chesebro -- who filed a speedy trial motion asking for an expediated trial -- stand trial on Oct. 23.” [ABC News, 8/30/23]
August 30, 2023: Trump Co-Defendants Chesebro And Powell Moved To Sever Their Cases From The Other Defendants. According to WAGA, “By Wednesday afternoon, Chesebro and co-defendant Sidney Powell had filed motions to sever their cases. Chesebro also filed a motion Wednesday to disclose unindicted co-conspirators known to the grand jury.” [WAGA, 8/30/23]
August 30, 2023: Trump Co-Defendant Chesebro Asked For The Identities Of The 30 Unindicted Co-Conspirators. According to CNN, “Additionally on Wednesday, Chesebro’s attorneys asked the judge to force Willis to ‘disclose’ the identities of the 30 unindicted co-conspirators named in the indictment. Chesebro, who was the architect of the Trump campaign’s fake electors plot, said he needs these names to help his defense.” [CNN, 8/30/23]
September 6, 2023: Fake Electors Cheeley And Still, As Well As Former Assistant Attorney General Clark, Asked To Sever Their Cases From Powell And Chesebro. According to CNN, “In addition, three more defendants – Robert Cheeley, Jeffrey Clark and Shawn Still – asked the judge Wednesday to sever their cases from Chesebro and Powell.” [CNN, 9/6/23]
A Trump Co-Defendant Pled Guilty
September 29, 2023: Trump Co-Defendant Hall Pled Guilty. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Bail bondsman Scott Hall on Friday became the first defendant in the Fulton County election interference case to take a plea agreement with prosecutors, signaling the probe has entered a dynamic new phase. During an impromptu hearing before Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, Hall, with his attorney by his side, pleaded guilty to five misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit intentional interference with the performance of election duties.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/29/23]
Hall Agreed To Five Years Probation, A $5,000 Fine, 200 Hours Of Community Service, A Ban On Polling And Election Administration Activities, A Public Apology To The Voters Of Georgia, And To Testify. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Hall agreed to testify truthfully when called, five years probation, a $5,000 fine, 200 hours of community service and a ban on polling and election administration-related activities. He also recorded a statement for prosecutors and pledged to pen a letter of apology to Georgia voters.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/29/23]
Former DOJ Lawyer Clark Said Trump Told Him To Write The Letter That Claimed DOJ Doubted The Election Results In Georgia
Acting Assistant Attorney General Clark Said Trump Pressed Him To Write The Letter Stating The Department Of Justice Doubted The Election Results In Georgia. According to the Washington Post, “As a Justice Department lawyer after the 2020 election, Jeffrey Clark drafted a letter to top Georgia officials declaring that the agency had reason to doubt the legitimacy of the state’s election only after he was pressed to do so by then-president Donald Trump, Clark’s lawyer told a skeptical federal judge Monday.” [Washington Post, 9/18/23]
Prosecutors Floated Plea Deals With Other Trump Co-Defendants
October 2023: Prosecutors Discussed Plea Deals With Some Of The Defendants In The Trump RICO Case. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Fulton County prosecutors are floating plea deals to a number of defendants in the election interference case involving former President Donald Trump, according to people with knowledge of the proposals. At least a handful of the now 18 defendants have received offers from the District Attorney’s office — or prosecutors have touched base with their attorneys to gauge their general interest in striking a deal for a reduced charge in exchange for their cooperation, according to the legal sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive ongoing negotiations.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/3/23]
Trump 2020 Election Day Director Michael Roman Rejected A Plea Deal. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has learned that Fulton prosecutors have also offered a deal to Michael Roman, who worked as director of Election Day operations for the Trump campaign in 2020. A member of Roman’s legal team told The AJC they rejected the DA’s proposal and that no agreement has been reached. ‘We’re maintaining our client’s innocence,’ the legal team member said.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/3/23]
October 18, 2023: Trump Lawyer Chesebro Rejected A Plea Deal. According to ABC News, “One of former President Donald Trump's co-defendants in the Georgia election interference case rejected a plea deal from prosecutors ahead of his trial this month, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News. Attorney Kenneth Chesebro, one of the 18 defendants charged alongside Trump in Fulton County case racketeering case, rejected an offer from prosecutors, the sources said. The deal would have allowed Chesebro to avoid prison time by pleading guilty to one felony count of racketeering, the top charge in the indictment, according to the sources.” [ABC News, 10/18/23]
November 28, 2023: Prosecutors Did Not Intend To Offer Trump A Plea Deal. According to the Guardian, “Fulton county prosecutors do not intend to offer plea deals to Donald Trump and at least two high-level co-defendants charged in connection with their efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia, according to two people familiar with the matter, preferring instead to force them to trial. The individuals seen as ineligible include Trump, his former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and Trump’s former lawyer Rudy Giuliani.” [Guardian, 11/28/23]
DA Willis Kept Alive The Potential For Plea Agreements Except For Trump, Meadows, And Giuliani. According to the Guardian, “Aside from those three, the Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis has opened plea talks or has left open the possibility of talks with the remaining co-defendants in the hope that they ultimately decide to become cooperating witnesses against the former president, the people said.” [Guardian, 11/28/23]
Thousands Of Emails And Documents From A Trump Co-Defendant Turned Over To Fulton County Prosecutors
October 17, 2023: More Than 15,000 Emails And Documents Connected To Trump Co-Defendant Missy Hampton Were Turned Over To Fulton County Prosecutors By The Georgia Bureau Of Investigation. According to CNN, “A trove of emails and documents uncovered by state investigators looking into a voting systems breach in Georgia is being turned over to the Fulton County prosecutors who brought the sweeping racketeering case against former President Donald Trump and his allies. More than 15,000 emails and documents connected to Misty Hampton, the former election supervisor for Coffee County, were discovered this month by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation – after attorneys for the rural county’s board of elections claimed the information had been lost.” [CNN, 10/17/23]
Trump Lawyer Ellis Pleaded Guilty
October 24, 2023: Trump Attorney Ellis Pleaded Guilty To Felony Aiding And Abetting False Statements And Writings. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Attorney Jenna Ellis on Tuesday became the fourth defendant in the Fulton County election interference case to strike a deal with prosecutors. In exchange for her cooperation, Ellis pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting false statements and writings, a felony. Speaking to the judge in a Fulton courtroom Tuesday, Ellis tearfully said she no longer believed the claims of election fraud she spread following the 2020 election when she acted as a legal adviser and media surrogate for Trump.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/24/23]
The Charge Ellis Pleaded Guilty To Concerned Lying To A Georgia Senate Subcommittee About Election Fraud. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The count Ellis pled to stemmed from her testimony before a Georgia Senate subcommittee in late 2020. Along with co-defendants Rudy Giuliani and Ray Smith, Ellis ‘knowingly, willingly, and unlawfully’ made false statements about election fraud in Georgia, according to her new charging document.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/24/23]
Ellis Received Five Years Probation, 100 Hours Of Community Service, $5,000 In Restitution, And Was Ordered To Apologize To The Voters Of Georgia. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Under the terms of the agreement, Ellis must serve five years probation, perform 100 hours of community service and pay $5,000 in restitution to the Georgia Secretary of State’s office. She agreed to testify truthfully when called, provide documents and other evidence, refrain from posting about the case on social media and to pen an apology letter to Georgia voters.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/24/23]
May 28, 2024: Former Trump Lawyer Ellis Was Disbarred In Colorado For Three Years. According to the Associated Press, “Colorado legal officials on Tuesday approved an agreement with Jenna Ellis, a one-time attorney for former President Donald Trump, barring her from practicing law in the state for three years after she pleaded guilty to helping Trump try to overturn the 2020 election. Ellis tearfully pleaded guilty to felony charges of aiding and abetting false statements in Fulton County, Georgia, in October. She was one of 18 co-defendants of Trump who were charged in a sweeping case over the former president's campaign to reverse President Joe Biden's 2020 victory in Georgia. Ellis was previously censured in Colorado for making false statements over the 2020 election, including that the election was ‘stolen’ from Trump. Those falsehoods were part of a sustained campaign by Trump allies that helped lead to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.” [Associated Press, 5/28/24]
Ellis Admitted To Making Several False Statements About Election Fraud
Ellis Admitted To Making Several False Statements About Election Fraud In Her Plea Deal. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The plea agreement cites numerous false statements Ellis, Giuliani and Smith made during a Dec. 3, 2020, legislative hearing in Atlanta, during which the group pushed for lawmakers to appoint a slate of pro-Trump presidential electors, even though Democrat Joe Biden had won the state.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/24/23]
Ellis Said Her Statements That 96,000 Fraudulent Ballots Were Cast; As Well As 66,248 Underage Voters, 10,315 Dead People, And 2,506 Felons Voted In Georgia; Were False. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Among other things, the trio claimed at least 96,000 fraudulent absentee ballots were cast in the election, 2,506 felons voted, 66,248 underage voters cast ballots and 10,315 dead people voted. None of those claims were true — and Ellis acknowledged as much as part of her plea agreement.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/24/23]
Ellis Said She Would Not Have Represented Trump Had She Known What She Now Knew
Ellis: “If I Knew Then What I Know Now, I Would Have Declined To Represent Donald Trump In These Post-Election Challenges.” According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Ellis, 38, also took the unusual step of addressing Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, who is presiding over the case, from behind the defense table. With tears streaming down her face, Ellis said, ‘if I knew then what I know now, I would have declined to represent Donald Trump in these post-election challenges.’” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/24/23]
A Judge Ruled That The Plea Deals For Trump Co-Defendants Would Be Published
November 1, 2023: Fulton County Judge McAfee Ruled That Trump’s Co-Defendants That Took Plea Deals Would Have The Plea Deals Published. According to Newsweek, “The co-defendants who reached plea deals in Donald Trump's Georgia election subversion case will see those deals published, a judge has ordered. Four of the former president's 18 co-defendants involved in the indictment have pleaded guilty on various charges around trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Trump has pleaded not guilty and has consistently denied any wrongdoing in the case. Now, those four co-defendants—Jenna Ellis, Kenneth Chesbero, Scott Hall and Sidney Powell—will see their deals unsealed and made public, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee ruled.” [Newsweek, 11/1/23]
Portions Of The Proffer Sessions Jenna Ellis And Sidney Powell Had With Fulton County Prosecutors Obtained By ABC News
November 13, 2023: Video Of Portions Of Lawyers Jenna Ellis’ And Sidney Powell’s Proffer Sessions Were Obtained By ABC News. According to ABC News, “The revelation, along with others, came during a confidential interview the attorney, Jenna Ellis, had with Fulton County investigators. ABC News has obtained portions of videos of the proffer sessions of both Ellis and Sidney Powell, two attorneys who aided Trump's efforts to overturn the election. The videos for the first time reveal details of what they have told law enforcement since agreeing to cooperate last month in the district attorney's election interference case.” [ABC News, 11/13/23]
Ellis Said She Was Told That Trump Was Never Going To Leave The White House
Former Trump Lawyer Jenna Ellis Told Prosecutors That Dan Scavino Told Her At The White House Christmas Party That Trump Was Not Going To Leave The White House “Under Any Circumstances.” According to ABC News, “In the video of prosecutors' Oct. 23 proffer session with Ellis, she said that one of Trump's top White House aides, Dan Scavino, allegedly told her ‘in an excited tone’ at a White House Christmas party weeks after the 2020 election that ‘the boss is not going to leave under any circumstances.’” [ABC News, 11/13/23]
When Ellis Remarked That Was Not How Elections Work, Scavino Responded “We Don’t Care.” According to ABC News, “Ellis continued, ‘And I said to him, 'Well, it doesn't quite work that way, you realize?' and he said, 'We don't care.'’” [ABC News, 11/13/23]
Powell Explained Her Plan To Seize Voting Machines
Sidney Powell Explained Her Plan To Seize Voting Machines Nationwide And Said She Frequently Communicated With Trump. According to ABC News, “Powell, meanwhile, explained to prosecutors her plans for seizing voting machines nationwide and claimed that she frequently communicated with Trump during her efforts to overturn the 2020 election -- though both now claim she was never his attorney.” [ABC News, 11/13/23]
Powell Said Multiple Aides Told Trump He Lost The Election
Sidney Powell Said That Multiple Aides Told Trump He Lost The Election. According to ABC News, “In discussing her direct conversations and meetings with Trump, Powell, in the portions of her proffer interview obtained by ABC News, told prosecutors that she never heard Trump concede that he lost the election even after being told by key aides that he had. Instead, she said he was following ‘instincts’ that he won. ‘All his instincts told him he had been defrauded, that the election was a big fraud,’ Powell said. ‘Just general instincts that something wasn't right here.’ Still, Powell said she was present when multiple advisers told him he had lost, and prosecutors pressed Powell over why the president followed her advice instead of his other advisers.” [ABC News, 11/13/23]
DA Willis Requested An Emergency Hearing After Proffer Interviews Were Leaked
November 14, 2023: The Fulton County DA’s Office Asked For An Emergency Order To Protect All Discovery Materials. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The Fulton County District Attorney’s office is seeking emergency safeguards after recorded interviews of four election subversion defendants were leaked to the media, setting off a heated feud between attorneys in the sprawling case. In a new court filing Tuesday, Fulton prosecutors asked Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee for an order protecting all discovery materials. They want to prohibit sensitive and confidential information from being shared beyond defendants and their attorneys.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 11/14/23]
November 16, 2023: Attorney For Trump Co-Defendant Misty Hampton Said He Released Videos Of Prosecutors Interviews. According to the Associated Press, “A lawyer for a former elections director charged alongside former President Donald Trump and others over efforts to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election said Wednesday that he released videos of prosecutors’ interviews with some of their codefendants because he thought they helped his client and the public had the right to see them. Jonathan Miller, an attorney for Misty Hampton, made the comments at a hearing requested by Fulton County prosecutors after news outlets earlier this week reported on the videos, which were recorded as part of plea deals. Prosecutors initially asked the judge to impose an order to prevent the release of any evidence in the case.” [Associated Press, 11/16/23]
Judge McAfee Issued A Protective Order For “Sensitive” Evidence
November 16, 2023: Judge McAfee Approved A Protective Order For “Sensitive” Evidence In The Trump RICO Case. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “A Fulton County judge Thursday ordered some evidence in the Donald Trump election interference case to be withheld from the public. The move came after interviews of several witnesses leaked to the media this week. Following the disclosure, District Attorney Fani Willis had sought a sweeping order prohibiting the release of all evidence prosecutors turned over to defense attorneys. She said the release of evidence could lead to the harassment or intimidation of witnesses or the tainting of the jury