November 7, 2024: Deadline For Trump To Respond To The Special Counsel’s Brief On Immunity. According to Newsweek, “U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan agreed Thursday to allow former President Donald Trump to file his response to the Justice Department's special counsel Jack Smith's immunity filing until after the presidential election, a filing shows. Trump's lawyers had asked for until November 21 to submit their retort to the filings submitted by federal prosecutors, but Chutkan set the deadline for November 7—two days after the election, which is still an extension from the original October 17 deadline.” [Newsweek, 10/3/24]
Late October 2024: Most Likely Time When A Decision From The Court Would Be Announced On Trump’s Appeal. According to the Associated Press, “The appeals court, known as the Appellate Division, typically rules about a month after arguments, meaning a decision could come before Election Day, Nov. 5. It could uphold the trial verdict, reduce or overturn it.” [Associated Press, 9/26/24]
October 25, 2024: Deadline For Trump To Submit His Brief In The Special Counsel’s Appeal Of The Dismissal Of Charges In The Classified Documents Case. According to The Hill, “Former President Trump’s legal team was granted a deadline extension in his documents case, a move that likely will further delay a review of U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to dismiss the case. The extension could delay a higher court’s review of Cannon’s surprise ruling until past the inauguration of the next president. Cannon tossed all pending charges against Trump, determining special counsel Jack Smith was improperly appointed. Trump is facing charges on 40 counts related to retaining documents with classified markings, sparking charges for violating the Espionage Act as well as obstruction of justice. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which typically approves first-time bids, reset the Sept. 25 deadline for Oct. 25.” [The Hill, 9/18/24]
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]
October 25, 2024: New Deadline For Trump To Submit His Brief In The Special Counsel’s Appeal Of The Dismissal Of Charges In The Classified Documents Case. According to The Hill, “Former President Trump’s legal team was granted a deadline extension in his documents case, a move that likely will further delay a review of U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to dismiss the case. The extension could delay a higher court’s review of Cannon’s surprise ruling until past the inauguration of the next president. Cannon tossed all pending charges against Trump, determining special counsel Jack Smith was improperly appointed. Trump is facing charges on 40 counts related to retaining documents with classified markings, sparking charges for violating the Espionage Act as well as obstruction of justice. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which typically approves first-time bids, reset the Sept. 25 deadline for Oct. 25.” [The Hill, 9/18/24]
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]
October 7, 2024: The Supreme Court Rejected An Appeal From X As To Whether Prosecutors Should Have Gotten Data From Trump’s Twitter Account Without Him Being Notified. According to NBC News, “The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal brought by X, Elon Musk's social media company, declining to decide whether prosecutors should have been able to obtain data from the former president Donald Trump Twitter account without him being notified. The case arose as part of special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into Trump over alleged election interference in 2020, which the Supreme Court stymied earlier this year by ruling that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution for official acts taken in office. The court left in place a ruling in favor of prosecutors. Smith has already obtained the data at issue in the appeal brought by X, as Twitter is now known following Musk’s takeover of the social media company.” [NBC News, 10/7/24]
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 19, 2024: Trump’s Lawyers Demanded More Disclosure From The Government So They Could Prove Trump Had Immunity. According to Newsweek, “Prosecutor Jack Smith's lack of disclosure is causing ‘serious problems’ in Donald Trump's election fraud case, the former president's lawyers have alleged. ‘The Special Counsel's Office has repeatedly misstated the law and mischaracterized their discovery obligations,’ Trump attorneys John Lauro and Todd Blanche said in a court filing on Thursday. Quoting Chief Justice John Roberts' Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, the Trump lawyers say that ‘these are serious problems, which present 'unique risks to the effective functioning of government.’ Trump's lawyers are currently arguing for more disclosure from the government so they can prove that Trump has immunity from large parts of the indictment, per the July 1 Supreme Court ruling, which gave Trump broad protection from prosecution.” [Newsweek, 9/20/24]
October 16, 2024: Judge Chutkan Mostly Rejected Trump’s Request For More Discovery In The January 6 Case, Stating That What Trump Sought Was Not Relevant To His Defense. According to the Associated Press, “The judge’s order, though, mostly rejected the categories of information that Trump had sought from prosecutors, saying his lawyers failed to make the case that it was relevant to his defense against charges that he illegally schemed to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. That includes a wide swath of documents related to that election and the Jan. 6, 2021, riot including information related to security at the Capitol and any details about undercover government agents who may have been there. Trump also unsuccessfully sought a complete version of the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Russia had interfered in the 2016 presidential election, as well as information regarding foreign actors’ efforts to influence the 2020 election to support the defense’s argument that ‘Trump and others acted in good faith even if certain reports were ultimately determined to be inaccurate.’ But the judge said details about foreign entities working to influence the American public in 2020 had no bearing on the current case.” [Associated Press, 10/16/24]
Judge Chutkan Did Grant Trump’s Request For Information Related To The Investigation Into Mike Pence’s Handling Of Classified Documents Because It Related To Witness Credibility. According to the Associated Press, “The federal judge overseeing the election interference case against Donald Trump directed prosecutors Wednesday to search for and provide to the former president’s lawyers any Justice Department information related to a separate investigation into Mike Pence’s handling of classified documents. Trump’s lawyers had argued that that information could be relevant to their defense to the extent it shows that Pence, Trump’s vice president, had ‘an incentive to curry favor with authorities’ and implicate Trump while facing his own investigation into the retention of classified documents in his Indiana home. Special counsel Jack Smith’s team has said it had no involvement in the Pence investigation and has ‘no discoverable information’ on the case ‘beyond what has been publicly reported.’ But U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered Smith’s team to look for and produce any additional records on the investigation, noting that defense lawyers are entitled to cite evidence of a witness’s uncharged conduct as a way to undermine that witness’s credibility. ‘Defendant is correct that information suggesting a potential witness’s motives for implicating him may be material,’ Chutkan wrote.” [Associated Press, 10/16/24]
September 26, 2024: The Special Counsel Filed Their Brief Supporting Charges Against Trump In The January 6 Case. According to Politico, “Special counsel Jack Smith has filed a detailed compilation of evidence he’s assembled to support charges that former President Donald Trump broke federal law in his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Smith’s office confirmed Thursday afternoon that prosecutors sent U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan the information in advance of a 5 p.m. deadline she set. ‘We have complied with the court’s order,’ spokesperson Peter Carr said. He declined to elaborate on the size or contents of the filing, although earlier this week prosecutors won permission from Chutkan to take as many as 180 pages to detail the proof they’d offer against Trump if and when the case goes to trial.” [Politico, 9/26/24]
October 2, 2024: Judge Chutkan Released A Redacted Version Of The Special Counsel’s Brief. According to Politico, “Smith submitted the sprawling legal brief to Chutkan last week, but it remained sealed until Wednesday. Over Trump’s objection, Chutkan publicly released a redacted version of the filing.” [Politico, 10/2/24]
The Brief Was Devoted To Arguing That Trump’s Actions Were As A Candidate, Not As President, And Thus Not Entitled To Presidential Immunity. According to Politico, “Much of the new filing is devoted to arguing that many of Trump’s actions following Election Day were political or private in nature, and thus shouldn’t be considered part of the official duties a president may be entitled to immunity for. Smith’s submission also seems to have been prepared with an eye to the issue returning to the Supreme Court. The filing quotes from a concurring opinion Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote on the immunity issue earlier this year, echoing her position that there is ‘no plausible argument’ that the alleged effort by Trump to organize false slates of electors was related to Trump’s official duties. Smith notes that many of Trump’s conversations with Pence were in their ‘private capacities as running mates,’ rather than discussions of Pence’s official duties on Jan. 6.” [Politico, 10/2/24]
October 10, 2024: Judge Chutkan Ruled Over Trump’s Objections That Exhibits Used By The Special Counsel To Argue That Trump Was Not Immune From Prosecution Would Be Publicly Released, But Stayed Her Ruling For Seven Days. According to CNN, “The judge in the federal January 6, 2021, criminal case against Donald Trump will wait at least seven days before releasing exhibits containing evidence that special counsel Jack Smith is using to argue that the former president is not immune from prosecution. Trump opposes the release of the heavily redacted exhibits related to the sprawling 165-page brief in which Smith that laid out the election subversion case.” [CNN, 10/10/24]
October 17, 2024: Judge Chutkan Denied Trump’s Request To Delay Releasing The Appendix To The Special Counsel’s Immunity Brief. According to CBS News, “Judge Tanya Chutkan on Thursday denied former President Donald Trump's request to delay until after the election the unsealing of court records and exhibits in the 2020 election interference case and said the court would release evidence submitted by the government on Friday. In her five-page order, Chutkan said there was a presumption that there should be public access to ‘all facets of criminal court proceedings’ and that Trump, in claiming the material should remain under seal, did not submit arguments relevant to any of the factors that would be considerations. Instead, Trump's lawyers argued that keeping it under seal for another month ‘will serve other interests,’ Chutkan wrote. ‘Ultimately, none of those arguments are persuasive.’” [CBS News, 10/17/24]
The Special Counsel Argued That Trump “Resorted To Crimes” To Try To Overturn The 2020 Election. According to Associated Press, “Donald Trump laid the groundwork to try to overturn the 2020 election even before he lost, knowingly pushed false claims of voter fraud and ‘resorted to crimes’ in his failed bid to cling to power, according to a court filing unsealed Wednesday that offers new evidence from the landmark criminal case against the former president.” [Associated Press, 10/2/24]
The Special Counsel Said That Trump Was “Increasingly Desperate” And “Used Deceit To Target Every Stage Of The Electoral Process.” According to the Associated Press, “The filing from special counsel Jack Smith’s team offers the most comprehensive view to date of what prosecutors intend to prove if the case charging Trump with conspiring to overturn the election reaches trial. Although a months-long congressional investigation and the indictment itself have chronicled in stark detail Trump’s efforts to undo the election, the filing cites previously unknown accounts offered by Trump’s closest aides to paint a portrait of an ‘increasingly desperate’ president who, while losing his grip on the White House, ‘used deceit to target every stage of the electoral process.’” [Associated Press, 10/2/24]
October 3, 2024: Trump Asked Judge Chutkan To Toss Out The Two Obstruction Charges Against Him. According to Reuters, “Donald Trump on Thursday urged a federal judge to toss out two obstruction charges central to the case that the former U.S. president illegally sought to overturn his 2020 election defeat, citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling raising the legal bar for those offenses.Lawyers for Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, argued in a court filing that the Supreme Court's ruling requires U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to dismiss charges accusing Trump of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding – the congressional certification of his loss to Democrat Joe Biden on Jan. 6, 2021 – and conspiring to do so.” [Reuters, 10/3/24]
October 16, 2024: Responding To Trump’s Motion To Dismiss, The Special Counsel Said That Trump Bears Responsibility For January 6. According to NBC News, “A team of federal prosecutors led by special counsel Jack Smith said in a filing Wednesday that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump bears responsibility for the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In a filing responding to Trump's attempt to dismiss the case, Smith's team said it ‘is incorrect’ for Trump's team to assert that the superseding indictment returned against Trump in August does not show that Trump bears responsibility for the events of Jan. 6. Trump, Smith's team said, ‘willfully caused others’ to obstruct the certification of President Joe Biden's 2020 election victory by repeating his false claims of election fraud and giving ‘false hope’ to his supporters who believed that then-Vice President Mike Pence might overturn the election, and by ‘pressuring’ Pence and legislators to accept fraudulent certificates as part of the fake electors scheme. ‘Those allegations link the defendant’s actions on January 6 directly to his efforts to corruptly obstruct the certification proceeding,’ Smith's team wrote. ‘Contrary to the defendant’s claim ... that he bears no factual or legal responsibility for the 'events on January 6,' the superseding indictment plainly alleges that the defendant willfully caused his supporters to obstruct and attempt to obstruct the proceeding by summoning them to Washington, D.C., and then directing them to march to the Capitol to pressure the Vice President and legislators to reject the legitimate certificates and instead rely on the fraudulent electoral certificates,’ Smith's team wrote.” [NBC News, 10/16/24]
Next Steps
November 7, 2024: Deadline For Trump To Respond To The Special Counsel’s Brief On Immunity. According to Newsweek, “U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan agreed Thursday to allow former President Donald Trump to file his response to the Justice Department's special counsel Jack Smith's immunity filing until after the presidential election, a filing shows. Trump's lawyers had asked for until November 21 to submit their retort to the filings submitted by federal prosecutors, but Chutkan set the deadline for November 7—two days after the election, which is still an extension from the original October 17 deadline.” [Newsweek, 10/3/24]
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]
September 12, 2024: A New York Court Of Appeals Kept Trump’s Gag Order In Place. According to NPR, “New York’s appeals court is keeping in place a limited gag order on former President Donald Trump, striking down his latest attempt to get the order lifted. The gag order, put in place by New York's Judge Juan Merchan, prevents the current Republican presidential nominee from speaking about court staff, prosecutors or their families. Merchan had previously said the order would be lifted after Trump is sentenced. Last week, Merchan pushed that sentencing off to Nov. 26, after the election.” [NPR, 9/12/24]
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 12, 2024: The Second Circuit Court Of Appeals Denied Trump’s Attempt To Move The Stormy Daniels Case To Federal Court. According to Reuters, “A U.S. appeals court on Thursday declined to interfere with a lower court decision to keep Donald Trump's already-decided criminal case over hush money paid to a porn star in state court, dealing another blow to the former U.S. president's bid to move the case to federal court. On Aug. 29, nearly three months after he was convicted in the first-ever criminal trial of a U.S. president, Trump asked U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to move the case from New York state court in Manhattan to federal court, arguing the trial violated his constitutional rights. Trump, the Republican nominee for president in the Nov. 5 election, said that if the case were moved, he would ask the federal court to dismiss it altogether because jurors at trial saw evidence of his official acts as president. He said that violated the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision finding presidents have broad immunity from prosecution for official acts. Hellerstein denied that request on Sept. 3, finding that the case dealt with ‘private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority. Trump asked the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to put that decision on hold while it considered the merits of his appeal. A three-judge panel at the 2nd Circuit denied Trump's request, citing Justice Juan Merchan's delay of Trump's sentencing date to Nov. 26 from Sept. 18. Merchan wrote that he wanted to avoid the unwarranted perception of a political motive.” [Reuters, 9/12/24]
October 14, 2024: Trump Again Asked The 2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals To Move The Stormy Daniels Case To Federal Court. According to The Hill, “Former President Trump’s attorneys on Monday made their latest bid at moving his hush money criminal case to federal court, telling an appeals panel that a lower judge’s refusal to do so was ‘rushed’ and ‘profoundly flawed.’ Trump previously hoped to move courts to derail his sentencing, but the gambit has so far proved unsuccessful. A ruling on Trump’s latest appeal before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is not expected until after his Nov. 26 sentencing. Even so, the former president expressed a desire to still resolve questions of presidential immunity and other issues in a federal forum, rather than state court. ‘This case presents complex first-impression issues relating to the Supremacy Clause, federal-officer removal, appearances of impropriety and conflicts in connection with an unprecedented and baseless prosecution of the leading candidate in the 2024 Presidential election, and the ability of future Presidents to serve the American people without fear of reprisal from hostile local officials,’ Trump attorneys Emil Bove and Todd Blanche wrote in Monday’s brief.” [The Hill, 10/14/24]
Summer 2024: Trump Offered To Lower The Legal Fees Stormy Daniels Was Ordered To Pay In A Defamation Lawsuit If She Agreed Not To Make Disparaging Remarks About Trump. According to NBC News, “Former President Donald Trump this summer offered a financial incentive to adult film star Stormy Daniels if she agreed to keep quiet about Trump — including about the relationship that became the center of the hush money payments that ended up as the subject of a New York criminal trial — ahead of the election next month, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow reported Wednesday. Daniels delivered blockbuster testimony this year about hush money payments she received from Trump before the 2016 election, in which she was paid to remain silent about an affair between the two, a relationship he has denied. The jury convicted Trump of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to the payments. In a case separate from the hush money trial, Daniels was ordered to pay for Trump’s legal fees after she lost a defamation suit she filed against him. About two months after the hush money trial, Trump’s lawyer told Daniels’ representative that Trump would agree to a lower payment if she agreed not to make any disparaging comments about Trump. ‘We disagree that a payment of $620,000 would be in full satisfaction of the three judgments,’ Trump’s lawyers said in a July letter Maddow obtained from Daniels’ lawyer. ‘However, we can agree to settle these matters for $620,000, provided that your client agrees in writing to make no public or private statements related to any alleged past interactions with President Trump, or defamatory or disparaging statements about him, his businesses and/or any affiliates or his suitability as a candidate for President,’ the letter continued.” [NBC News, 10/17/24]
November 12, 2024: Judge Merchan Expected To Rule On Trump’s Request For Dismissal Of The Stormy Daniels Case Over Presidential Immunity. According to Reuters, “Merchan is now set to decide on Nov. 12 whether the case should be dismissed because of the Supreme Court's immunity decision, which stemmed from a separate criminal case Trump faces over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democratic President Joe Biden.” [Reuters, 9/12/24]
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 pool. But Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee approved a much narrower order that will require prosecutors to identify material they deem too sensitive to be publicly released. Defendants would have 14 days to challenge the ‘sensitive’ designation.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 11/16/23]
Prosecutors Had 30 Days To Review Evidence And Designate It “Sensitive.” According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “McAfee ordered prosecutors to review evidence already provided to defendants and designate any sensitive materials within 30 days. Prosecutors must inform the defendants why they believe the information is sensitive. They must make similar determinations for any future evidence provided to the defendants.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 11/16/23]
Defendants Had 14 Days To Contest Any Evidence Designated “Sensitive.” According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The defendants will have 14 days to contest the ‘sensitive’ designations. Any evidence ultimately deemed sensitive cannot be filed with the court unless it is sealed.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 11/16/23]
DA Willis Asked A Judge To Revoke The Bond Of Trump Co-Defendant Floyd Over Potential Witness Tampering
November 15, 2023: District Attorney Willis Requested Trump Co-Defendant Floyd Have His Bond Revoked Over Witness Tampering. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is asking a judge to revoke the bond agreement for one of Donald Trump’s co-defendants in her election interference case, citing what she says is a ‘pattern of intimidation’ toward co-defendants and witnesses. Willis said Harrison Floyd has ‘engaged in numerous intentional and flagrant violations’ of his bond agreement. She pointed to recent comments Floyd made on conservative podcasts and posts on the social media site X that tag Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, former Fulton County poll worker Ruby Freeman and others.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 11/15/23]
November 21, 2023: Judge McAfee Elected Not To Revoke Trump Co-Defendant Harrison Floyd’s Bond. According to CNN, “The judge overseeing the Fulton County election racketeering case declined Tuesday to send one of Donald Trump’s co-defendants to jail over recent social media posts and other comments he made targeting witnesses. Judge Scott McAfee said that while the defendant, Harrison Floyd, made ‘technical violations’ of his bond agreement, ‘not every violation compels revocation.’” [CNN, 11/21/23]
The Special Grand Jury Recommended Changes Against More Than Three Dozen People In The Election Interference Investigation. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Members of the Fulton County a special purpose grand jury that investigated interference in Georgia’s 2020 presidential election recommended that former President Donald Trump and more than three dozen allies be indicted for alleged crimes, more than double the number who were ultimately charged.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/8/23]
The Special Grand Jury Recommended Charges Against U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, Former Senators David Perdue And Kelly Loeffler, And Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The recommendations — which included U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, ex-Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and former Georgia U.S. Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler — were contained in the panel’s final report, which was released in full on Friday. The 28-page document was finalized in January but most of its contents were quickly sealed by a judge at the request of Fulton District Attorney Fani Willis.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/8/23]
The Special Grand Jury Recommended Charges Against Trump Lawyer Boris Epshteyn. According to the New York Times, “In its final report, which a judge unsealed on Friday, the panel also recommended charges against Boris Epshteyn, one of former President Donald J. Trump’s main lawyers, as well as a number of other Trump-aligned lawyers, including Cleta Mitchell and L. Lin Wood.” [New York Times, 9/8/23]
The Special Grand Jury Recommended Charges Against Cleta Mitchell And Lin Wood. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Other names included in the report but not in the indictment were Flynn, Republican activist and former congresswoman Cleta Mitchell and retired libel attorney Lin Wood.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/8/23]
The Special Grand Jury Recommended Charges Against Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones And Former State Senator William Ligon. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The grand jury also recommended criminal indictments for former state Sen. William Ligon and Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, though neither has been charged with crimes.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/8/23]
April 11, 2024: Pete Skandalakis, Executive Director Of The Prosecuting Attorneys Council Of Georgia, Would Lead The Investigation Into Whether Georgia Lt. Governor Jones Should Be Charged For Allegedly Trying To Help Trump Overturn The 2020 Election. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “State prosecutor Pete Skandalakis said Thursday that he will lead the investigation into Lt. Gov. Burt Jones’ alleged role in trying to help former President Donald Trump overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. Skandalakis, executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia, was tasked 21 months ago to find someone to oversee the investigation after the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office was recused from the case. Instead of appointing a district attorney or a private lawyer, he appointed himself.Skandalakis has been criticized – even made the defendant in a lawsuit – for taking so long to appoint someone to lead the investigation. But he will now move forward to determine whether Jones should be charged with criminal conduct. In a statement, citing the rules of professional conduct for prosecutors, Skandalakis said, ‘No further comments will be made at this time.’” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 4/11/24]
September 6, 2023: DA Willis Asked That The Identities Of Prospective Jurors In Trump’s RICO Trial Be Shielded. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has asked the judge in the Donald Trump racketeering trial to shield the identities of prospective jurors to spare them the threats and harassment faced by the grand jury that indicted the former president and 18 of his allies last month. In a motion filed in Fulton County Superior Court Wednesday, Willis asked Judge Scott McAfee to prohibit defendants, the news media or ‘any other person’ from capturing any sort of image — from a photo to a drawing — of jurors or from distributing any identifying information about them.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/6/23]
September 25, 2023: Judge McAfee Ruled That Potential Jurors In The Trump RICO Cases Would Have Their Identities Protected. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Prospective jurors in the racketeering case against former President Donald Trump and his 18 co-defendants got an extra layer of security Monday when the judge overseeing the case ordered additional safeguards to protect their identities. Once the cases reach trial, defendants, reporters and observers will be prohibited from recording, photographing or identifying jurors in any way that might reveal who they are, where they live or other personal details about them, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee ruled. McAfee ordered that lawyers only refer to jurors by their number in court filings or in their remarks in open court.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/25/23]
September 11, 2023: Trump Asked That Several Charges Against Him Be Dismissed. According to CNN, “Former President Donald Trump is asking a court to dismiss several criminal charges against him in the Georgia 2020 election interference case. His filings on Monday are Trump’s opening salvo of legal arguments to challenge the state-level charges. The filings indicate Trump wants to adopt the legal arguments his racketeering co-defendants Rudy Giuliani, Kenneth Chesebro and Ray Smith have already made in court filings. Giuliani filed his challenge Friday, asking Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee to toss his indictment due to ‘deficiencies,’ his lawyers argued, that render it invalid. Chesebro, the pro-Trump lawyer who devised the ‘fake electors’ scheme, filed a similar challenge last month that argued the indictment ‘fails to sufficiently set out the charge or any violation of the law.’ Smith, an attorney for Trump’s 2020 campaign in Georgia, filed his extensive motion challenging the indictment also on Monday, arguing that the indictment had ‘voluminous’ defects and that the state failed to meet the racketeering statute.” [CNN, 9/11/23]
September 12, 2023: Former Trump Lawyer Chesebro Sought To Dismiss His Charges On The Basis That He Was Providing Legal Advice. According to the Messenger, “Former Donald Trump election attorney Kenneth Chesebro filed a motion Tuesday seeking to dismiss charges he faces in the Georgia election-racketeering case on grounds that he was simply providing legal advice to a client. ‘Nothing about Mr. Chesebro’s conduct falls outside the bounds of what lawyers do on a daily basis; researching the law in order to find solutions that address their clients particularized needs,’ Chesebro's attorneys wrote in the six-page filing. Chesebro, the alleged architect of the plan to use fake electors in swing states, faces seven counts in the sprawling 19-defendant indictment brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.” [Messenger, 9/12/23]
September 18, 2023: Trump Adopted Lawyer Powell’s Argument That Georgia’s RICO Law Was Unconstitutional. According to the Messenger, “Earlier on Monday, Trump piggybacked attorney Sidney Powell’s challenge of the racketeering charge against her. Powell argued that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis charged her 19-defendant indictment in such a sprawling fashion as to run afoul of the constitutional rights to due process and fair warning. ‘If the Georgia RICO statute reaches the conduct alleged here, then it is unconstitutionally vague,’ her attorney Brian T. Rafferty wrote on Sept. 15, in an argument that Trump cited.” [Messenger, 9/18/23]
September 18, 2023: Trump Adopted Lawyer Chesebro’s Argument That The Fake Electors Were “Duly Appointed And Authorized,” Just By The Georgia Republican Party. According to the Messenger, “Former President Donald Trump has borrowed his embattled attorney Kenneth Chesebro’s arguments that false GOP electors were ‘duly appointed and authorized’ to vote for him — by Georgia’s Republican party. The move came hours after Chesebro himself floated the argument before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, in a series of motions meant to scuttle his criminal charges. Those include conspiring to impersonate a ‘peace officer or other public officer or employee,’ conspiring to commit first degree forgery and conspiring to commit false statements and writings. Later in the day, Trump's lawyers file a motion adopting the same arguments against these charges, which he also faces.” [Messenger, 9/18/23]
October 17, 2023: Judge McAfee Denied Chesebro And Powell’s Motions To Dismiss The Charges Against Them. According to the Messenger, “Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee on Tuesday denied a slate of motions by Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell seeking dismissal of the charges they face in the Georgia election-racketeering case, clearing the way for the two pro-Trump lawyers' trial to begin at the end of this week. McAfee's order applies to 11 separate motions filed by Chesebro and Powell in recent weeks in which they sought to challenge the charges against them on a variety of grounds.” [Messenger, 10/17/23]
October 27, 2023: Trump Co-Defendant Floyd Challenged The Legitimacy Of His RICO Charge. According to WXIA, “In a new filing submitted Friday, one of the 19 co-defendants in the Georgia 2020 election RICO case is challenging the fundamental basis for his inclusion in the indictment. Harrison Floyd was the director of Black Voices for Trump in 2020 and is charged in the RICO indictment for his alleged role in the plot to coerce a ‘confession’ of fraud from Fulton County election worker Ruby Freeman. Floyd, generally one of the lesser-known 18 co-defendants alongside former President Trump, in particular made headlines back in August because he was the only one among them to spend extended time in jail. Floyd did not have a negotiated bond at the time he turned himself in, spending a few days in the Fulton County Jail before he was granted a bond by a judge. On Friday Floyd submitted a ‘general demurrer’ filing, essentially a challenge to its legitimacy, on the charge of violating Georgia's RICO Act.” [WXIA, 10/27/23]
November 8, 2023: Trump Co-Defendant Jeffrey Clark Asked For A Delay On Upcoming Motions. According to the Messenger, “Former Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark asked on Wednesday for a delay on key upcoming deadlines in his Georgia election criminal racketeering case because of a conflict with separate but related disciplinary proceedings from the Washington D.C. bar.” [Messenger, 11/9/23]
November 17, 2023: The Fulton County DA’s Office Opposed Trump Co-Defendant David Shafer’s Attempt To Use The Supremacy Clause To Squash His Indictment. According to the Messenger, “Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis provided a pointed response Friday morning to Donald Trump co-defendant David Shafer’s argument that the Georgia election racketeering indictment doesn’t apply to him. Shafer’s arguments, Willis wrote in a 17-page filing ‘have already been expressly rejected by this Court, and all of which are unsupported by law.’ The former chair of the Georgia GOP, Shafer was charged alongside Trump and 18 others in the original indictment. He filed a plea-in-bar – an attempt to completely quash the legal proceedings against him before trial – by invoking the US Constitution’s Supremacy Clause that prevents states from meddling in the affairs of the federal government.” [Messenger, 11/17/23]
December 1, 2023: Trump’s Legal Team Argued That If He Was Elected President In 2024, He Could Not Be Tried In Georgia Until He Left Office. According to Bloomberg, “Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has asked for an August trial date for Trump and 14 remaining co-defendants. She has said a trial could last into 2025. Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee asked Sadow whether Trump ‘could even be tried’ in 2025 if won the election. ‘I believe that under the Supremacy Clause and his duties as president of the United States, that this trial would not take place, if at all, until after he left his term of office,’ Sadow replied.” [Bloomberg, 12/1/23]
September 20, 2023: DA Willis Said At Least Six Attorney’s For Trump’s Co-Defendants Might Have Conflicts Of Interest. According to the Messenger, “Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis told a judge on Wednesday that at least six attorneys for former President Donald Trump's co-defendants may have conflicts of interest in the sprawling racketeering case. ‘The State requests that the Court inquire into these circumstances and take such appropriate remedial measures as it deems necessary to ensure that the rights of both witnesses for the State of Georgia and the Defendants in this case are preserved,’ the DA's legal brief states. Those defense attorneys flagged by Willis' team are Scott Grubman, who represents Kenneth Chesebro; Harry W. MacDougald, who represents Jeffrey Clark; Christopher Anulewicz, who represents Robert Cheeley; Bruce H. Morris, Donald Franklin Samuel, and Amanda Clark Palmer, who represent Ray Smith.” [Messenger, 9/20/23]
Trump Co-Defendant Eastman Wanted A Faster Pre-Trial Schedule
November 27, 2023: Trump Co-Defendant Eastman Asked The Court For A Faster Pre-Trial Schedule. According to the Messenger, “A co-defendant of former President Donald Trump in the Georgia election-racketeering case is asking for a faster pre-trial schedule than the timeline recently proposed by prosecutors. In a court filing Monday, former Trump election attorney John Eastman said he opposed Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' scheduling motion filed earlier this month, in which she proposed a final plea date of June 21, 2024, and a trial start date of August 5, 2024. In a three-page filing Monday, Eastman called the proposal ‘arbitrary and capricious.’ ‘The 'final plea date' should be established earlier in 2024 so that defendants who do not have lifetime United States Secret Service protection and who are not running for election to an office can exercise and have their right to a jury trial completed within 2024,’ Eastman's attorney wrote.” [Messenger, 11/27/23]
October 30, 2023: Arthur Ray Hanson Was Charged With Threatening Fulton County DA Willis And Fulton County Sheriff Labat Over Trump’s Then-Potential Indictment. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Federal authorities have charged an Alabama man with threatening two Fulton County law enforcement officials in connection with the investigation of former President Donald Trump. A federal grand jury in Atlanta charged Arthur Ray Hanson II of Huntsville with two counts of transmitting interstate threats to injure Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Sheriff Patrick Labat. According to an indictment issued last Wednesday, Hanson called the county’s customer service line on Aug. 6 – a week before Trump was indicted – and first left a threatening and expletive-filled voicemail for Labat.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/30/23]
Hanson Left A Voicemail For Willis Stating, “When You Charge Trump On That Fourth Indictment, Anytime You’re Alone, Be Looking Over Your Shoulder.” According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Authorities said Hanson, 59, later that day called the customer service line again and targeted Willis. The voicemail advised her to ‘watch it when you’re going to the car at night, when you’re going into your house, watch everywhere that you’re going.’ The voicemail also said ‘I would be very afraid if I were you because you can’t be around people all the time that are going to protect you,’ ‘there’s gonna be moments when you’re gonna be vulnerable,’ ‘when you charge Trump on that fourth indictment, anytime you’re alone, be looking over your shoulder’ and ‘what you put out there, (expletive) comes back at you ten times harder, and don’t ever forget it.’” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/30/23]
November 20, 2023: Trump Asked DA Willis To Contact Special Counsel Smith To See If The Special Counsel Would Disclose Discovery Letters And Evidence Lists. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Former President Donald Trump is seeking help from an unlikely source as he tries to obtain federal records to defend himself in the Fulton County election interference case – District Attorney Fani Willis. […] So Sadow wants Willis to contact Smith to determine if he will disclose discovery letters and lists of evidence to her, which she can then share with Sadow for Trump’s Georgia defense. He made the request in a motion filed Monday in Fulton County Superior Court.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 11/20/23]
Trump Did Not Have Access To The Information In The January 6 Federal Case Due To A Protective Order. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Trump’s Georgia attorney – Steve Sadow – wants access to lists of evidence disclosed to other Trump attorneys in the separate federal election interference case in Washington. But a protective order handed down at the request of Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith prohibits the disclosure of evidence in the federal criminal case – even to Trump attorneys in other cases.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 11/20/23]
December 6, 2023: Included On Prosecutors’ List Of Nearly 200 Potential Witnesses Are Former Vice President Pence And Former Attorney General Barr. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Fulton County prosecutors could call several senior officials who served in the Trump administration and Georgia’s top elected leaders as witnesses during the trial for their election interference case, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has learned. Among the names prosecutors have included on their almost 200-person witness list: former Vice President Mike Pence; ex-Attorney General Bill Barr; onetime Justice Department officials Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue; U.S. Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania; and Steve Bannon, the conservative provocateur and former aide to former President Donald Trump.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 12/6/23]
Prosecutors Included Georgia’s Governor, Secretary Of State, And Attorney General As Possible Witnesses. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The District Attorney’s office could also call several of Georgia’s top Republican leaders, including Gov. Brian Kemp, Attorney General Chris Carr, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and former Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 12/6/23]
Trump Asked That The Charges Against Him Be Dismissed Over Presidential Immunity. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Former President Donald Trump Monday asked a Fulton County judge to dismiss criminal charges against him because he is immune from prosecution for actions he took while in the White House. In a motion filed in Fulton County Superior Court, attorneys Steve Sadow and Jennifer Little argued the 13 felony charges filed against Trump here should be dismissed because the Republican’s efforts to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 victory in Georgia were part of his duties as president. ‘From 1789 to 2023, no president ever faced criminal prosecution for acts committed while in office,’ the attorneys argued in the motion. ‘That unbroken historic tradition of presidential immunity is rooted in the separation of powers and the text of the Constitution.’” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1/7/24]
Trump Filed Motions To Dismiss The Charges Against Him Based On Due Process And Double Jeopardy Concerns. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “In the Georgia case, Trump’s attorneys filed two other motions to dismiss the charges Monday. The first cites due process concerns, arguing that Trump could not have reasonably foreseen that his political speech and conduct following the 2020 election could be criminalized. The other motion argues the charges should be dismissed because of double-jeopardy concerns, citing his acquittal on articles of impeachment in the U.S. Senate in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. ‘President Trump has filed three persuasive, meritorious pretrial motions seeking a complete dismissal of the indictment and thus an end to the Fulton County district attorney’s politically-based prosecution,’ Sadow said in a statement released Monday. ‘Also still pending is President Trump’s First Amendment as-applied challenge, which seeks the same relief.’” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1/7/24]
Trump Co-Defendant Michael Roman Filed A Motion Seeking To Dismiss The Charges Against Him By Alleging That Fulton County DA Fani Willis Inappropriately Benefited From A Romantic Relationship With Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “District Attorney Fani Willis improperly hired an alleged romantic partner to prosecute Donald Trump and financially benefited from their relationship, according to a court motion filed Monday which argued the criminal charges in the case were unconstitutional. The bombshell public filing alleged that special prosecutor Nathan Wade, a private attorney, paid for lavish vacations he took with Willis using the Fulton County funds his law firm received. County records show that Wade, who has played a prominent role in the election interference case, has been paid nearly $654,000 in legal fees since January 2022. The DA authorizes his compensation. The motion, filed on behalf of defendant Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign official, seeks to have the charges against Roman dismissed and for Willis, Wade and the entire DA’s office to be disqualified from further prosecution of the case.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1/8/24]
Ashleigh Merchant, Roman’s Lawyer, Said The Information Came From Wade’s Divorce Proceedings, Which Were Currently Under Seal. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Roman’s lawyer, Ashleigh Merchant, said she reviewed the case file in Wade’s ongoing divorce proceedings at the Superior Court Clerk’s Office and made copies of certain documents. But the case file was later improperly sealed because no court hearing was held as required by law, the motion said. Because the case remains under seal, Merchant said she is not sharing the information she obtained from the divorce file until the seal is lifted. She also said she is asking a judge to unseal the case file.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1/8/24]
Willis Was Subpoenaed In A Divorce Proceeding Involving The Lawyer She Hired As A Prosecutor In The Trump RICO Case. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has been subpoenaed to testify in a colleague’s divorce proceeding, according to a court filing, a development that could shed light on claims Willis and the colleague carried out an improper romantic relationship as they prosecuted former President Donald Trump and others. In a court filing reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, a process server said he showed up at Willis’s office in Atlanta on Monday morning with a subpoena seeking her testimony in the Cobb County divorce case of Nathan Wade, a lawyer she hired as a special prosecutor in the Trump case, and his wife, Joycelyn Wade. The process server said he left the subpoena, filed by Joycelyn Wade’s lawyer, with Willis’s executive assistant.” [Wall Street Journal, 1/9/24]
Judge Henry Thompson Put A Temporary Stay On A Subpoena To Depose Fulton County DA Fani Willis. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis does not have to be deposed — at least not yet — in the divorce proceeding of the top prosecutor in her office’s election interference case, a judge ruled Monday. Cobb County Superior Court Judge Henry Thompson placed a temporary stay on a subpoena from the estranged wife of special prosecutor Nathan Wade. Joycelyn Wade’s attorneys have accused Willis of being her husband’s ‘alleged paramour.’ They were seeking to depose Willis this week.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1/22/24]
The Filing Offered No Concrete Evidence Of The Alleged Relationship
The Filing Offered No Concrete Proof Of A Romantic Relationship Between Willis And Wade. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The document offers no concrete proof of the romantic ties between Willis and Wade, but says ‘sources close to both the special prosecutor and the district attorney have confirmed they had an ongoing, personal relationship.’” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1/8/24]
DA Willis Said Her Investigation Into Trump Was Being Interfered With By The Estranged Spouse Of One Of The Special Prosecutors
DA Willis Accused The Estranged Wife Of Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade Of Interfering In Her Investigation Into Trump. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Fulton County’s district attorney on Thursday fired back at allegations she has engaged in an ‘improper’ relationship with her top deputy, accusing his estranged wife of trying to obstruct her prosecution of Donald Trump and his allies. Fani Willis has been subpoenaed to give a pretrial deposition in the divorce case of Nathan and Joycelyn Wade on January 23, but in a Thursday court filing the DA’s attorney said that subpoena should be quashed. Joycelyn Wade ‘has conspired with interested parties in the criminal election interference case to use the civil discovery process to annoy, embarrass and oppress District Attorney Willis,’ Cinque Axam, Willis’ attorney, argued.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1/18/24]
Trump Joined The Effort To Dismiss The RICO Case
Trump Joined Effort By One Of His Co-Defendants To Dismiss The RICO Case. According to CNN, “Donald Trump’s attorneys are joining calls for the dismissal of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in the 2020 election subversion case against the former president and his co-defendants in Georgia, pointing to alleged misconduct between Willis and her lead prosecutor. In a filing in Fulton County Superior Court on Thursday, Trump’s attorneys joined an effort to dismiss the case brought by one of his co-defendants, who alleged in a previous court filing that Willis was engaged in a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor on the case and has benefitted financially when he took her on vacations.” [CNN, 1/25/24]
DA Willis Was Expected To Be Subpoenaed To Testify At A Hearing Over Whether She Should Be Disqualified
Fulton County DA Fani Willis And Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade Were Expected To Be Subpoenaed To Testify At A Hearing On Whether The Case Against Trump And His Co-Defendants Should Be Disqualified. According to CNN, “A current and former law partner to Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor leading the 2020 election subversion case in Georgia, have been told to expect a subpoena to testify at a hearing next month on whether he and the district attorney who brought the case should be disqualified over their alleged affair and financial ties, sources familiar with the matter tell CNN. The district attorney, Fani Willis, also is expected to be subpoenaed, sources say, and possibly others in her office. The Fulton County judge overseeing the criminal case against former President Donald Trump and his allies called for the hearing to address claims from one of Trump’s co-defendants that Willis and Wade have a conflict of interest. Citing financial statements turned up in Wade’s current divorce proceeding, lawyers for Trump’s co-defendant, Mike Roman, argue that Willis financially benefited when Wade took her on lavish vacations after she hired him as special prosecutor.” [CNN, 1/25/24]
Fulton County DA Fani Willis Moved To Quash Her Subpoena And Subpoenas For Her Staff For The February 15 Hearing On The Motion To Disqualify Her From The Case. According to CNN, “Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is asking a superior court to reject subpoenas for her and several staff members to testify at a hearing next week where they could face questions about her relationship with her top deputy, characterizing the attempt to dismiss her from the Georgia election subversion case against Donald Trump and his allies as a ‘spectacle.’ Willis and the deputy, Nathan Wade, are among nearly a dozen people subpoenaed to testify, including Willis’ assistant and bodyguard and Wade’s current and former law partners. ‘Georgia law — as well as authority from across the country — predictably frowns on a process that permits counsel for one litigant to compel the testimony of counsel and employees of the opposing party, and there is no justification to depart from that general principle here,’ Willis wrote in a court filing her office said it filed on Wednesday. ‘As there is no factual basis that could reasonably justify requiring opposing counsel and other employees to be a witness in the case, the State respectfully requests that the Court quash each of the subpoenas served,’ Willis wrote.” [CNN, 2/7/24]
DA Willis And Special Prosecutor Wade Took The Stand At A Hearing On Whether They Should Be Disqualified
Fulton County DA Fani Willis And Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade Took The Stand In A Hearing On Whether They Should Be Disqualified From The Trump RICO Case. According to the New York Times, “A case charging former President Donald J. Trump and his allies with trying to subvert the 2020 election results in Georgia took a detour on Thursday into the details of the prosecutors’ romantic and financial lives — their sleeping arrangements, vacations and private bank accounts — in an unusual and highly contentious hearing. Lawyers for Mr. Trump and his co-defendants have argued that the Fulton County district attorney, Fani T. Willis, and the special prosecutor she hired to manage the case, Nathan J. Wade, should be disqualified from the case because their romantic and financial entanglements had created a conflict of interest. Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade forcefully rejected those accusations in testimony on Thursday, with Ms. Willis accusing the defense lawyers of spreading ‘lies.’ ‘You think I’m on trial,’ Ms. Willis told Ashleigh Merchant, a lawyer for Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign official who is a co-defendant in the case. ‘These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I’m not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial.’” [New York Times, 2/15/24]
Judge McAfee Approved The Fulton County DA’s Request To Depose Susan Holmes, Who Declined To Serve As A Fake Elector For Trump. According to the Messenger, “A Georgia judge on Wednesday ruled that prosecutors in the Fulton County election-racketeering case can depose a woman who declined to falsely certify Donald Trump as the winner of the 2020 presidential race in the state. The Fulton County District Attorney's Office can depose Susan Holmes, who served as a Republican in the Georgia state House of Representatives from 2011 to January 2023, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said in an order. In a motion earlier this week seeking to depose Holmes, prosecutors in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' office said Holmes was ‘recruited and qualified to serve as a candidate for presidential elector in early 2020.’” [Messenger, 1/10/24]
Trump Requested Communications Between The Fulton County DA’s Office And The White House
Trump Filed A Motion Asking For Communications Between The White House And Fulton County Prosecutors, Especially Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade. According to Bloomberg, “Former President Donald Trump is demanding records that he says might show coordination between the Biden administration and prosecutors in Georgia related to charges brought against him for election interference. In a court filing late Tuesday, Trump’s lawyers said they’re particularly interested in meetings that White House officials may have had with Nathan Wade, who was hired by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis as a special prosecutor to work on her case charging Trump and others with a major racketeering conspiracy.” [Bloomberg, 1/16/24]
Trump’s Motion To Compel Evidence Fulton County Got From The January 6 Committee Rejected
Judge McAfee Denied Trump’s Motion To Compel Evidence Prosecutors Got From The January 6 Committee Because “The Items Demanded Do Not Exist.” According to WANF, “The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s Georgia racketeering indictment has denied a request from Trump and co-defendant Jeff Clark to compel new information from prosecutors. Late Wednesday afternoon, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee denied the motions, which referred to alleged evidence presented to the U.S. House Select Jan. 6 Committee. That committee was appointed and coordinated by Congressional Democrats who said they were charged to investigate Trump’s role in the deadly Capitol riot on the same day the 2020 electoral results were to be certified. ‘The items demanded do not exist,’ McAfee wrote. ‘The motion is therefore moot.’” [WANF, 1/17/24]
Trump Motioned For DA Willis To Be Disqualified And The Case To Be Dismissed Alleging That Willis Made Racially Charged Accusations That Could Prejudice A Jury. According to the Washington Post, “Lawyers defending former president Donald Trump in the Georgia election interference case on Thursday accused Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis (D) of making racially charged accusations against the defendants that could prejudice a future jury and asked a judge to disqualify her and dismiss the case. The motion from lawyers Steve Sadow and Jennifer Little, filed in Fulton County Superior Court, comes more than two weeks after Trump’s co-defendant Mike Roman alleged in a court filing that Willis appointed Nathan Wade to serve as lead prosecutor in the case — and subsequently paid him more than $650,000 in hourly fees — while engaging in a romantic relationship with him.” [Washington Post, 1/25/24]
Trump Co-Defendant David Shafer Joined The Motions Calling For Fulton County DA Fani Willis To Be Disqualified. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified from prosecuting the Donald Trump election interference case because of ‘indefensible and reprehensible’ public comments she has made, a new court filing on Monday contends. ‘All the causes for the disqualification are self-inflicted blows’ says the motion, filed by lawyers for former state GOP chair and Trump co-defendant David Shafer. Willis has strayed ‘wildly from the legal guardrails that are designed to protect the accused from improper, extrajudicial comments.’ The filing is the latest of several motions seeking to disqualify Willis and the DA’s office from the high-profile case. The first was filed last month by defendant Michael Roman who contends Willis must be removed because she had financially benefited from an improper, romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2/5/24]
February 7, 2024: Trump Filed Another Motion To Disqualify DA Willis From Prosecuting Him Over “Egregious” And “Unethical” Conduct. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Former President Donald Trump Wednesday renewed his call for District Attorney Fani Willis to be barred from prosecuting him in the Fulton County election interference case. Trump and other defendants have called for Willis to be disqualified over alleged conflicts of interest and public comments in which she suggested criticisms of her and a top deputy are racially motivated. In a response last week, Willis said she’s done and said nothing improper. On Wednesday, Trump’s attorneys renewed their call for Willis to be disqualified from the case, saying her conduct has been ‘egregious’ and ‘unethical.’ ‘The DA’s provocative and inflammatory extrajudicial racial comments, made in a widely publicized speech at a historical Black church in Atlanta, and cloaked in repeated references to God, catalyzed the quintessential ‘appearance of impropriety’ regarding her prosecutorial judgement and conduct,’ attorneys Steven Sadow and Jennifer Little wrote in a response to Willis.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2/7/24]
March 15, 2024: Judge McAfee Ruled That Willis Must Either Step Aside Or Cut Ties With Special Prosecutor Wade. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis must either step aside or cut ties with her special prosecutor before the election interference case against Donald Trump can move forward, a judge ruled Friday. In a much-anticipated decision, Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said Willis must choose one of the two options to cure an appearance of impropriety fueled by her romantic relationship with lead prosecutor Nathan Wade, who has billed more than $728,000 in legal fees to county taxpayers and helped pay for trips he took with the district attorney. ‘Whether this case ends in convictions, acquittals or something in between, the result should be one that instills confidence in the process,’ McAfee wrote. ‘... Any distractions that detract from these goals, if remedial under the law, should be proportionally addressed.’” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 3/15/24]
McAfee Said The Defense Failed To Prove Willis Had A Conflict Of Interest. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “In a 23-page order, McAfee said he by no means condones Willis’ ‘tremendous lapse in judgment’ for having the relationship with Wade and said that Willis behaved in an ‘unprofessional manner’ when she testified at an evidentiary hearing in mid-February. But McAfee said defense attorneys had failed to prove Willis had an actual conflict of interest through her relationship and travels with Wade. A finding to the contrary would have required McAfee to disqualify Willis and her office from the case.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 3/15/24]
March 15, 2024: Special Prosecutor Wade Resigned. According to USA Today, “Nathan Wade, the Georgia special prosecutor hired by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to lead the election fraud case against Donald Trump, resigned just hours after a judge ruled that either he or Willis had to step down for the case to proceed. Willis accepted Wade's resignation in a letter released Friday afternoon and thanked the private lawyer, with whom she'd had a romantic relationship that threw the case into turmoil. ‘I will always remember − and will remind everyone − that you were brave enough to step forward and take on the investigation and prosecution of the allegations that the defendants in this case engaged in a conspiracy to overturn Georgia's 2020 Presidential Election,’ Willis wrote.” [USA Today, 3/15/24]
March 18, 2024: Trump Asked For Permission To Appeal The Ruling Allowing DA Willis To Stay On The Case Against Him. According to Reuters, “Donald Trump on Monday asked a Georgia judge to allow him to appeal a ruling keeping the lead prosecutor on the state's criminal case against the former U.S. president over his attempts to overturn his election defeat. The filing by Trump, the Republican presidential challenger, and several of his co-defendants, continues their effort to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis over allegations that she received an improper financial benefit from a romance with a special prosecutor assigned to the case.” [Reuters, 3/18/24]
March 20, 2024: Judge McAfee Allowed Trump To Appeal The Decision Not To Disqualify DA Willis. According to WSB, “The judge on the Georgia election interference case has granted a defense request to allow an appeal of his order that kept the Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis on the case. Fulton County Superior Court Clerk Che Alexander’s office stamped at 9:34 a.m. the ‘Certificate of Immediate Review’ signed by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, who ruled on Friday that Willis and her office could stay in the case if special prosecutor Nathan Wade withdrew, which he did on the same day after controversy swirled for more than two months around allegations about a romantic relationship between Willis and Wade.” [WSB, 3/20/24]
March 29, 2024: Trump And Eight Co-Defendants Asked The Georgia Court Of Appeals To Take Up Their Challenge Of Judge McAfee’s Ruling To Not Disqualify DA Willis. According to the New York Times, “Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump and eight of his co-defendants in the Georgia election interference case asked an appeals court on Friday to take up their challenge of a judge’s ruling that allowed the prosecutor Fani T. Willis to stay on the case. With their application to appeal, the defendants are once again pressing their argument that Ms. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, created an untenable conflict of interest by having a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she hired to manage the Trump case. The presiding judge in the criminal case, Scott McAfee of Fulton County Superior Court, had already given the defendants permission to pursue their appeal after he ruled against the efforts to disqualify Ms. Willis. But under Georgia law, the co-defendants must also secure the approval of the Georgia Court of Appeals before the matter can be heard by a panel of three appellate judges.” [New York Times, 3/29/24]
April 8, 2024: The Fulton County DA’s Office Urged The State Court Of Appeals Not To Take Up Trump’s Appeal Of The Decision To Let DA Willis Continue To Prosecute Trump. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Fulton County prosecutors on Monday urged the state Court of Appeals not to consider a judge’s ruling allowing District Attorney Fani Willis to continue prosecuting former President Donald Trump and others in the ongoing election interference case. Trump and eight co-defendants, who tried to have Willis disqualified from the case, have asked the higher court to hear their appeal of Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee’s decision before trial. But the DA’s office said in a court filing on Monday that McAfee had properly applied well-established law to the facts. And because the defendants ‘have wholly failed to carry their burden of persuasion,’ the appeals court should send the case back to McAfee and let it proceed to trial, they said.” [Atlanta Journal Constitution, 4/8/24]
May 8, 2024: The Georgia Court Of Appeals Agreed To Consider Trump’s Motion To Disqualify Fani Willis From The Georgia RICO Case. According to CNN, “The Georgia Court of Appeals will consider an effort by Donald Trump and his co-defendants to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis from the 2020 election subversion case. In a brief order Wednesday, the court said it will hear the appeal from Trump and others challenging the ruling from Judge Scott McAfee that allowed Willis to remain on the case.” [CNN, 5/8/24]
May 20, 2024: The Georgia Court Of Appeals Began Receiving Documents In The Lawsuit To Disqualify DA Willis. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Fulton County Superior Court began sending thousands of pages of documents to the Georgia Court of Appeals over the weekend, teeing up the second round of fighting over Fulton District Attorney Fani Willis’ leadership of the election interference case involving former President Donald Trump and others. The office of Ché Alexander, clerk of Superior and Magistrate Courts, sent the appeals court transcripts and other records from three of the nine defendants who are seeking Willis’ removal from the case, Michael Roman, David Shafer and Cathy Latham. The documents for another, Bob Cheeley, appear to be in the process of being transmitted, according to court filings.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/20/24]
Judge McAfee Would Move The Case Forward While Under Appeal
The Case Would Move Forward While Under Appeal. According to WSB, “But a legal expert told Channel 2 investigative reporter Mark Winne that McAfee’s new ruling also indicates the case will not come to a halt because of the appeal unless an appellate court says otherwise. The certificate says, ‘The Court finds that the Order on the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and Disqualify the Fulton County District Attorney issued March 15, 2024, ‘is of such importance to the case that immediate review should be had[.]’’ It also said, ‘The Court intends to continue addressing the many other unrelated pending pretrial motions.’” [WSB, 3/20/24]
March 13: Three Of Trump’s 13 Felony Counts Were Thrown Out Due To Lack Of Specificity. According to Politico, “The state judge presiding over Donald Trump’s criminal case in Georgia has thrown out six of the indictment’s 41 charges, ruling that the state had failed to make specific enough allegations to support them. The ruling affects three of the 13 felony counts Trump faces in the case, though not the central charge of a racketeering conspiracy aimed at overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state. Several of the dismissed counts do not involve Trump but instead apply to some of his most prominent co-defendants, including Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and Mark Meadows.” [Politico, 3/13/24]
Judge McAfee Said The Charges Could Be Refiled With Greater Detail. According to Politico, “Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee emphasized that prosecutors may refile the charges with greater detail or appeal his ruling. However, McAfee found that as written, the allegations that Donald Trump and several allies solicited Georgia officials to violate their oaths of office — in part by sending false electors to Congress — were too generic. ‘The lack of detail concerning an essential legal element is … fatal,’ McAfee wrote.” [Politico, 3/13/24]
March 28, 2024: Trump Argued That His Indictment In Georgia Should Be Dismissed Because Of First Amendment Protections. According to the New York Times, “Donald J. Trump’s lead defense lawyer in Georgia argued in court on Thursday that the former president’s criminal indictment should be dismissed because it was based on comments that Mr. Trump had made about the 2020 presidential election that were protected by the First Amendment. The lawyer, Steven H. Sadow, said that Mr. Trump’s comments, writings and internet posts after the November 2020 election amounted to political speech, which courts have considered sacrosanct under the First Amendment. ‘Take out the political speech, no charges,’ Mr. Sadow said at the hearing in a courtroom in downtown Atlanta.” [New York Times, 3/28/24]
Prosecutors Said Trump’s Statements Were Part Of A Broad Conspiracy To Overturn The 2020 Election. According to the New York Times, “Fulton County prosecutors pushed back, arguing that Mr. Trump’s statements were part of a broad conspiracy to illegally overturn his election loss. The scheme is outlined in a sweeping racketeering indictment that was handed up in August and that named Mr. Trump alongside 18 co-defendants. Four of the co-defendants have since pleaded guilty.” [New York Times, 3/28/24]
Trump’s Argument Was Previously Rejected By Judge Chutkan In The Federal January 6 Case. According to the New York Times, “The argument that First Amendment grounds should block Mr. Trump from being prosecuted criminally for efforts to overturn the 2020 election results has previously been rejected by a U.S. District Court judge, Tanya Chutkan, in a separate federal prosecution that is unfolding in Washington, D.C. Georgia prosecutors noted the earlier ruling in court on Thursday. They also argued that Mr. Trump’s comments should not be considered on their own, but as part of a series of actions aimed to advance crimes including racketeering.” [New York Times, 3/28/24]
April 4, 2024: Judge McAfee Rejected Trump’s Motion That To Dismiss The Remaining Charges Against Him On Free Speech Grounds. According to CNN, “An Atlanta-area judge on Thursday upheld the criminal indictment against former President Donald Trump in Georgia, rejecting the argument that Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election were protected under the First Amendment. ‘The defense has not presented, nor is the Court able to find, any authority that the speech and conduct alleged is protected political speech,’ Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee wrote in his order. McAfee’s ruling is the latest step inching the state racketeering case against Trump forward. But while Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has suggested she would be ready to go to trial as soon as August, the judge has still not set a trial date for Trump or his remaining 14 co-defendants in the Peach State.” [CNN, 4/4/24]
April 4, 2024: Several Of Trump’s Co-Defendants Sought A Gag Order On DA Willis. According to CNN, “Lawyers for several defendants in the Georgia criminal case against former President Donald Trump and others have been weighing whether to press for a gag order against Atlanta-area prosecutor Fani Willis, especially if efforts to disqualify her fail, sources familiar with the strategy discussions told CNN. Willis has continued to speak publicly about the case, at times invoking race despite being rebuked by the presiding judge as the Fulton County district attorney juggles a reelection bid with prosecuting Trump and his 14 co-defendants. Some attorneys for high-profile defendants, though, are hesitant to try to silence her at this time. A gag order against one of Trump’s biggest foes could score political points and help him and his co-defendants in the short term. But it could also backfire by undercutting their efforts to have Willis disqualified from the case, or by inspiring efforts to seek a gag order against Trump and other defendants who have publicly criticized Willis.” [CNN, 4/4/24]
April 24, 2024: Trump Asked To Have Two Additional Felony Counts Against Him Dismissed. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Former president Donald Trump on Wednesday asked a judge to dismiss two more felony counts against him in the Fulton County election interference case. Last August, a grand jury indicted Trump for racketeering and 12 other felonies for allegedly overseeing a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia. Last month, Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee in March struck down three felony counts against Trump, saying they lacked sufficient detail. Now, Trump attorneys Steve Sadow and Jennifer Little want McAfee to dismiss two other counts.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 4/24/24]
Trump Asked That The Conspiracy To File A False Document With The Federal District Court In Atlanta And The Filing Of A Federal Lawsuit With “Materially False Statements” Be Dismissed Because Those Crimes Could Only Be Prosecuted In Federal Court. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “One of the counts accuses Trump and other co-defendants of conspiring to file a false document in U.S. District Court in Atlanta. This filing included a certificate from state GOP officials who cast electoral college votes for Trump in December 2020 after Joe Biden had been officially declared the winner in Georgia. The other count accuses Trump and a co-defendant, attorney John Eastman, of filing a federal lawsuit in Atlanta that had a number of ‘materially false statements,’ such as claiming at least 66,247 underage people, 2,506 felons and 10,315 dead people cast illegal votes. In their motion, Sadow and Little cite an 1890 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to buttress their claims. That case involved Wilson Loney, who had been charged in Virginia state court with committing perjury while testifying about a contested U.S. House of Representatives election. Loney was released after the Supreme Court ruled he could only be prosecuted in federal court. Sadow and Little said the same applies to the two charges filed against Trump.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 4/24/24]
Judge McAfee Ruled That Trump Co-Defendant Floyd Could Continue His Effort To Access Ballots To Argue His Voter Fraud Theories. According to CNN, “A Fulton County judge will allow a co-defendant of Donald Trump in the Georgia election subversion case to continue his effort to access thousands of 2020 ballots to argue debunked voter fraud theories. Harrison Floyd, who led the organization Black Voices for Trump in 2020, argued during a hearing Tuesday that he should not have been charged in the racketeering case because his concerns about voter fraud and questions about the election results were legitimate. Trump lost to President Joe Biden in Georgia by more than 12,000 votes. Floyd’s attorneys are pushing to access more than 500,000 ballots from Fulton County, claiming they intend to produce ‘evidence’ that thousands of votes were improperly excluded from the final vote tally. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee asked Floyd’s attorneys on Tuesday to file additional information to the court in the coming weeks, including the scope of the expert review of the 2020 votes that they’re seeking. McAfee also said he plans to have another hearing within the next two months to discuss the next steps in Floyd’s attempt to access the ballots.” [CNN, 5/28/24]
June 5, 2024: A Georgia Appeals Court Halted All Pretrial Proceedings In The Trump RICO Case Until A Decision Was Made In The Effort To Disqualify DA Willis. According to Politico, “A Georgia appeals court has halted all pretrial proceedings in Donald Trump’s Atlanta-based criminal case while a three-judge panel considers whether to disqualify the lead prosecutor, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. The order issued Wednesday effectively confirms that the sprawling racketeering case against Trump and more than a dozen codefendants — charging them with an attempt to corrupt Georgia’s 2020 election results — will not come before a jury in 2024.” [Politico, 6/5/24]
August 15, 2024: The Georgia Court Of Appeals Denied Trump’s Request To Delay Oral Arguments Until 2025. According to WAGA, “Former President Donald Trump has faced a new setback in his Georgia election interference case. The Georgia State Court of Appeals has denied a request by Mr. Trump’s lead attorney to delay key proceedings. Trump's attorney had requested to reschedule oral arguments, initially set for Dec. 5, to accommodate international travel plans. However, the court's denial means the arguments will proceed as scheduled, avoiding a potential delay until January 2025.” [WAGA, 8/15/24]
September 12, 2024: Three Counts, Including Two That Trump Was Charged With, Were Stricken From The Georgia RICO Indictment. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee on Thursday struck three additional counts from the year-old indictment that alleged former President Donald Trump and more than a dozen others were involved in a felony conspiracy to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results. McAfee concluded the criminal conduct described in the felony counts, which all involve alleged false statements made to a federal court, ‘lie beyond this state’s jurisdiction’ under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and must be removed. Trump was originally charged with two of those counts.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/12/24]
Because Trump’s Case Was Under A Stay From The Georgia Court Of Appeals, The Ruling Does Not Immediately Impact Him. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “For now, McAfee’s order affects only two of the 15 remaining defendants in the case, attorney John Eastman and state Sen. Shawn Still. But the judge’s findings would eventually apply to the other defendants charged of those counts, including Trump, once the Georgia Court of Appeals lifts a stay impacting the bulk of the case.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/12/24]
September 12, 2024: Judge McAfee Ruled The Felony Racketeering Charge Was “Facially Sound And Constitutionally Sufficient.” According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “In a separate order also issued Thursday, McAfee left intact the bedrock count of the case, felony racketeering. Defendants had argued that prosecutors did not show enough continuity to the alleged pattern of racketeering activity or enough of a connection between the alleged criminal enterprise and the criminal activity charged in the indictment. They had also said the indictment and Georgia’s RICO statute itself were overly vague. McAfee ruled that the racketeering count ‘is facially sound and constitutionally sufficient as alleged.’” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/12/24]
October 16, 2024: The Fulton County DA’s Office Asked The Georgia Appellate Court To Reinstate Six Charges Against Trump And Five Of His Codefendants That Were Dismissed In March 2024. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The Fulton County District Attorney’s Office is asking the state Court of Appeals to reinstate six criminal charges against Donald Trump and five of his codefendants in the election-interference case. In a brief filed Tuesday, the DA’s office asked the appellate court to overturn a March decision by Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee who said the state had not given the defendants enough specificity about the charges to adequately defend themselves. The election-interference indictment ‘more than sufficiently placed (Trump and his five codefendants) on notice of the conduct at issue and allowed them to prepare an intelligent defense to the charges,’ the DA’s brief said. ‘The indictment included an abundance of context and factual allegations about the solicitations at issue, including when the requests were made, to whom the requests were made and the manner in which the requests were made.’ The six felony solicitation counts dismissed by McAfee involve allegations that the defendants illegally urged Georgia officials to violate their oaths of office by convening a special session of the Legislature to appoint pro-Trump electors. Those officials include Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, then-House Speaker David Ralston and members of the General Assembly. Those charges were filed against Trump, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and attorneys John Eastman, Ray Smith and Bob Cheeley.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/16/24]
December 5, 2024: Date Set By The Georgia Court Of Appeals For Oral Arguments In The Effort To Disqualify DA Fani Willis. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The Georgia Court of Appeals on Tuesday set a date a month after the presidential election to hear oral arguments in the appeal to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis from prosecuting former President Donald Trump and others in Fulton County’s election interference case. The court scheduled arguments for Dec. 5 in the appeal brought by Trump and eight co-defendants seeking Willis’ removal. The defendants contend Willis should be disqualified because of her romantic relationship with former special prosecutor Nathan Wade and a fiery church speech she gave when responding to the accusations. When the appeals court agreed to hear the case in early June, it initially set an Oct. 4 date for oral arguments. But it quickly backtracked because of a scheduling conflict.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 7/16/24]
A Decision On Whether Fani Willis Should Be Disqualified Could Come As Late As March 2025. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The decision means, in a word, delay. Fulton Superior Court must prepare the record from the first round of the removal fight earlier this year and send it to the appeals court. The case is then docketed and a panel of three judges is randomly assigned via the court’s computer system, according to Christina Cooley Smith, deputy court administrator for the Court of Appeals. Those judges will schedule oral arguments. The matter must be decided within two terms of court. If it’s docketed before July, that means it would need to be heard and decided before mid-March 2025. The appeals court decision to hear the case virtually guarantees the Fulton County case will not go to trial before Election Day.” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/8/24]
Trump Pressured Two Members Of The Wayne County Board Of Canvassers To Not Sign The 2020 Presidential Election Certification. According to the Detroit News, “Then-President Donald Trump personally pressured two Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers not to sign the certification of the 2020 presidential election, according to recordings reviewed by The Detroit News and revealed publicly for the first time. On a Nov. 17, 2020, phone call, which also involved Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, Trump told Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, the two GOP Wayne County canvassers, they'd look ‘terrible’ if they signed the documents after they first voted in opposition and then later in the same meeting voted to approve certification of the county’s election results, according to the recordings. ‘We've got to fight for our country,’ said Trump on the recordings, made by a person who was present for the call with Palmer and Hartmann. ‘We can't let these people take our country away from us.’” [Detroit News, 12/21/23]
The Republican Canvassers Did Not Sign The Certification, But Their Signatures Were Not Necessary To Certify The Vote. According to the Detroit News, “Kinloch said Hartmann and Palmer left the meeting room on the night of Nov. 17, 2020, and never came back to sign the official statement of the votes for Wayne County. The Michigan Bureau of Elections later told county officials the vote that occurred and the signatures of the chair or vice chair of the four-member canvassing board and the county clerk were the only things necessary to advance the certification to the State Board of Canvassers, Kinloch said. The state board certified the 2020 presidential election on Nov. 23, 2020, solidifying Biden's victory in Michigan.” [Detroit News, 12/21/23]
Republican Canvasser Board Member Monica Palmer Previously Said Trump Called Her Out Of A “Genuine Concern For My Safety,” But Those Comments Were Not On A Segment Of The Recording Of The Phone Call. According to the Detroit News, “Palmer previously said she left the Nov. 17, 2020, Wayne County Board of Canvassers meeting prior to physically signing the certification. As she was leaving, Trump called out of a ‘genuine concern for my safety,’ Palmer told reporters three years ago. Back then, she described the contents of the Nov. 17, 2020, call with Trump as ‘Thank you for your service. I’m glad you're safe. Have a good night.’ The segments of the call reviewed by The News didn’t include those comments.” [Detroit News, 12/21/23]
The Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel Had An Ongoing Investigation Into The Slate Of False Electors. According to the Detroit News, “The documents, which have become part of Attorney General Dana Nessel's ongoing investigation into the slate of false electors, showed that Trump's campaign staff helped coordinate the Republicans' gathering inside state party headquarters on Dec. 14, 2020. Then, Trump's team prepared the official mailing of the false certificate to Vice President Mike Pence and the National Archives, according to the emails.” [Detroit News, 1/4/24]
Emails Showed That The Trump Campaign Orchestrated The Filing Of The Election Certificate That Falsely Claimed Trump Won Michigan In 2020. According to the Detroit News, “Then-President Donald Trump's campaign directly orchestrated the filing of a certificate, signed by 16 Michigan Republicans, that falsely claimed he won the state's 2020 election, according to internal campaign emails obtained by The Detroit News.” [Detroit News, 1/4/24]
The Trump Campaign Helped Coordinate The Meeting Of The Fake Electors And Prepared The Mailing Of The Certificate To Vice President Pence And The National Archives. According to the Detroit News, “The documents, which have become part of Attorney General Dana Nessel's ongoing investigation into the slate of false electors, showed that Trump's campaign staff helped coordinate the Republicans' gathering inside state party headquarters on Dec. 14, 2020. Then, Trump's team prepared the official mailing of the false certificate to Vice President Mike Pence and the National Archives, according to the emails.” [Detroit News, 1/4/24]
The Trump Campaign Developed And Executed A Plan To Fly The Certificates To Washington In Time For The Counting Of Electoral Votes. According to the Detroit News, “Later, when it was unclear whether the Michigan and Wisconsin certificates would make it to Washington, D.C., in time for the counting of electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, Trump supporters, along with campaign employees, developed and executed a plan to fly the certificates there themselves.” [Detroit News, 1/4/24]
The Apparent Goal Was To Bolster Claims That The 2020 Election Was Rigged And “Void The Results Favoring” Biden. According to the Detroit News, “The apparent objective was to bolster claims that the November 2020 presidential election was ‘rigged’ and ultimately ‘void the results favoring’ Democrat Joe Biden, wrote lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, who helped create the electors plan, in a Jan. 1, 2021, email to Boris Epshteyn, a top Trump adviser. ‘Alternatively, if Biden is simply held to under 270 by virtue of electoral votes not being counted (even though 'appointed'), or by virtue of a switch to legislature-certified electors, then the election gets thrown to the House,’ lawyer John Eastman, who was assisting the Trump campaign, wrote in another email on Jan. 1, 2021. ‘If the Republicans there hold true and vote with their state delegations, Trump should win a bare majority of the states.’” [Detroit News, 1/4/24]
One Of Michigan’s Fake Electors Testified That They Were Told Their Fake Electoral Certificates Could Be Accepted By Congress. According to ABC News, “One of 16 Republicans who allegedly acted as ‘fake electors’ for former President Donald Trump in Michigan after the 2020 presidential election testified in state court Wednesday that he never intended to falsely make or alter a public record. James Renner and his alleged co-conspirators were charged by the Michigan Attorney General in July with charges including forgery and conspiracy to commit election forgery for allegedly attempting to replace Michigan's electoral votes for Joe Biden with electoral votes for Trump at the certification of the vote on Jan. 6, 2021. […] Renner was asked to testify by the prosecution as part of a preliminary hearings held this week for some of the people facing charges for allegedly serving as false electors. ‘The purpose was to present the slate of candidates because we were told that the representatives and senators had the ability to accept our slate of candidates versus the Democrats slate of candidates,’ Renner testified.” [ABC News, 2/14/24]
February 26, 2024: Kenneth Chesebro Hid A Secret Twitter Account And Lied To Michigan Prosecutors When Asked. According to CNN, “Kenneth Chesebro, the right-wing attorney who helped devise the Trump campaign’s fake electors plot in 2020, concealed a secret Twitter account from Michigan prosecutors, hiding dozens of damning posts that undercut his statements to investigators about his role in the election subversion scheme, a CNN KFile investigation has found. Chesebro denied using Twitter, now known as the platform X, or having any ‘alternate IDs’ when directly asked by Michigan investigators last year during his cooperation session, according to recordings of his interview obtained by CNN. But CNN linked Chesebro to the secret account based on numerous matching details — including biographical information regarding his work, family, travels and investments. The anonymous account, BadgerPundit, also showed a keen interest in the Electoral College process and lined up with Chesebro’s private activities at the time.” [CNN, 2/26/24]
Chesebro’s Lawyers Confirmed That The “BadgerPundit” Account Belonged To Him. According to CNN, “Chesebro’s lawyers confirmed to CNN that the BadgerPundit account belonged to Chesebro, describing it as his ‘random stream of consciousness’ where he was ‘spitballing’ theories about the election – but insisted that it was separate from his legal work for Trump’s campaign. ‘When he was doing volunteer work for the campaign, he was very specific and hunkered-down into being the lawyer that he is, and gave specific kinds of legal advice based on things that he thought were legitimate legal challenges, versus BadgerPundit, who is this other guy over there, just being a goof,’ said Robert Langford, an attorney for Chesebro.” [CNN, 2/26/24]
April 24, 2024: Trump, Along With Mark Meadows And Rudy Giuliani, Were Named As “Unindicted Con-Conspirators” In Michigan’s Investigation Into The Fake Electors Scheme. According to the Detroit News, “Michigan prosecutors consider former President Donald Trump and some of his top aides co-conspirators in the plot to submit a certificate falsely claiming he won Michigan's 2020 election, an investigator for Attorney General Dana Nessel's office testified Wednesday in court. Howard Shock, a special agent for Nessel, said Trump; Mark Meadows, who was Trump's chief of staff; and Rudy Giuliani, who was his personal lawyer, are ‘unindicted co-conspirators’ in Michigan's false elector case. In total, over the last two days, Shock has identified 11 conspirators who haven't been charged. That means prosecutors believe they participated, to some extent, in an alleged scheme to commit forgery by creating a false document asserting Trump had won Michigan's 16 electoral votes when Democrat Joe Biden had won them.” [Detroit News, 4/24/24]
April 25, 2022: Judge Engoron Held Trump In Contempt Of Court For Failing To Turn Over Records In New York Civil Probe Into His Business Practices. According to the Washington Post, “Donald Trump was held in contempt of court on Monday for failing to turn over records being sought as part of a civil probe into his business practices — a striking public admonishment of the former president, who remains dominant in the Republican Party and has signaled he will again seek the White House in 2024. Lawyers from the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) did not seek to jail Trump, but asked New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron to penalize him financially for failing to comply with an order to produce the documents by March 31. Engoron agreed to fine Trump $10,000 for each day the failure to comply continues.” [Washington Post, 4/25/22]
September 21, 2022: The New York Attorney General James Filed A Civil Lawsuit Against Trump, Three Of His Children, And His Business Empire For Fraud. According to Politico, “New York Attorney General Letitia James has filed suit against former President Donald Trump, three of his adult children and his business empire, accusing them of large-scale fraudulent financial practices and seeking to bar them from real estate transactions for the next five years. The attorney general’s civil suit alleges more than a decade of deception, including billions of dollars in falsified net worth, as part of an effort by Trump to minimize his companies’ tax bills while winning favorable terms from banks and insurance companies.” [Politico, 9/23/22]
The Suit Sought $250 Million In Damages, A Five-Year Ban On Participating In Real Estate Transactions, And A Permanent Ban On Serving On The Board Of Any New York Business. According to Politico, “It seeks about $250 million in allegedly illegal profits netted from the scheme, as well as a five-year ban on the former president, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump participating in any real estate transactions–a restriction that would spell the end of the Trump real estate empire. In addition, it seeks a permanent ban on the former president and his family members involved in his business enterprises from serving as directors or officers of any New York corporation or business licensed in the state.” [Politico, 9/23/22]
Attorney General James Also Made Criminal Referrals To The IRS And Federal Prosecutors In Manhattan. According to Politico, “James’ suit relies on a special statute for repeat instances of alleged violations of the law, stemming from real estate transactions. She is also filing a criminal referral to federal prosecutors in Manhattan and a separate tax fraud referral to the IRS for the same underlying allegations.” [Politico, 9/23/22]
September 21, 2022: Trump Organization II Was Registered The Same Day The Lawsuit Was Filed. According to Business Insider, “With his business empire, the Trump Organization, in civil and criminal jeopardy in New York, Donald Trump has come up with an apparent solution that has angered state officials: He has formed the Trump Organization II. The new company was registered with the New York Department of State on September 21, public records show — the very day that the state attorney general, Letitia James, filed a 220-page fraud lawsuit against Trump, his family, and the original Trump Organization, the umbrella company for the former president's real-estate and golf-resort holdings.” [Business Insider, 10/13/22]
November 2, 2022: Trump Sued James In Florida State Court. According to The Guardian, “Donald Trump has sued the attorney general of New York state, Letitia James, over what he claims is a ‘relentless, pernicious, public, and unapologetic crusade’ against him, in the shape of her recent civil lawsuit against the former president and three of his adult children, Donald Jr, Ivanka and Eric. Filed on Wednesday in a circuit court in Florida, the lawsuit says James’s suit, which she announced in a dramatic press conference in September, will cause ‘great harm’ to the company, brand and reputation of the thrice-married, oft-sued, twice-impeached and extensively legally imperiled former president.” [The Guardian, 11/3/22]
November 3, 2022: Judge Granted New York Attorney General’s Request To Place An Independent Monitor Over The Trump Organization. According to Politico, “A judge Thursday granted the New York attorney general’s request that former President Donald Trump’s business empire be overseen by an independent monitor. New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron issued an order after a daylong hearing, requiring that the Trump Organization’s dealings with banks and sale of major assets be subject to supervision by a third-party expert to be named by the court. One provision in the order requires 14-days notice to the court before Trump can dispose of any ‘non-cash asset’ listed in a financial statement his firm prepared last year.” [Politico, 11/3/22]
November 17, 2022: Trump’s Lawsuit Against James Moved To Federal Court. According to Newsweek, “Former President Donald Trump has been dealt another tough hand that could mar his chances of winning a lawsuit against one of his biggest rivals, New York Attorney General Letitia James. Two weeks ago, Trump's attorneys filed suit in Florida state court, seeking to block James' own civil case in New York against the former president and the Trump Organization. But this week, the case was moved to Florida's federal courts at James' request and the suit fell before Judge Donald Middlebrooks—a Clinton-appointed judge who just fined Trump's lawyers in a different suit days ago.” [Newsweek, 11/17/22]
January 31, 2023: Portions Of Trump’s August 10 Video Deposition With The New York Attorney General’s Office Were Released. According to CBS News, “Newly released video obtained by CBS News provides the first look at former President Donald Trump's deposition last summer in the New York attorney general's civil fraud investigation. Trump sat for questioning under oath on Aug. 10, and the video shows him politely answering the opening questions from state Attorney General Letitia James.” [CBS News, 1/31/23]
Trump Invoked The 5th Amendment Over 400 Times. According to CBS News, “Trump did so more than 400 times during the course of the full interview, according to a New York attorney general court filing. After the deposition concluded, Trump issued a public statement saying that he had exercised his Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer.” [CBS News, 1/31/23]
November 9, 2022: A New York Appellate Court Rejected Trump’s Request To Stay Ruling Requiring An Independent Monitor To Oversee The Trump Organization, But Would Reconsider The Request At A Later Date. According to ABC News, “A New York appellate court has declined, at least for now, to stay a judge's order appointing an independent monitor to oversee former President Donald Trump's family real estate firm. Trump and the New York Attorney General's office were supposed to begin submitting candidates for the monitor job this week.The decision, issued Wednesday, said the Appellate Division's First Department would reconsider the matter at a later time.” [ABC News, 11/9/22]
November 14, 2022: Retired Judge Jones Named As Independent Monitor. According to CNBC, “A New York court Monday appointed retired Judge Barbara Jones to oversee some of the Trump Organization’s financial statements as part of a lawsuit alleging widespread fraud by former President Donald Trump, his businesses and his family members. Both Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who filed the sweeping fraud suit in September, had recommended Jones as their top pick to serve as independent monitor in the case.” [CNBC, 11/14/22]
December 21, 2022: Federal Judge Rejected Trump’s Attempt To Block The New York Attorney General From Seeking Materials From Trump’s Trust. According to CNN, “A federal judge in Florida on Wednesday denied former President Donald Trump’s request to block the New York attorney general’s office from seeking materials from his private trust. Judge Donald Middlebrooks ruled that the attorney general’s office ‘raises four reasons – all of which are likely correct – why Plaintiff has no substantial likelihood of success on the merits.’ Among them, the judge said it is not obvious that Florida’s trust laws were ‘intended to reach government officials lawfully bringing enforcement actions for alleged fraud.’” [CNN, 12/21/22]
January 6, 2023: Trump’s Motion To Throw Out Civil Suit Against Him From New York’s Attorney General Was Denied By A New York Judge. According to the New York Times, “A New York judge declined on Friday to throw out the state attorney general’s civil fraud case against former President Donald J. Trump, increasing the likelihood that he will face a trial this fall. In a sharply worded order, the judge, Justice Arthur F. Engoron of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, denied Mr. Trump’s motion to dismiss the case, granting the attorney general, Letitia James, another victory in the matter. In September, Ms. James filed a lawsuit accusing Mr. Trump, three of his adult children and their family business of overvaluing his assets by billions of dollars. In his written order, Justice Engoron said that some of the arguments repeatedly made by Mr. Trump’s lawyers were ‘frivolous,’ and had been ‘borderline frivolous even the first time defendants made them.’” [New York Times, 1/6/23]
June 6, 2023: A New York Appeals Court Heard Arguments On Trump’s Motion To Dismiss The Civil Lawsuit Against Him From New York Attorney General Letitia James. According to Reuters, “A New York appeals court on Tuesday signaled it was unlikely to grant Donald Trump's request to dismiss state Attorney General Letitia James' civil lawsuit accusing him, his family business and three of his children of a ‘staggering’ fraud. The Appellate Division in Manhattan was considering Trump's appeal from a January lower court ruling allowing James to sue.” [Reuters, 6/6/23]
January 20, 2023: Trump Withdrew His Florida Lawsuit Against New York Attorney General James. According to the Daily Beast, “On Friday, Trump withdrew his mind-boggling lawsuit in Florida against New York Attorney General Letitia James, a ploy that was widely regarded by legal scholars as a bald-faced delay tactic. The filing, made in Palm Beach County court, was curt—it merely stated that Trump ‘hereby voluntarily dismisses his claims in this action.’ There was no explanation given.” [Daily Beast, 1/20/23]
January 24, 2023: Trump Withdrew A Second Lawsuit Challenging The New York Attorney General’s Investigation Into The Trump Organization. According to CNN, “Former President Donald Trump has withdrawn a second lawsuit challenging the New York attorney general’s investigation into the Trump Organization, days after dropping a case attempting to block access to his personal trust. In a one-page filing, lawyers for Trump and Attorney General Letitia James said they reached an agreement to dismiss the appeal with prejudice, meaning it could not be revived in the future.” [CNN, 1/24/23]
January 25, 2023: Trump Appealed $110,000 Penalty He Was Ordered To Pay For Being In Contempt Of Court For Not Properly Responding To A Subpoena. According to Bloomberg, “A New York state appeals court is weighing former President Donald Trump’s bid to reverse a $110,000 penalty he was ordered to pay last year for being in contempt of court during the state’s probe of his business. A panel of judges in Manhattan on Wednesday began considering written arguments submitted by Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who issued the subpoena that the former president allegedly flouted. Trump argues the penalty is ‘excessive and unjustified.’ Trump was held in contempt in April and fined $10,000 a day by a judge who concluded Trump hadn’t properly responded to a demand for any corporate documents in his personal possession. Trump had said there were no such documents, but the judge ruled he failed to explain the details of his search or provide a sworn affidavit on the result.” [Bloomberg, 1/26/23]
February 14, 2023: A New York Appeals Court Rejected Trump’s Attempt To Void His $110,000 Contempt Of Court Penalty. According to Bloomberg, “A New York appeals court upheld a $110,000 penalty against former President Donald Trump for being in contempt of court during the state’s probe into allegedly fraudulent asset valuations at his company. The judge who issued the fine last year correctly determined that Trump’s response to the state’s subpoena for records in his personal possession had ‘prejudicially violated the lawful, clear mandate of the court,’ an appellate panel ruled Tuesday in Manhattan.” [Bloomberg, 2/14/23]
January 26, 2023: Trump Argued In Court Filing That The Trump Organization Can Not Be Sued Because It Does Not Legally Exist, But Rather Is A Branding Shorthand. According to Business Insider, “Donald Trump, his real-estate company and his three eldest children have filed an extraordinary, nose-thumbing response to the $250 million fraud lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James in September, stating that ‘Trump Organization’ is branding shorthand — not a legal entity — so it can't be sued. ‘To the extent a response is required, Defendant specifically denies the definitions of ‘Trump Organization’ and ‘Defendants,’ reads Donald Trump's response to the lawsuit, one of 16 answers filed late Thursday night. ‘While the shorthand ‘Trump Organization’ is utilized by Defendants for branding and business purposes, no entity as such exists for legal purposes,’ Donald Trump's response continues, using language that is repeated throughout his 300-page filing and throughout the similarly-lengthy 15 filings of his fellow defendants.” [Business Insider, 1/27/23]
February 1, 2023: Trump Given Second Opportunity To Answer Lawsuit From The NY AG’s Office. According to the Daily Beast, “After exhausting a New York judge with incessant lying and legal delay games, the Trump family will get a second chance to answer a lawsuit from the New York Attorney General that threatens to bankrupt the real estate empire that bears the ex-president’s name.” [Daily Beast, 2/1/23]
February 23, 2023: Trump Subpoenaed His Longtime Private Banker, And Former Deutsche Bank Managing Director, Rosemary Vrablic As Well As Mazars Partner Donald Bender. According to Bloomberg, “Former President Donald Trump subpoenaed his longtime private banker for documents and testimony in New York Attorney General Letitia James’s suit accusing him and his real estate company of using false asset valuations to dupe banks and insurers. Rosemary Vrablic, a former Deutsche Bank managing director who arranged hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to Trump’s company, was subpoenaed last week, according to a Wednesday court filing by James. Trump also subpoenaed Donald Bender, a partner at his former accounting firm Mazars.” [Bloomberg, 2/23/23]
Michael Cohen Received A Deposition Subpoena From Trump In The New York Civil Fraud Case. According to Business Insider, “With an October trial looming in the New York attorney general's massive, $250 million fraud lawsuit against the former president and his business empire, Trump's side has sent out a flurry of last-minute deposition subpoenas. Subpoenas were served on as many as 10 people who Trump and his co-defendants may want to call at trial, including Donald Bender, the top Mazars USA accountant who for years prepared Trump's personal and corporate taxes. Rosemary Vrablic, Trump's longtime former banker at Deutsche Bank, also got one, according to court papers. Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer-turned-very-vocal nemesis, got one of these deposition subpoenas from Trump as well. It was dropped off last week at his front desk, he told Insider. ‘After advisement by counsel, I have decided to challenge the subpoena and intend on making a motion to quash,’ he said. ‘The subpoena was improperly served, I am not a party to this action and the subpoena lacks any specificity as to why I am being called as a non-party witness,’ he added. ‘It's just bad lawyering by team Trump.’” [Business Insider, 3/2/23]
March 2, 2023: Trump Asked To Delay The Trial About Six Months, Moving The Trial Into 2024 If Granted. According to the Hill, “Former President Trump on Friday asked for a roughly six-month delay in New York Attorney General Letitia James’s (D) civil fraud suit against him. Trump’s motion, if granted, would likely push his trial back until the heat of the presidential primary season in the early months of 2024. […] Trump’s motion asks to delay a number of pretrial deadlines, each by roughly six months, which would likely push the new trial date deep into the 2024 campaign season.” [The Hill, 3/3/23]
March 2, 2023: Trump Asked For An Extension To The March 20 Deadline To Conduct Depositions. According to Business Insider, “The deadlines are nothing new. They were agreed to by both sides back in November. Lawyers for Trump and for James had until Tuesday to give each other ‘timely notice’ of who they will be deposing and when. And they all have until March 20 to conduct depositions. Trump's side — or more precisely, the legal teams for Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump, and a dozen Trump Organization executives and corporate entities, all named as defendants in James' lawsuit — are now asking for additional time to meet that March 20 deadline. ‘The current schedule imposes significant hardship,’ according to a recent letter filed by lawyer Clifford S. Robert on behalf the lawsuit's 16 Trump defendants.” [Business Insider, 3/2/23]
March 2, 2023: Trump Asked To Delay The Trial In The NYAG’s Civil Fraud Lawsuit Because He Needed More Time To Review Evidence And Gather Testimony. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump asked a judge to delay the trial in the New York attorney general’s civil fraud suit over his company’s asset valuations, saying the current Oct. 2 date doesn’t give him enough time to craft a defense. Trump attorney Alina Habba said in a court filing late Thursday that the former president needs more time to gather testimony from expert witnesses and review millions of pages of evidence handed over by New York Attorney General Letitia James. ‘While granting such relief ultimately impacts the trial date, there is simply no demonstrable urgency in getting this case to trial,’ Habba said. The current schedule is ‘extraordinarily expedited and unprecedented,’ she said.” [Bloomberg, 3/3/23]
March 21, 2023: Judge Engoron Rejected Trump’s Attempt To Delay Trial, Calling The October 2 Date “Written In Stone.” According to Reuters, “A New York judge on Tuesday rejected former U.S. President Donald Trump's bid to delay the scheduled Oct. 2 trial in state Attorney General Letitia James' civil fraud lawsuit, calling the date ‘written in stone.’ Justice Arthur Engoron in Supreme Court in Manhattan agreed to requests by Trump and other defendants to push back some deadlines for gathering evidence.” [Reuters, 3/21/23]
Judge Engoron Did Allow Some Preliminary Dates To Be Pushed Back. According to Reuters, “‘You can move anything else in between,’ the judge told lawyers at a two-hour hearing, which was delayed by a bomb scare. ‘I don't want to move that trial date.’” [Reuters, 3/21/23]
The NYAG Suggested That They Were Considering Re-Deposing Donald Trump, Eric Trump, And Allen Weisselberg. According to Business Insider, “Yet in their own letter to the judge, James' side suggested the attorney general's office is considering re-deposing Donald Trump, Eric Trump, and Allen Weisselberg, the former Trump Organization chief financial officer now serving a five-month jail term for running a lengthy payroll-tax fraud scheme at the company. Weisselberg's deposition, if it happens, would have to be conducted via video from jail.” [Business Insider, 3/2/23]
March 6, 2023: Ivanka Trump Moved To Separate Herself From The Other Defendants In The NYAG’s Lawsuit Against The Trump Organization. According to Newsweek, “Ivanka Trump is seeking to separate herself from her two brothers, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, in the high-stakes New York state fraud case against the Trump Organization. In a letter filed Monday, Reid Figel, the attorney representing Ivanka in the lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James, asked Judge Arthur Engoron to recognize that Donald Trump's eldest daughter left the family company in 2017 and that the allegations made against her are different from the ones made against her brothers, father and their real estate empire. Figel wrote that because there is not ‘a single allegation that Ms. Trump directly or indirectly created, prepared, reviewed, or certified any of her father's financial statements,’ Ivanka's factual and legal defenses are unique.” [Newsweek, 3/7/23]
April 21, 2023: Ivanka Trump Replaced Her Attorneys, Including Two That Were Also Representing Her Brothers Don Jr. And Eric. According to Forbes, “Ivanka Trump replaced the lawyers defending her in a fraud suit against the New York attorney general on Friday. Her former attorneys are still representing her brothers, Don Jr. and Eric. […] Don Jr. and Eric Trump quickly hired Clifford Robert and Michael Farina of Robert & Robert to represent them, according to court records submitted a week after the suit began. The following month, those same attorneys notified the court they were representing Ivanka Trump as well. They were serving as her local counsel working with two Washington, DC-based attorneys whom Ivanka hired independently of her brothers, Reid Figel and Michael Kellogg of Kellogg Hansen.” [Forbes, 4/26/23]
April, 21, 2023: Bennet Moskowitz Of Troutman Pepper Took Over As Ivanka Trump’s Sole Counsel. According to Forbes, “The break became clearer last week. On Tuesday, the attorneys representing just Ivanka, Figel and Kellogg, withdrew from the case. Three days later, Bennet Moskowitz of Troutman Pepper informed the court that he was taking over as Ivanka’s counsel and that Robert and Farina, the attorneys Ivanka shared with her brothers, were no longer representing her. Moskowitz, who previously represented the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, is now Ivanka’s sole attorney on the case.” [Forbes, 4/26/23]
June 27, 2023: The Manhattan Appellate Division Of The New York Court System Dismissed All Claims Against Ivanka Trump. According to Reuters, “A New York appeals court on Tuesday narrowed state Attorney General Letitia James' civil lawsuit accusing Donald Trump and his family business of a ‘staggering’ fraud, and dismissed all claims against the former U.S. president's daughter. The Appellate Division in Manhattan said statutes of limitations prevented James from suing over transactions that occurred before July 13, 2014 or Feb. 6, 2016, depending on the defendant.” [Reuters, 6/27/23]
Trump Tried To Use Subpoenas In The New York Civil Fraud Case To Learn Information About Other Investigations Into His Business Dealings. According to the Daily Beast, “As Donald Trump prepares for an indictment that could come any minute now, one of his top lawyers is apparently trying to use another case to siphon information about every possible pending investigation into the former president—including ones that Trump might not even know about yet. That covert effort was revealed this week in a previously unreported letter that the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James (OAG) submitted in state court. James and Trump’s attorneys have battled over subpoenas for weeks as her $250 million fraud suit against the Trump Organization barrels ahead. According to the letter, Trump’s defense team, led by his go-to lawyer Alina Habba, has subpoenaed several companies central to the case—including Deutsche Bank and Trump’s former accounting firm, Mazars—requesting ‘information about other governmental investigations into the Trump Organization in addition to information about the conduct of the OAG investigation.’” [Daily Beast, 3/17/23]
March 16, 2023: The NYAG’s Office Called Subpoena Attempts By Trump “Utterly Irrelevant,” “Improper,” And Asked The Judge To Squash Them. According to the Daily Beast, “The subpoenas, which have not been previously known to the public, will be submitted to the court under seal. The OAG is asking the judge in the case, Arthur F. Engoron, to quash the effort, calling it ‘utterly irrelevant’ and ‘an improper attempt to seek information on separate criminal and regulatory investigations that is not relevant to this proceeding.’” [Daily Beast, 3/17/23]
March 21, 2023: New York Attorney General James Requested That Accounting Firm Whitley Penn LLP Turn Over Documents In Connection To The Civil Fraud Case Against Trump. According to Bloomberg, “New York Attorney General Letitia James asked a state judge to force the accounting firm Whitley Penn LLP to produce documents and testimony in her $250 million lawsuit against Donald Trump.” [Bloomberg, 3/21/23]
Trump Hired Whitley Penn After Mazars Disavowed A Decade Of Financial Statement Made For The Trump Organization. According to Bloomberg, “New York Attorney General Letitia James asked a state judge to force the accounting firm Whitley Penn LLP to produce documents and testimony in her $250 million lawsuit against Donald Trump. Trump hired the firm after cutting ties with longtime accountant Mazars USA LLP, which disavowed nearly a decade of financial statements for the Trump Organization based on findings from James’s investigation.” [Bloomberg, 3/21/23]
April 7, 2023: Trump’s Accounting Firm, Whitley Penn LLP, Agreed To Hand Over Subpoenaed Documents To The New York Attorney General’s Office. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump’s new accounting firm struck a deal with the New York attorney general to hand over documents subpoenaed in the state’s $250 million civil suit over the former president’s asset valuations. Whitley Penn LLP, the Texas-based firm Trump hired after he parted ways with longtime accountant Mazars USA LLP, reached the agreement with Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James last week, according to an April 7 order signed by New York state court Justice Arthur Engoron.” [Bloomberg, 4/10/23]
April 13, 2023: Trump Testified For About 8 Hours In The Civil Fraud Suit Brought Against Him By The New York Attorney General. According to the New York Times, “Donald J. Trump was questioned under oath on Thursday in a civil fraud lawsuit brought by Attorney General Letitia James of New York, the latest in a series of legal predicaments entangling the former president, who also faces a separate 34-count criminal indictment unsealed last week. Ms. James’s civil case, which was filed in September and is expected to go to trial later this year, accuses Mr. Trump, his family business and three of his children of a ‘staggering’ fraud for overvaluing the former president’s assets by billions of dollars. The lawsuit seeks $250 million that Ms. James contends the Trumps reaped through those deceptions, and asks a judge to essentially run the former president out of business in the state if he is found liable at trial. Mr. Trump was questioned for much of the day on Thursday — arriving at Ms. James’s office in Lower Manhattan shortly before 10 a.m. and departing just after 6 p.m. — as part of the discovery phase of the case, in preparation for the trial.” [New York Times, 4/13/23]
Sources, Including Trump Attorney Habba, Said Trump Did Not Invoke His Fifth Amendment Rights And Answered Every Question. According to the New York Times, “While the deposition was held in private, people with knowledge of the proceeding said that Mr. Trump answered questions without asserting his right against self-incrimination. The session was neither overly combative nor polite, they said, but Mr. Trump provided some substantive answers. In a statement Thursday evening, Alina Habba, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, said that he had answered every question. ‘As we have said from day one, there is no absolutely no case,’ her statement said.” [New York Times, 4/13/23]
April 2023: The New York Attorney General’s Office Accused Trump, The Trump Organization, And Trump’s Three Oldest Children Of Failing To Turn Over Emails And Other Communications. According to Forbes, “Donald Trump, his three eldest children and the Trump Organization failed to turn over emails and other communications in a fraud lawsuit, the New York attorney general’s office claimed in a letter submitted in court last week. The office singled out ‘an unexplained drop-off in emails for Ivanka Trump’ as one of the more significant issues.” [Forbes, 5/3/23]
The NYAG’s Office Said The Defendants Had Not Submitted A Timeline For When They Would Turn Over All The Required Materials, Nor Answered How They Were Collecting The Materials. According to Forbes, “Last week, the attorney general’s office asked Engoron to intervene, saying the Trumps had started turning over documents but have not provided a timeline for when they will hand over everything. According to the attorney general, the Trumps also have not answered questions about how they are collecting the materials.” [Forbes, 5/3/23]
June 27, 2023: Judge Engoron Was Ordered To Revisit Claims Against The Remaining Defendants To Determine If The Statute Of Limitations Had Run Out. According to Bloomberg, “The lower-court judge, Arthur Engoron, was ordered to revisit the claims against the remaining defendants to determine whether some of them are barred by a six-year statute of limitations, which was applied retroactively and extended as a result of the pandemic.” [Bloomberg, 6/27/23]
July 7, 2023: Trump Lawyer Habba Was Removed From Trump’s Legal Team In The New York Civil Fraud Case And Made Legal Spokesperson And General Counsel Of Trump’s Save America PAC. According to the Daily Beast, “Former Donald Trump attorney Alina Habba has been kicked off the New York attorney general’s case against him, among other cases, and will instead assume two roles in his Save America leadership PAC, according to a Friday press release. She will become the PAC’s legal spokesperson and general counsel while continuing to assist the ex-president in ‘certain legal matters.’ Trump’s communication director described her as working ‘diligently’ and ‘tirelessly’ on the ‘many witch-hunt cases that have been unfairly brought’ against him, but did not give a reason for her seeming demotion besides that she will have more time to dedicate to her new duties at the PAC.” [Daily Beast, 7/8/23]
July 31, 2023: The New York Attorney General’s Office Said It Was “Ready For Trial” In The Civil Tax Fraud Case. According to The Hill, “The New York attorney general’s office said it was ‘ready for trial’ in the case against former President Trump, two of his children and The Trump Organization that alleged they engaged in widespread fraud. ‘The case is ready for trial,’ Kevin Wallace, senior enforcement counsel for the office, wrote in a filing Monday.” [The Hill, 8/1/23]
The New York Attorney General May Ask The Judge To Punish Trump For “Spoliation Of Evidence.” According to Business Insider, “But in New York, the former president now faces the risk of new penalties for documents he allegedly failed to keep. Buried in a ‘ready for trial’ notice filed this week by New York Attorney General Letitia James is a warning: She may ask the judge in Trump's October 2 fraud trial to punish the former president for the ‘spoliation of evidence.’ As defined under New York case law, ‘spoliation’ is the intentional failure to preserve documents or other evidence for pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.” [Business Insider, 8/5/23]
August 29, 2023: Judge Engoron Ruled That Records From Financial Institutions That Did Business With Trump Would Not Be Sealed. According to the Daily Beast, “Banks and insurance companies trying to keep the public in the dark about their business dealings with Donald Trump ran into a ray of legal sunshine on Tuesday, after a judge ruled that he wouldn’t seal records in the run-up to the New York Attorney General’s upcoming trial against the real estate mogul. A handful of firms associated with Trump made a last-ditch effort to hide documents that detailed the way they unwittingly became part of the Trump Organization’s alleged scheme to inflate assets. But the judge, Arthur F. Engoron, ruled that—aside from information like the home addresses of certain employees and bank account numbers—the public has a right to see the documents and communications.” [Daily Beast, 8/29/23]
August 30, 2023: The New York Attorney General’s Office Motioned For Summary Judgment. According to the Associated Press, “New York’s attorney general says a judge doesn’t need to wait until an October trial in her civil lawsuit against former President Donald Trump to rule that he committed fraud while building his real estate empire. In court papers made public Wednesday, Attorney General Letitia James urged Judge Arthur Engoron to issue an immediate verdict endorsing her claim that Trump and his company defrauded banks and business associates by lying on financial statements about his wealth and the value of his assets.” [Associated Press, 8/30/23]
August 30, 2023: Trump Motioned For Summary Judgment. According to the New York Times, “But Mr. Trump’s lawyers, in their own motion, argued that the entire case should be thrown out, relying in large part on a recent appellate court decision that appeared as if it could significantly narrow the scope of the case because of a legal time limit. Mr. Trump had received most of the loans in question too long ago for the matter to be considered by a court, his lawyers argue. ‘The appellate division has now limited the reach of the N.Y. A.G.’s crusade against President Trump and his family’ wrote Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Christopher M. Kise, Michael Madaio and Clifford S. Robert.” [New York Times, 8/30/23]
September 5, 2023: Trump Moved To Delay The Start Of The Trial. According to the Washington Post, “Separately, the defense sought a delay in the start of the trial saying that more time will be needed to determine what issues are properly in play.” [Washington Post, 9/5/23]
Trump Requested The Trial Be Delayed Until Three Weeks After A Decision Was Made On The Motions For Summary Judgment. According to Reuters, “In a Tuesday night filing, Trump said the trial should be ‘briefly’ delayed until three weeks after the judge rules on both sides' requests for summary judgments, which seek victory on various legal issues without the need for a trial.” [Reuters, 9/6/23]
September 6, 2023: Judge Engoron Rejected Trump’s Motion To Delay The Trial. According to ABC News, “A judge in New York on Wednesday said there would be no delay to the start of the civil trial in New York Attorney General Letitia James' $250 million lawsuit against former President Donald Trump and his namesake real estate company. Judge Arthur Engoron said that arguments Trump and others made to delay the case were not convincing. ‘Defendants' arguments are completely without merit,’ Engoron wrote in his ruling.” [ABC News, 9/6/23]
September 5, 2023: New York Attorney General Letitia James Asked The New York State Supreme Court To Sanction Trump, His Fellow Co-Defendants, And Their Lawyers For Continuing To Raise “Previously Rejected Arguments.” According to NBC News, “New York Attorney General Letitia James is asking the state Supreme Court to sanction former President Donald Trump, his sons Eric and Don Jr., others related to the family business and Trump's attorneys for a total of $20,000. Court records filed Tuesday showed that James' office wants to sanction them because they've continued to raise ‘previously-rejected arguments’ in their motions. The attorney general called them ‘frivolous and sanctionable’ because ‘sophisticated defense counsel should have known better.’” [NBC News, 9/5/23]
New York Attorney General Letitia James Requested The Defendants And Their Lawyers Be Sanctioned $10,000 Each. According to Business Insider, “The attorney general is seeking $220,000 in sanctions, or $10,000 for each plaintiff, including the Trump Organization and nine related trusts and LLCs, plus Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, former CFO Allen Weisselberg, company comptroller Jeffrey McConney, and seven defense lawyers.” [Business Insider, 9/5/23]
Trump’s Lawyer Said They Were Entitled To Raise Previously Rejected Arguments So That There Could Be A Full Record Of Pre-Trial Discovery. According to the Washington Post, “Clifford Robert, a lawyer for the Trump family, said in a phone call that ‘the attorney general’s motion in itself is frivolous.’ In a filing Tuesday night, Robert wrote a letter to the attorney general’s office on behalf of the Trump parties demanding that the sanctions request be withdrawn. He argued the defendants were entitled to make thorough arguments at this stage with the benefit of having a full record of pre-trial discovery regardless of prior rulings.” [Washington Post, 9/5/23]
September 26, 2023: Trump’s Lawyers Were Sanctioned $7,500 Each For Making Arguments Previously Rejected. According to the New York Times, “The judge also ordered sanctions against Mr. Trump’s lawyers for making arguments that he previously rejected. He ordered each to pay $7,500.” [New York Times, 9/26/23]
September 8, 2023: The New York Attorney General Claimed That Trump Inflated His Assets By $3.6 Billion, More Than The $2.2 Billion They Originally Estimated. According to the Messenger, “A little more than a week ago, New York State Attorney General Letitia James accused former President Donald Trump of having inflated his assets by up to $2.2 billion in a single year. On Friday, her office claimed that this number was a ‘conservative’ estimate based on ‘undisputed’ evidence. In a new filing, James alleged that Trump actually inflated his assets up to $3.6 billion, ‘which is still a conservative estimate of the extent of the inflation.’ ‘Based on this mountain of evidence establishing the extent to which Mr. Trump and his associates grossly and deceptively inflated his assets and net worth in the [statements of financial condition] each year,’ the AG’s assistant Andrew Amer wrote in a 74-page filing.” [Messenger, 9/8/23]
Trump Sued Judge Engoron. According to the New York Times, “Donald J. Trump has sued the judge overseeing the New York attorney general’s civil fraud case against him, a move that could delay his upcoming trial.” [New York Times, 9/14/23]
The Civil Tax Fraud Case Was Paused To Consider The Motion. According to the New York Times, “The lawsuit was not immediately made public, but two people with knowledge of the matter said that it accused the judge of ignoring an earlier appeals court decision that Mr. Trump’s lawyers believe should significantly limit the case against him. And on Thursday, the appeals court provisionally paused the trial so it can consider Mr. Trump’s action against the judge.” [New York Times, 9/14/23]
The New York Attorney General’s Office Said Delaying Trump’s Trial Would “Likely Wreak Havoc” On The Scheduling Of Trump’s Other Trials. According to the Messenger, “Now that a New York appellate court has temporarily paused former President Donald Trump's civil fraud trial that was set to begin early next month, the attorney general's office told the judges that failing to reverse course could come with serious consequences. ‘Even a brief stay of the October 2 trial date would likely wreak havoc on the trial schedule not only in this proceeding but also in scheduled trials in other courts that involve petitioner Donald J. Trump,’ Judith Vale, the deputy solicitor general for New York Attorney General Letitia James, wrote in a 32-page filing on Wednesday. ‘The Court should not countenance such delays, particularly when there is no irreparable harm to petitioners from simply doing work to prepare for and start a trial that has been scheduled for many months.’” [Messenger, 9/21/23]
The NYAG’s Office Called Trump’s Attempt To Delay The Trial “Brazen And Meritless.” According to the Messenger, “As the case hurtles toward a trial, Trump has tried to throw a wrench in the proceedings through a maneuver known as an Article 78 petition, the state equivalent of a writ of mandamus, which seeks emergency relief seeking to force a court or agency to take an action. The attorney general's office denounced Trump's gambit as a ‘brazen and meritless attempt’ to have an appellate court ‘usurp’ the trial judge's role of managing his own docket. The AG argues that Trump has ‘no likelihood’ of winning his appeal in the light of the bar for obtaining ‘extraordinary’ relief. ‘Petitioners have no chance of satisfying any of these extraordinarily high standards, and their stay request should be denied on this ground alone,’ the filing states.” [Messenger, 9/21/23]
September 28, 2023: Trump’s Attempt To Delay The Trial Was Rejected By A New York Appeals Court. According to the New York Times, “Donald J. Trump’s civil fraud trial over accusations that he inflated the value of his properties by billions of dollars will likely begin Monday after a New York appeals court rejected the former president’s attempt to delay it. The appeals court, in a terse two-page order Thursday, effectively turned aside for now a lawsuit that Mr. Trump had filed against the trial judge, Arthur F. Engoron. The lawsuit had sought to delay the trial and ultimately throw out many accusations against the former president.” [New York Times, 9/28/23]
Trump Was Listed As A Potential Prosecution Witness In His Civil Tax Fraud Trial. According to the Daily Beast, “The New York Attorney General plans to have her lawyers grill former President Donald Trump, his oldest three children whom he made Trump Organization executives, and many of his most loyal bankers at his upcoming business fraud trial, according to a witness list obtained by The Daily Beast on Thursday. The proposed 57-person list—buried in recent appellate court filings—shows the immense scope of the investigation that will be on display at the trial. New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office seeks to obliterate the real estate tycoon and former president’s corporate empire, squeezing it dry of profits gained over years of what she has described as a pattern of ‘persistent and repeated business fraud.’” [Daily Beast, 9/15/23]
Trump Included As A Potential Witness By His Defense Team. According to the Messenger, “Trump included himself and his sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr. on the defense witness list, but he did not include daughter Ivanka Trump, who won the dismissal of the AG's allegations against her on appeal under the statute of limitations. The former president also plans to call an unnamed corporate representative for Mazars, the accounting firm involved in his highly publicized battle to protect his tax records.” [Messenger, 9/28/23]
October 27, 2023: Judge Engoron Rejected Ivanka Trump’s Bid To Block A Subpoena. According to the Messenger, “Ivanka Trump lost her bid to block a subpoena forcing her to testify in her father's ongoing civil fraud trial, a federal judge ruled on Friday. ‘A trial is a search for the truth,’ Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron began his ruling by stating, adding that the public has the right to ‘every person's evidence.’” [Messenger, 10/27/23]
November 1, 2023: Ivanka Trump Appealed The Order Requiring Her To Testify. According to The Hill, “Former President Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, on Wednesday appealed a judge’s order that she must testify in her father’s ongoing fraud trial in New York. ‘This appeal is taken from each and every part of the order insofar as it applies to Ms. Trump,’ her succinct notice appealing Judge Arthur Engoron’s Oct. 27 bench ruling and Oct. 30 scheduling order, that requires her to comply with a subpoena, states. The appeal is primarily composed of a transcript from the hearing last month where Ivanka Trump’s attorneys made their case to Engoron — and, where he ultimately sided with the New York attorney general’s office — despite the fact that she is no longer a party in the case.” [The Hill, 11/2/23]
November 2, 2023: A New York Appeals Court Rejected Ivanka Trump’s Request For A Stay Pending Appeal Of Her Subpoena To Testify. According to the Messenger, “The former president's daughter Ivanka Trump lost her bid Thursday to pause her upcoming testimony on Wednesday, shortly after her father is anticipated to take the stand in his $250 million civil fraud case. The two-page order of New York's Appellate Division, First Department rejected her motion for a stay pending appeal. Though it does not resolve the underlying appeal, the court refused to freeze Ivanka Trump's subpoena requiring her testimony before she is scheduled to take the stand.” [Messenger, 11/2/23]
September 26, 2023: Judge Engoron Ruled That Trump Was Liable For Fraud By Inflating The Value Of His Assets. According to the New York Times, “The New York attorney general won a major victory in her civil case against Donald J. Trump on Tuesday when a New York judge determined that the former president fraudulently inflated the value of his assets to obtain favorable loans and insurance deals. The decision by Justice Arthur F. Engoron precedes a trial that is scheduled to begin Monday, and could considerably smooth Attorney General Letitia James’s path.” [New York Times, 9/26/23]
The Ruling Effectively Ordered The Dissolution Of Trump’s New York Businesses And Corporations. According to the Messenger, “Former President Donald Trump's certificates for his New York businesses must be canceled for fraud, a judge ruled on Tuesday. The blockbuster ruling effectively orders the dissolution of Trump's namesake New York business and other corporations central to his business empire, finding that he failed to correct course after warned of a ‘propensity to engage in persistent fraud.’” [Messenger, 9/26/23]
October 4, 2023: Trump Appealed The Ruling That Ordered The Dissolution of His Business Empire. According to the Messenger, “Former President Donald Trump's attorneys on Wednesday appealed the ruling ordering him to dissolve his business empire in the $250 million civil fraud case he faces in New York City. ‘This appeal is taken from each and every part of the Order insofar as Appellants are aggrieved,’ the filing reads.” [Messenger, 10/4/23]
October 8, 2023: An Appeals Court Halted The Cancellation Of Trump’s Business Certificates While Under Appeal. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Trump’s lawyers deny the allegations, including the claims that he misled bankers and insurers, and have argued that his business dealings under question have been profitable for all parties, with no indication of defaults or late payments on loans. Trump secured some near-term stability Friday when an appeals court halted the cancellation of the certificates while his lawyers fight Engoron’s ruling.” [Wall Street Journal, 10/8/23]
October 30, 2023: The New York Attorney General’s Office Agreed To The Pause On Cancelling Of Trump’s Business Certificates Until Final Judgment At The End Of The Trial. According to ABC News, “Lawyers for the New York attorney general, in a late-day court filing, said they support the court-ordered pause on canceling Trump's business certificates -- but warn that a stay of Trump's civil fraud trial would cause a ‘cascade of delays.’ The filing comes more than three weeks after an appeals court, at Trump's request, paused the enforcement of the cancelation of Trump's business certificates that Judge Arthur Engoron had ordered in his summary judgment. In today's filing, New York Attorney General Letitia James wrote she was ‘willing to agree to stay enforcement … pending the end of trial and entry of final judgment.’” [ABC News, 10/30/23]
October 2, 2023: Trump’s Tax Fraud Trial Began. According to Reuters, “A defiant Donald Trump attacked New York's attorney general and the judge overseeing his civil fraud trial as it began on Monday, with a state lawyer accusing the former president of generating more than $100 million by lying about his real estate empire. Attorney General Letitia James is seeking at least $250 million in fines, a permanent ban against Trump and his sons Donald Jr and Eric from running businesses in New York and a five-year commercial real estate ban against Trump and the Trump Organization.” [Reuters, 10/2/23]
October 3, 2023: Judge Engoron Issued A Gag Order After Trump Attacked Engoron’s Chief Law Clerk. According to Reuters, “The judge overseeing Donald Trump's civil fraud trial on Tuesday imposed a gag order - promising sanctions for any violations - on the former U.S. president and others in the case after Trump took to social media to lash out at the judge's top law clerk. Justice Arthur Engoron of the New York state court in Manhattan told lawyers for Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the fraud case, that such comments aimed at his staff were ‘unacceptable, inappropriate and will not be tolerated under any circumstances.’” [Reuters, 10/3/23]
Judge Engoron Threatened “Serious Sanctions” If Anyone Spoke About The Judge’s Staff. According to Reuters, “Acting during the trial's second day of testimony, the judge forbade both sides from speaking about his staff, and threatened ‘serious sanctions’ if anyone did. The judge did not specify the nature of these sanctions but they could include a finding of contempt of court, which can carry fines and in rare cases jail time. ‘Consider this statement a gag order,’ Engoron added.” [Reuters, 10/3/23]
October 20, 2023: Judge Engoron Said Trump Had Committed A “Blatant Violation Of The Gag Order.” According to the Daily Beast, “The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s bank fraud trial threatened to throw the former president in jail—and hit him with punishing fines—for ‘blatantly’ violating a gag order by refusing to delete a website post attacking court staff. Justice Arthur F. Engoron, striking a serious tone, began Friday at trial by laying out the high stakes and demanding that Trump’s lawyers explain themselves. ‘In the current overheated climate, incendiary comments can and in some cases already has, led to serious physical harm and worse. I will now allow the defendants to explain why this blatant violation of the gag order would not result in serious sanctions, including financial sanctions and/or possibly imprisoning him, Engoron said.” [Daily Beast, 10/20/23]
The Post That Got Trump A Gag Order Was Left Up On His Campaign Website. According to the Daily Beast, “Donald Trump refused to take down a post attacking the law clerk of the judge overseeing his bank fraud trial in New York—blatantly violating the court’s gag order—and lawyers on both sides have just been notified that hell is nigh. The New York Attorney General’s Office and the former president’s defense lawyers were told late Thursday that the issue will come up Friday morning in court, according to a source with knowledge of those discussions.” [Daily Beast, 10/19/23]
Trump Was Fined $5,000 For Violation Of His Gag Order. According to CNN, “Former President Donald Trump was fined $5,000 by a New York judge on Friday for violating a gag order not to speak about any members of the court staff – and was warned twice about possible imprisonment. ‘Donald Trump has received ample warning from this Court as to the possible repercussions of violating the gag order. He specifically acknowledged that he understood and would abide by it,’ Judge Arthur Engoron said in his order Friday. ‘Accordingly, issuing yet another warning is not longer appropriate; this Court is way behind the ‘warning’ stage.’” [CNN, 10/20/23]
October 25, 2023: Judge Engoron Fined Trump $10,000 For Violating The Gag Order. According to the New York Times, “A Manhattan judge briefly ordered Donald J. Trump to the witness stand on Wednesday after accusing him of breaking a gag order with critical comments that seemed aimed at a law clerk, and then fined him $10,000.” [New York Times, 10/25/23]
Trump Claimed That He Was Referring To Michael Cohen, Not Judge Engoron’s Clerk. According to the New York Times, “The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, who is presiding over Mr. Trump’s civil fraud trial, issued the punishment after finding that Mr. Trump earlier in the day had violated an order that prevents him from discussing court staff. Mr. Trump said that his comments had referred not to the clerk, whom he had previously attacked, but to his former lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, a witness.” [New York Times, 10/25/23]
Judge Engoron Said He Did Not Find Trump’s Testimony Credible. According to the New York Times, “From the stand, Mr. Trump, wearing a navy suit and limiting the duration of his usual monologues, said that while he had not been speaking about the clerk, Allison Greenfield, he thought she was ‘maybe unfair, and I think she’s very biased against me.’ Mr. Trump left the stand after about three minutes. Justice Engoron said that he had not found the former president credible and levied the fine.” [New York Times, 10/25/23]
November 2, 2023: Judge Engoron Threatened To Expand His Gag Order After Trump’s Attorneys Criticized His Law Clerk. According to the Associated Press, “Eric Trump followed brother and fellow Trump Organization Executive Vice President Donald Trump Jr. to the stand on a closely watched and sometimes fractious day in the trial. The day ended with Judge Arthur Engoron suggesting he might expand a gag order, after defense lawyers again criticized his law clerk’s role in the case. Early in the trial, Engoron barred participants in the case from smearing his staff after Donald Trump maligned the clerk on social media. The former president has been fined twice, a total of $15,000, for what the judge said were violations. Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly complained about the clerk passing notes to the judge during testimony, a practice the attorneys suggest is inappropriate and unfair to them. Engoron says he has an ‘absolutely unfettered right’ to the clerk’s advice. When the defense complained again Thursday, with Eric Trump watching quietly from the witness stand, a sometimes table-pounding Engoron said he might expand the gag order to include attorneys if anyone refers to a member of his staff again.” [Associated Press, 11/2/23]
Judge Engoron Questioned Whether Trump Lawyer Kise Was A Misogynist. According to the Messenger, “On Thursday, the judge commented that he may expand the order to cover the lawyers. ‘Sometimes I think there's a bit of misogyny in you referring to my female principal law clerk,’ the judge suggested. ‘I assure you that’s not the issue,’ Habba said, referring to accusations of misogyny. Both Kise and Habba continued to accuse the clerk of bias, claiming that she writes notes to the judge weighted against the defense. Engoron pointed out that lawyers pass notes to each other at the defense table, and he said that he had the ‘absolute’ right to consult with and protect his staff. When Habba was absent from court on Oct. 19, Kise got into a verbal altercation with the two other female lawyers present in court that day: Greenfield and the attorney general's counsel Colleen Faherty. The confrontation occurred at a private huddle between the lawyers and the judge known as a sidebar. Most of the conversation was inaudible, but the attorney general's lawyer snapped at Kise with a remark that reverberated across the courtroom. ‘Be more respectful,’ Faherty said. ‘No,’ Kise countered. Faherty shot back: ‘That was rude.’ Multiple news outlets later reported the backstory — that Kise made a dismissive comment in response to a question by Greenfield, questioned Faherty's intelligence, and then apologized. Kise defended himself from the judge's accusations. ‘I'm not a misogynist,’ he said, adding that he has a 17-year-old daughter.” [Messenger, 11/2/23]
November 3, 2023: Judge Engoron Issued A Gag Order For Trump’s Attorneys. According to Politico, “The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s ongoing civil fraud trial issued another gag order on Friday — this time prohibiting all lawyers working on the trial from ‘from making any public statements, in or out of court, that refer to any confidential communications, in any form, between my staff and me.’ The judge, Justice Arthur Engoron, said in a three–page court filing that he issued the gag order to protect his court staff, noting that since the start of the trial, ‘my chambers have been inundated with hundreds of harassing and threatening phone calls, voicemails, emails, letters and packages.’ ‘The threat of, and actual, violence resulting from political rhetoric is well-documented,’ Engoron wrote.” [Politico, 11/3/23]
November 16, 2023: The Gag Order Against Trump And His Attorneys Was Temporarily Lifted. According to the Washington Post, “An appellate judge on Thursday temporarily lifted a limited gag order issued against Donald Trump and his attorneys in the $250 million civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The temporary pause on the order allows Trump and his defense team to discuss the judge’s law clerk, pending further appellate review. The decision followed a hearing at the Appellate Division’s First Department before Judge David Friedman. Friedman wrote after hearing arguments that the stay was being imposed in consideration of ‘constitutional and statutory rights at issue.’” [Washington Post, 11/16/23]
Trump Immediately Attacked Judge Engoron’s Law Clerk After The Order Was Lifted. According to the New York Times, “Later, shortly before 7 p.m., Mr. Trump himself seized on the pause by posting a message on his Truth Social platform in which he called Ms. Greenfield ‘politically biased’ and ‘out of control.’” [New York Times, 11/16/23]
November 22, 2023: The New York State Court System Said Trump’s Attacks On Judge Engoron’s Clerk Resulted In Hundreds Of Threats Against Her. According to the Messenger, “Former President Donald Trump's attack on a judge's clerk on social media resulted in ‘hundreds of threatening and harassing voicemail messages’ against her, appellate court documents revealed on Wednesday. Attorneys for the New York State court system disclosed some of the threats that Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron and his law clerk Allison Greenfield have faced since Trump started attacking them both over the last several weeks on social media. ‘I mean, honestly, you should be assassinated,’ a caller fumed in one of those voicemails, transcribed in court records made public on Wednesday. ‘You should be killed.’” [Messenger, 11/22/23]
November 27, 2023: Trump’s Legal Team Asked That The Gag Order Be Permanently Overturned. According to the Messenger, “Former President Donald Trump's lawyers renewed their attacks on Monday on the judge presiding over his civil fraud trial and his principal law clerk, days after revelations that both have been besieged with ‘hundreds’ of threats. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron gagged Trump and his attorneys from making statements about his staff, in a pair of orders temporarily suspended by an intermediate appellate court. On Monday, Trump's attorney Clifford Robert asked New York's Appellate Division, First Department to permanently overturn the gag orders — which bar attacks on Engoron's staff, but not the judge himself.” [Messenger, 11/27/23]
November 29, 2023: A New York Appellate Court Reinstated The Gag Order Against Trump And His Attorneys. According to the Messenger, “A New York appellate court on Thursday reinstated the gag orders barring Donald Trump and his lawyers from making public statements about the principal law clerk of the judge overseeing the former president's ongoing civil fraud trial. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron noted that the ruling also reinstates a separate gag order imposed on Trump's lawyers.” [Messenger, 11/30/23]
December 4, 2023: Trump Appealed The Gag Order To New York’s Highest Court. According to the Messenger, “Donald Trump's legal team on Monday sought to appeal a gag order barring the former president from speaking about a judge's law clerk to New York's highest court. […] Trump's legal team sought permission from New York's Appellate Division, First Department, to escalate their appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Empire State's highest court. ‘Without expedited review, [Trump and his attorneys] will continue to suffer irreparable injury daily, as they are silenced on matters implicating the appearance of bias and impropriety on the bench during a trial of immense stakes,’ the former president's attorney Clifford Robert wrote in the filing.” [Messenger, 12/4/23]
December 4, 2023: Trump Missed A Deadline For His Appeal Of The Gag Order To Be Heard Until December 11. According to the Washington Post, “A New York appellate court Monday told lawyers for Donald Trump that they missed a deadline to seek permission from a panel of judges to quickly consider a request to file a higher court challenge to a gag order against Trump in connection with a $250 million civil fraud case. Trump lawyers sought prompt permission from the appellate court to ask the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, to pause a gag order against the former president issued by New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, who is presiding over the fraud trial. […] During an informal session in the clerk’s office at the appellate court Monday, Robert and Christopher Kise, another of Trump’s lawyers, argued for a single judge to grant permission to advance their appeal, but they were told that was not proper procedure because a full panel must decide the issue. An attorney for the court, Lauren Holmes, told the lawyers that they missed a Monday morning filing deadline to potentially have a full panel consider the request this week.” [Washington Post, 12/4/23]
The New York Court Of Appeals Rejected Trump’s Motion To Overturn The Gag Order Against Him. According to the Messenger, “The New York Court of Appeals has shot down an appeal from Donald Trump against a gag order issued in his civil fraud trial. ‘On the Court's own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved,’ the court wrote in a Tuesday ruling. ‘Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.’” [Messenger, 1/16/24]
October 3, 2023: Mazars Accountant Donald Bender Testified That Had He Known Key Information About Trump’s Asset Valuations Was Not Provided, He Would Not Have Signed Off On The Financial Statements. According to Bloomberg, “Earlier in the day, Trump’s former longtime accountant said that key information about his asset valuations was missing from the Trump Organization’s financial statements over several years and that he wouldn’t have signed off on them had he known. Donald Bender, an accountant at Mazars USA LLP who worked with Trump for a decade, testified on Tuesday that he became aware of the missing documents when he was interviewed by the Manhattan district attorney’s office in early 2021. The DA went on to charge two Trump Organization units with tax fraud, winning convictions late last year.” [Bloomberg, 10/3/23]
Bender Testified That Trump And The Trump Organization Was “Responsible For The Accuracy” Of The Information Provided. According to Bloomberg, “‘They were not giving us all the documents that we needed’ to compile his financial statements, Bender said, adding that his client was ‘responsible for the accuracy’ of the information they provide.” [Bloomberg, 10/3/23]
October 5, 2023: McConney Testified That Trump’s Financial Statements Were Required For A Loan At Seven Springs. According to the Associated Press, “In pretrial testimony, the former president said that people who did business with him were given ample warning not to trust the statements, and that he never thought that the documents ‘would be taken very seriously.’ He described the financial statements as more a ‘compilation of properties’ than a true representation of their value, saying some numbers were ‘guesstimates.’ But McConney’s testimony came with evidence that the documents were integral to some of Trump’s loan deals. In letters shown in the court, McConney told a bank that he was providing Trump’s 2015 and 2016 financial statements as required under the conditions of a loan for his Seven Springs estate north of New York City.” [Associated Press, 10/5/23]
October 5, 2023: Trump’s Attorney Said He Would Try To Pause The Trial. According to the Messenger, “Trump’s attorney Christopher Kise indicated that he will file appellate papers in New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, on Friday morning, seeking to pause the ongoing fraud trial and Engoron’s ruling. That appellate court previously rejected Trump’s earlier bid to delay his civil trial.” [Messenger, 10/5/23]
October 10, 2023: Former Trump Organization CFO Weisselberg Testified That He Became Aware That The Size Of The Trump Tower Penthouse Was Inflated, But Could Not Remember Where, When, Or How He Knew. According to the Messenger, “The ex-CFO insisted he could not recall noticing discrepancies about the size of the Trump Tower triplex, a 10,996.39 square foot unit. The former president routinely valued the apartment as more than 30,000 square feet on financial statements. ‘A discrepancy of this order of magnitude, by a real estate developer sizing up his own living space of decades, can only be considered fraud,’ Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron wrote in an order for the dissolution of Trump's top New York corporations. Weisselberg conceded that he became aware at some point that the size of the unit was inflated, but he avoided questions trying to pin him down on when he learned that information, any conversations about the topic, and his obligations to alert the Trump Organization's accounting firm Mazars about the error.” [Messenger, 10/10/23]
October 12, 2023: Former Trump Organization CFO Weisselberg Testified That It Was A Coincidence That His Severance Package Was The Exact Amount That He Was Ordered To Pay From His Convictions On Criminal Fraud. According to the Messenger, “On top of the five-month prison sentence he was ordered to serve at one of New York's most notorious jails, the Trump Organization’s ex-chief financial officer had to pay $2 million in back taxes, penalties and interest in connection with his conviction on more than a dozen counts of criminal fraud. The day before Allen Weisselberg's sentencing back in January of this year, he also had signed an agreement with the Trump Organization to pay him exactly that amount in severance — in quarterly increments of $250,000 over the course of two years. Testifying Thursday in a separate civil fraud trial where he's a co-defendant alongside Donald Trump and other company brass, Weisselberg insisted that nobody should read too much into the mirror image $2 million figures. ‘Coincidence,’ remarked Weisselberg, in response to insistent and incredulous questioning by an attorney for the state of New York.” [Messenger, 10/12/23]
October 12, 2023: Weisselberg Was Taken Off The Stand After Forbes Reported He Perjured Himself. According to the Messenger, “The Trump Organization’s former chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg’s testimony reached an abrupt and unexpected end on Thursday afternoon, just hours after Forbes magazine accused the convicted tax cheat of perjuring himself during an earlier stint as a witness. Weisselberg insisted on Tuesday from the witness stand that he ‘never focused’ on calculating the square footage of the former president’s Trump Tower triplex, a three-floor penthouse in his namesake skyscraper. Two days later, on Thursday, Forbes reported that emails not currently in the attorney general’s possession show otherwise. A source close to New York Attorney General Letitia James confirmed that her office is looking into the latest Forbes report. Hours after the publication of that story, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron convened a sidebar with attorneys for the state and defense, but the subject of their private huddle remains unknown. Weisselberg was excused for the day shortly after that conversation, as attorneys for both sides reserved the right to call him back.” [Messenger, 10/12/23]
October 19, 2023: The New York Attorney General Asked For A Forensic Examination Of Former Trump Organization CFO Weisselberg’s Emails. According to the Messenger, “New York State Attorney General Letitia James asked a judge on Thursday to order a forensic examination of Trump Organization emails showing Allen Weisselberg's communications with Forbes after the magazine accused the executive of lying under oath. In testimony from a little more than a week ago, Weisselberg insisted that he ‘never focused’ on calculating the square footage of the former president’s Trump Tower triplex, a three-floor penthouse in his namesake skyscraper. The issue had loomed large over the trial because former President Donald Trump had estimated the size of that triplex, his longtime New York apartment, was nearly three times its actual size.” [Messenger, 10/19/23]
Former Deutsche Bank Risk Manager Nicholas Haigh Testified That He Believed Trump’s Claims About His Net Worth. According to the Messenger, “Deutsche Bank’s former risk manager testified on Wednesday morning that he believed Donald Trump’s claims about his net worth were ‘broadly accurate’ when he signed off on an up to $125 million loan to the then-real estate mogul in 2011. Nicholas Haigh, who headed the German lender’s risk management division until 2018, said that he let Trump use one of his prized golf courses as collateral on the loan because of the former president’s claims about his personal wealth. ‘Deutsche Bank would not make loans just on collateral,’ Haigh testified at Trump’s civil fraud trial on Wednesday, adding that extending the loan required confidence that it was guaranteed by a financially strong person.” [Messenger, 10/11/23]
Haigh Testified That Trump’s Statements Of Value Were Key To Approving Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars Of Loans. According to the Associated Press, “Donald Trump obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in loans using financial statements that a court has since deemed fraudulent, a retired bank official testified Wednesday at the former president’s New York civil fraud trial. Trump’s ‘statements of financial condition’ were key to his approval for a $125 million loan in 2011 for his golf resort in Doral, Florida, and a $107 million loan in 2012 for his Chicago hotel and condo skyscraper, former Deutsche Bank risk management officer Nicholas Haigh testified.” [Associated Press, 10/11/23]
Deutsche Bank Applied A “Haircut” To Trump’s Estimated Valuations. According to Business Insider, “They called it the Trump ‘haircut.’ Really, that was what Deutsche Bank – Donald Trump's most generous lender – called the routine cuts they applied to whatever the former president told them he was worth. The ‘haircut’ reference was made Wednesday at Trump's New York civil fraud trial, now mid-way through its second week. The word jumped out during an esoteric finance discussion. ‘First of all, what is a haircut?’ Kevin Wallace, an attorney for the AG's office, asked while questioning one of the former president's chief barbers, so to speak, Nicholas Haigh. Haigh is a banker who helped sign off on the more than $400 million that Deutsche Bank loaned the former president over the past decade. ‘A haircut is a way by which the bank reduces the stated value of the asset in order to form some kind of assessment of what it might be worth,’ should there be a default, Haigh testified in a crisp British accent.” [Business Insider, 10/11/23]
October 13, 2023: Trump Organization Assistant Vice President Birney Testified That The Trump Organization Considered Adding “Presidential Premiums” That Would Have Increased The Valuations Of Trump’s Properties Of Up To 35% After He Was Elected. According to CNN, “Trump Organization executives considered tacking on ‘presidential premiums’ to some of then-President Donald Trump’s properties in a way that would increase asset values and inflate his net worth in 2017, according to exhibits and testimony shown at Trump’s civil fraud trial on Friday. Eric Haren of the attorney general’s office showed the court several versions of internal spreadsheets from 2017 financial documents prepared by Trump Org. employee Patrick Birney. The various drafts of spreadsheets timestamped in October 2017 show calculations that include a ‘presidential’ premium that marked up the valuations for certain assets 15 to 35 percent – significantly increasing the overall asset valuations.” [CNN, 10/13/23]
Birney Testified That Allen Weisselberg Was “Probably” Behind The Idea. According to CNN, “Birney testified that his former boss, Trump Org. CFO Allen Weisselberg, was ‘probably’ who told him to do it.” [CNN, 10/13/23]
The Presidential Premium Was Never Included. According to CNN, “Ultimately the presidential premiums were never included on Trump’s financial statements.” [CNN, 10/13/23]
October 16, 2023: Trump Organization Assistant Vice President Birney Testified That Allen Weisselberg Told Him That Trump Wanted His Net Worth To Increase On His Financial Statements. According to the Messenger, “A current Trump Organization executive's three-day stint on the witness stand during the former president's civil fraud trial ended on Monday with a bombshell exchange. Grilled by an attorney for New York Attorney General Letitia James, the company's assistant vice president Patrick Birney agreed that former chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg told him that Trump wanted to puff up his net worth on his statements of financial condition. ‘Did Allen Weisselberg ever tell you that Donald Trump wanted his net worth on his statement of financial condition to go up?’ the AG's counsel Eric Haren asked, in the final salvo of his redirect examination. ‘Yes,’ Birney replied.” [Messenger, 10/16/23]
October 16, 2023: Trump’s Attorney Objected To Birney’s Testimony As Hearsay. According to the Messenger, “Trump's attorney Christopher Kise objected to Birney's confirmation of the exchange, describing it as inadmissible hearsay. The AG's office argues that the exchange fell under hearsay exceptions under New York law and precedent concerning admissions by a party opponent.” [Messenger, 10/16/23]
Judge Engoron Asked For Written Arguments On Whether It Was Hearsay. According to the Messenger, “Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron gave both parties the opportunity to submit written arguments on the issue.” [Messenger, 10/16/23]
October 17, 2023: Former Cushman & Wakefield Real Estate Appraiser Larson Testified That It Was “Inappropriate And Inaccurate” For Trump Executives To Have Cited Him As An “Outside” Expert. According to Bloomberg, “During trial testimony Tuesday, a professional appraiser told the judge he was surprised to learn Trump executives had cited him as their ‘outside’ expert in company spreadsheets. Doug Larson, a former real estate appraiser for Cushman & Wakefield Plc, said he was hired by lenders to place a valuation on some of the former president’s properties. Lawyers for the state displayed spreadsheets in court showing Trump Organization Controller Jeffrey McConney claimed he’d relied upon Larson’s advice to value Trump properties. ‘It’s inappropriate and inaccurate,’ said Larson, now an executive at Newmark Group Inc. ‘I should have been told, and an appraisal should have been ordered.’” [Bloomberg, 10/17/23]
Larson Testified That He Never Provided The Appraised $735 Million Value Of 40 Wall Street Building. According to the Messenger, “During the summer of 2016, before his surprise upset presidential election victory, Donald Trump’s company valued the price of his Wall Street skyscraper at more than $735 million. The Trump Organization claimed to have arrived at that figure using a capitalization rate provided by the then-executive director of Cushman & Wakefield, one of the world’s largest real estate services firms. On Tuesday, that executive, Douglas Larson, testified that he never gave the advice attributed to him.” [Messenger, 10/17/23]
October 18, 2023: Trump Warned By Judge Engoron To Quiet Down During Testimony. According to the Associated Press, “A judge warned Donald Trump and others at his New York civil fraud trial to keep their voices down Wednesday after the former president threw up his hands in frustration and spoke aloud to his lawyers while a witness was testifying against him. Judge Arthur Engoron made the admonition after Trump conferred animatedly with his lawyers at the defense table during real estate appraiser Doug Larson’s second day of testimony at the Manhattan trial.” [Associated Press, 10/18/23]
Prosecutors Said They Could Hear Trump’s Commentary. According to the Associated Press, “State lawyer Kevin Wallace asked Engoron to ask the defense to ‘stop commenting during the witness’ testimony,’ adding that the ‘exhortations’ were audible on the witness’ side of the room. The judge then asked everyone to keep their voices down, ‘particularly if it’s meant to influence the testimony.’” [Associated Press, 10/18/23]
October 18, 2023: A Court Employee Who Said She Wanted To Help Trump Was Arrested On Contempt For Approaching Him During Testimony. According to the Washington Post, “A spectator at Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial was arrested Wednesday after standing up in the middle of testimony and walking toward the front of the courtroom where the former president sat. The woman expressed a desire to aid Trump, and the court system said that neither he nor anyone else at the trial was ever in danger. The ex-president and 2024 GOP front-runner showed no reaction in court and later told reporters he wasn’t aware of the episode that had unfolded behind him. ‘Who got arrested?’ Trump asked. ‘We didn’t know anything about it.’ The woman, later identified as a court system employee, retreated after a court officer told her to return to her seat. A short time later, officers escorted her out and arrested her on a contempt charge for disrupting a court proceeding, court spokesperson Lucian Chalfen said.” [Washington Post, 10/18/23]
Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg Worked With His Son Jack To Secure A Loan From Jack’s Company For Trump Tower. According to the Messenger, “More than five years before his presidency, Donald Trump’s namesake company sought a hefty commercial loan for the midtown Manhattan skyscraper that he called his home. On the borrower’s side of the Trump Tower deal, the Trump Organization’s then-chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg reached out to his son Jack Weisselberg, who was working for lender Ladder Capital. ‘As discussed we are looking for a forward commitment in the amount of $65 mil., and a term of ten years to take effect in August 2012,’ the elder Weisselberg wrote to his son on Oct. 19, 2011.” [Messenger, 10/18/23]
Jack Weisselberg, Ladder Capital Executive And Son Of Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, Testified That Trump’s Claimed Net Worth Was A Factor In Approving A $160 Million Loan. According to Bloomberg, “Earlier on Thursday, a Ladder Capital Corp. executive with close ties to the former president testified that the firm approved a $160 million loan to Trump in 2015 based in part on his claim that he was worth $5.8 billion — a figure New York alleges was inflated by more than 50%. Jack Weisselberg, son of longtime Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, testified about the refinancing for Trump’s 40 Wall Street skyscraper the year before the real estate mogul was elected president. Trump had turned to Ladder after the loan originator, Capitol One, declined to refinance it. ‘Was it your understanding that Ladder relied upon this statement of financial condition?’ Colleen Faherty, another lawyer for James, asked the younger Weisselberg on the witness stand. ‘For 40 Wall, we wanted to make sure there was enough liquidity to cover the obligation,’ Weisselberg replied. ‘That doesn’t quite respond to my question,’ Faherty said. ‘The net worth is one of the things we look at it, I wouldn’t say it was a key factor,’ Weisselberg said. ‘It was a factor?’ Faherty persisted. ‘It was a factor,’ Weisselberg said.” [Bloomberg, 10/19/23]
Cushman & Wakefield Executive McArdle Testified That Contrary To Eric Trump’s Claims, He Was Involved In Appraising The Values Of Trump’s Properties. According to Bloomberg, “A real estate executive contradicted Eric Trump’s claim that he had no role in appraisals of a luxury golf development at the center of a civil fraud trial, where the state of New York alleges he and his father, Donald Trump, inflated asset values to get better loan terms. David McArdle, a senior managing director at Cushman & Wakefield, spent most of Thursday in a Manhattan court reviewing numerous emails between Eric Trump and attorney Sheri Dillon discussing the valuation of a Trump property known as Seven Springs in Westchester County, north of New York City. It’s one of several Trump assets Attorney General Letitia James alleges were inflated by hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Cushman & Wakefield had long handled asset valuations for the the former president’s company, and had gotten input on Seven Springs from Eric Trump, who is an executive in his father’s Trump Organization, McArdle said. In sworn testimony before the trial, Eric Trump denied a role in appraisals” [Bloomberg, 10/19/23]
Trump Organization Vice President Raymond Flores Was Questioned About Eric Trump’s Involvement In The Valuations Of Properties. According to the Messenger, “On Friday, the attorney general’s counsel Andrew Amer called Raymond Flores, a vice president of acquisitions and development at the Trump Organization. Flores was also shown messages with Eric Trump regarding the valuation of the property. In one message from 2015, Eric Trump connected Flores with Brian Lynch, who was then recently hired as a general manager at Trump National Westchester, requesting that the two ‘link up’ to discuss spreadsheets. Evidence showed that Lynch followed up with a message, whose attachments reflected the club’s membership deposits and liabilities.” [Messenger, 10/20/23]
October 24, 2023: Michael Cohen Testified That He Manipulated The Values Of Trump’s Properties To Match “Whatever Number Mr. Trump Told Us.” According to Reuters, “Donald Trump's former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen testified on Tuesday that he manipulated the values of the former U.S. president's real estate properties to match ‘whatever number Mr. Trump told us.’ Testifying as a key witness in New York Attorney General Letitia James' civil fraud case against Trump, Cohen said Trump tasked him and other former Trump Organization executives with doctoring financial statements to boost the value of the company's holdings and secure better real estate premiums.” [Reuters, 10/24/23]
Cohen Testified That Trump Determined The Valuations Of His Assets “Arbitrarily.” According to Reuters, “‘He would say, 'I'm actually not worth $4.5 billion, I'm really worth more like 6 (billion),’ Cohen said, adding that Trump arrived at the valuations of his assets ‘arbitrarily.’” [Reuters, 10/24/23]
October 25, 2023: Trump Left The Trial After Judge Engoron Denied His Motion For A Directed Verdict. According to the Messenger, “Former President Donald Trump left his New York civil fraud trial in a huff on Wednesday afternoon, after a judge denied a directed verdict in his favor following blistering cross-examination of his ex-attorney Michael Cohen. ‘Unbelievable,’ Trump muttered, as he stood up to leave, followed by U.S. Secret Service agents and his son Eric Trump. ‘Unbelievable,’ he said again.” [Messenger, 10/25/23]
October 26, 2023: Former Trump Tax Attorney Dillon Testified About Her Interactions With Trump And His Elder Sons. According to the Messenger, “A little more than a week before his inauguration, then-President-elect Donald Trump stood at a podium next to a table stacked with file folders, claiming that they contained signed documents ‘turning over complete and total control’ of his businesses ‘to my sons.’ Trump's then-tax attorney Sheri Dillon stood a short distance away from him and spoke at the Trump Tower press conference on Jan. 11, 2017. […] Dillon, who parted ways with the Trump Organization some four years later, ascended to a different platform on Thursday: a witness stand inside Manhattan Supreme Court, for the 16th day of a civil fraud trial that could put Trump and his sons permanently out of business in New York. Her ongoing testimony, which will resume on Friday, touched briefly upon her interactions with the former president and his sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr.” [Messenger, 10/26/23]
October 30, 2023: Trump Tax Broker Corbiciero Agreed That Mar-a-Largo Was Worth $26.6 Million In 2020, Not The $517 Million Trump Claimed. According to the New York Post, “Donald Trump’s tax broker was forced to admit to authorities in 2020 that Mar-a-Lago had a market value of just $27 million — not the $517 million claimed in other documents, trial evidence revealed Monday. Trump, 77, also allegedly boasted of having a net worth of up to $5 billion — likely more than double what he really had — to land the coveted lease to a New York City golf course in 2010, according to documents. […] During Monday’s testimony, an email was shown from Trump tax representative Michael Corbiciero revealing he’d tried to appeal the Palm Beach County assessor’s appraisal of his boss’s famed Florida golf club Mar-a-Largo. But Corbiciero eventually gave up and finally agreed the estate was worth $26.6 million — even though it had been valued at $517 million on an annual business statement, the outlet reported.” [New York Post, 10/30/23]
October 30, 2023: Former Trump Organization Vice President Flores Testified That The Trump Organization Agreed With The Assessment Of The Palm Beach Property Assessor. According to the New York Post, “‘Was it your understanding that the appeal was withdrawn because the Trump Organization agreed with the value of the property assessor?’ Andrew Amer — a lawyer with New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office — asked former Trump Organization Vice President Raymond Flores about the $27 million valuation. ‘Yes,’ Flores acknowledged.” [New York Post, 10/30/23]
Emails Between Flores, Corbiciero, Allen Weisselberg, And Eric Trump Discussed Categorizing Mar-a-Lago As A Residence Rather Than A Social Club. According to the New York Post, “Flores testified Monday about receiving the Nov. 17, 2021, correspondence from Corbiciero — a then-senior consultant at Marvin F Power and Company — in which he explained the benefits that categorizing Mar-a-Lago as a residence rather than a social club would have on taxes. Corbiciero explained in the email — which Flores forwarded to to ex-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg and Executive Vice President Eric Trump — that Mar-a-Lago could be valued at close to 10 times its assessed value if it was classified as a residence. Illegally ballooning the value of Trump’s holdings gained him favorable loan and insurance rates, among other things, netting him several hundred million dollars, state prosecutors say.” [New York Post, 10/30/23]
October 30, 2023: Assistant Commissioner Cerron Testified That Trump Claimed He Was Worth $3 Billion When He Received The Rights To Operate Ferry Point In 2010 When At Most He Was Worth $2.1 Billion. According to New York Post, “The second witness on Monday, David Cerron — an assistant commissioner in the New York City Parks and Recreation Department — also testified that when the agency awarded the Trump Organization the rights to run a city golf course in Ferry Point Park in 2010, Trump had declared his net worth at $3 billion and said he had $200 million of cash on hand, ABC News reported. Trump had to continue to tell the Parks Department what his worth was for the next decade so that city officials felt confident it would remain solvent — and one year, he claimed it was as much as $4.9 billion, according to evidence shown in court. The AG’s office has claimed that Trump never had more than $2.1 billion during this time period.” [New York Post, 10/30/23]
November 1, 2023: Donald Trump Jr. Testified That He Had No Involvement In The Financial Statements Made By His Company. According to the New York Times, “Donald Trump Jr. testified on Wednesday that he had no involvement in annual financial statements that his family’s business gave banks and insurers despite language in the statements themselves suggesting that he was partially responsible for them. His contention, which came during the trial of a civil fraud lawsuit brought by the New York attorney general, capped an afternoon of otherwise unremarkable testimony from Mr. Trump, who is the first of his family members to testify about the case. Asked whether he worked on one such statement, from 2017, Mr. Trump was clear: ‘I did not. The accountants worked on it. That’s what we pay them for.’” [New York Times, 11/1/23]
Trump Jr. Later Testified That His Conversations May Have Informed The Financial Statements. According to the New York Times, “He soon clarified that his conversations with others at the company may have informed the financial statement. The attorney general, Letitia James, has said such papers were filled with fraud that helped the company, the Trump Organization, gain favorable treatment from lenders.” [New York Times, 11/1/23]
November 2, 2023: Trump Jr. Testified That He Certified, But Did Not Verify, The Accuracy Of The Financial Statements. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump Jr., 45, said he certified but never verified the accuracy of his father’s annual statements of financial condition, which were used to tout his net worth in transactions worth hundreds of millions of dollars. ‘I would be comfortable trusting my team’ of accountants and lawyers, who advised him to sign off on the documents, he said in a Manhattan courtroom.” [Bloomberg, 11/2/23]
November 1, 2023: Banking Expert McCarty Testified That The Trump Organization Saved $168 Million In Loan Interest From Their Loan Terms. According to CNN, “A banking expert testified Wednesday that Donald Trump and his company benefited more than $168 million by obtaining favorable loan terms on transactions where the former president personally guaranteed the loans. The New York Attorney General’s office called Michiel McCarty to testify about his assessment of the $168 million in ill-gotten gains. McCarty analyzed the lending documents related to transactions at issue in this case for the following Trump Organization properties: 40 Wall Street in New York, The Doral Golf Resort & Spa in Florida, Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago, and the Old Post Office project in Washington DC.” [CNN, 11/1/23]
McCarty Testified That Trump Saved $72.9 Million On His Loan For Doral. According to CNN, “McCarty calculated the difference in interest payments that Trump might have paid with a commercial real estate loan that would have had a much higher interest rate than the rate he obtained by personally guaranteeing the loans on the basis of financial statements that inflated his net worth. He determined the Trump Organization saved on interest for the properties: $72,908,308 for the Doral Resort; $53,423,209 for the Old Post Office loan; $17,443,359 for Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago; and $24,265,291 for 40 Wall Street.” [CNN, 11/1/23]
Trump Signed A Document That Transferred Control Of The Trump Organization Back To Himself Five Days Before His Term As President Ended. According to the Messenger, “Some five days before the end of his term, President Donald J. Trump still had not acknowledged that Joe Biden had beaten him in a free and fair election. But Trump was privately preparing for a return to business outside the White House. That’s according to a new piece of evidence introduced on Wednesday by New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office during the former president’s civil fraud trial that threatens to put him out of business in the Empire State. At issue is a document transferring control of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust from the former president’s oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., back to Donald Trump himself. […] Almost four years later, on Jan. 15, 2021, Donald J. Trump signed a document restoring himself as the trustee. The agreement wouldn’t formally take effect until Biden’s Inauguration Day.” [Messenger, 11/1/23]
November 2, 2023: Trump Organization Executive Vice President Eric Trump Clarified His Testimony On Not Being Involved With The Trump Organization’s Financial Statements After Being Presented Evidence That He Was Asked For Information On The Financial Statements. According to the Associated Press, “Eric Trump, one of two sons entrusted to run Donald Trump’s real estate empire, swore Thursday that he was never involved with financial statements that New York state lawyers say fraudulently puffed up the ex-president’s wealth and the worth of the family business. But when shown a decade-old email asking him for information for one of his dad’s financial statements, the irritated son strove to clarify. ‘We’re a major organization, a massive real estate organization — yes, I’m fairly sure I understand that we have financial statements. Absolutely,’ Eric Trump testified at the family’s and company’s civil fraud trial. But the Trump Organization executive vice president insisted: ‘I had no involvement and never worked on my father’s statement of financial condition.’” [Associated Press, 11/2/23]
November 3, 2023: Eric Trump Testified That Allen Weisselberg’s Severance Agreement Included A Non-Disparagement Agreement Against The Trump Organization And Members Of The Trump Family. According to Messenger, “Eric Trump’s two-day stint on the witness stand ended in a similar manner, with the former president’s son describing how the Trump Organization’s severance agreement promised $2 million to its former chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, if he refrained from denigrating the company. Under the heading ‘Employee Promises,’ the eight-page severance agreement obligated Weisselberg ‘not to verbally or in writing disparage, criticize or denigrate the Company or any of its current or former entities, officers, directors, managers, employees, owners, or representatives.’ Eric Trump says the language would apply to him, as well as to his siblings and his brother Donald Trump Jr., who wrapped up his testimony on Thursday. The former president is expected to testify on Monday, and Ivanka Trump, who lost an appeal to pause enforcement of a subpoena, is scheduled to testify on Wednesday.” [Messenger, 11/3/23]
Eric Trump Testified That The Financial Documents He Signed Were Accurate Despite A Judge Concluding They Were Fraudulent. According to the Messenger, “Eric Trump, who helps run the former president’s real estate business, testified that financial documents sent by his father’s company to Deutsche Bank AG to obtain loans for the Trump Organization were ‘accurate,’ even though a judge has already determined they were fraudulent. ‘I wouldn’t sign something that was not accurate,’ Eric Trump, 39, said Friday in a New York court. It was his second day providing sworn testimony in a trial over civil fraud claims by the state.” [Messenger, 11/3/23]
November 6, 2023: Trump Lost His Temper, Attacked Judge Engoron, And Ignored Instructions To Answer Questions Directly While Testifying. According to Politico, “During his four hours on the witness stand, the former president lost his temper and attacked the judge, railing against the person who will decide the fate of his business empire and suggesting one of his pretrial rulings was ‘very stupid.’ Trump continually flouted the judge’s instructions to provide succinct and direct answers to questions, instead offering much of the political animus Trump typically deploys on the campaign trail.” [Politico, 11/6/23]
Judge Engoron Threatened To “Draw Every Negative Inference That I Can” Towards Trump Concerning His Less-Than-Responsive Answers. According to Politico, “‘I beseech you to control him if you can,’ Engoron told Trump lawyer Chris Kise less than an hour into the former president’s turn on the witness stand. ‘If you can’t, I will,’ the judge said. ‘I will excuse him and draw every negative inference that I can.’ ‘This is not a political rally. This is a courtroom,’ Engoron told Kise, ordering him to counsel his client to provide answers responsive to the questions.” [Politico, 11/6/23]
Trump Testified That He Helped Assemble The Annual Financial Statements. According to the New York Times, “Mr. Trump, who was accused by Ms. James of inflating his net worth to defraud banks and insurers, acknowledged helping to assemble annual financial statements submitted to the banks. ‘I would look at them, I would see them, and I would maybe on occasion have some suggestions,’ said Mr. Trump, who began the day looking tired but soon grew animated.” [New York Times, 11/6/23]
Trump Testified That There Were Mistakes In His Financial Statements. According to CNN, “Wallace pressed Trump on why valuations of properties were changed, such as his Trump Tower triplex, which was devalued on his financial statement in 2017 after a Forbes article found he had dramatically exaggerated the size of the apartment. Trump did acknowledge in a noteworthy exchange that there were mistakes in the financial statements, such as the Trump Tower apartment valuation. The value of the apartment fell from $327 million in 2016 to roughly $116.8 million in 2017 – which came after Forbes Magazine outed Trump in 2017 for claiming the apartment was more than 30,000 square feet when it turned out to be just under 11,000 square feet. Wallace asked Trump whether he was involved in the change. ‘Probably,’ Trump said, before giving several possible explanations.” [CNN, 11/6/23]
Trump Testified That Some Of His Loans With Deutsche Bank Required Maintaining Accurate Financial Statements. According to the New Yorker, “After a lunch break, the prosecution scored more legal points. Wallace showed Trump some loan documents with Deutsche Bank and got him to concede that the terms of these loans included the Trump Organization maintaining accurate financial statements, including the Statements of Financial Condition. That was important because one of the things that the prosecutors have to show is that the inflated asset values were something that banks relied on. It seemed to contradict Trump’s earlier claim that banks didn’t pay much heed to the financial statements.” [New Yorker, 11/6/23]
Trump Resigned As The Trustee Of The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Seven Months After He Reappointed Himself At The End Of His Presidency. According to the Messenger, “On Jan. 15, 2021, Trump signed a document that would reappoint him as trustee on the day that President Joe Biden took his place. But Trump only returned to that position for fewer than seven months, precipitously resigning from that post within days of Weisselberg’s indictment and resignation, according to a document entered into evidence during the trial on Monday.” [Messenger, 11/7/23]
November 8, 2023: Ivanka Trump Testified That She Was Not Privy To The Financial Statements Of Her Family’s Business. According to the New York Times, “While some evidence suggested that Ms. Trump had dealt directly with her father’s annual financial statements, which listed the value of his assets, she said that her focus had been elsewhere. ‘I would assume he would have personal financial statements,’ she said, adding, ‘Those weren’t things that I was privy to.’” [New York Times, 11/8/23]
Ivanka Trump Testified That She Was Concerned Donald Trump Was Not Wealthy Enough To Close A Deal With Deutsche Bank On A Loan For Doral That Required Trump To Maintain A Net Worth Of $3 Billion. According to Reuters, “As Donald Trump sought to buy a Florida golf course in 2011, his daughter Ivanka expressed concern that he was not wealthy enough to close the deal, according to evidence presented Wednesday in a civil fraud trial that threatens the former U.S. president's business empire. […] At the trial, she was shown a 2011 email in which she acknowledged that a requirement by lender Deutsche Bank that her father maintain a net worth of at least $3 billion was a problem but encouraged company officials to approve it anyway. ‘We wanted to get a great rate and the only way to get proceeds/term and principal where we want them is to guarantee the deal,’ she wrote to a Trump Organization lawyer.
The two sides ultimately agreed to set the net-worth requirement at $2.5 billion, even though her father claimed a net worth of $4.3 billion that year.” [Reuters, 11/8/23]
Ivanka Trump Testified That She Was Able To Lower The Net Worth Clause On The Doral Loan To $2.5 Billion. According to Politico, “On the witness stand in the $250 million civil fraud trial against Donald Trump and his real estate empire, the former president’s daughter said she had helped negotiate to lower the net worth her father was required to maintain in order to obtain a loan from Deutsche Bank for Trump National Doral, the golf resort in Miami.” [Politico, 11/8/23]
November 9, 2023: Judge Engoron Did Not Rule On Trump’s Request For A Directed Ruling. According to the Associated Press, “Donald Trump’s lawyers were thwarted Thursday in their longshot bid to put an immediate end to the New York civil fraud trial that threatens the former president’s real estate empire. The judge didn’t rule on the request, but he indicated that the trial will go on as scheduled Monday with Donald Trump Jr. returning to the stand as the first defense witness. Trump’s lawyers had asked Judge Arthur Engoron to cut the trial short and issue a verdict clearing Trump, his company and top executives including Trump Jr. of wrongdoing.” [Associated Press, 11/9/23]
November 9, 2023: Judge Engoron Ruled That Trump’s Expert Witnesses Could Testify. According to the Associated Press, “In that ruling, Engoron gave Trump’s lawyers a victory, allowing them to call several expert witnesses in an attempt to refute testimony that Trump’s financial statements afforded him better loan terms, insurance premiums and were a factor in dealmaking.” [Associated Press, 11/9/23]
November 13, 2023: Donald Trump Jr. Testified For The Defense. According to Politico, “Donald Trump’s defense team transformed a Manhattan courtroom into a Trump Organization infomercial Monday with an hourslong presentation featuring dozens of glossy photos of Trump properties — ballrooms, golf courses, pools and rooftop penthouses — all narrated by Donald Trump Jr. The former president’s eldest child testified as the first witness called by the defense in a $250 million civil trial in which Trump, his adult sons and their business associates stand accused of fraudulently inflating Trump real estate assets in order to obtain favorable terms from banks and insurers. Trump Jr. had previously testified as a witness called by New York Attorney General Tish James’ office, which rested its case last week after presenting evidence for nearly a month and a half.” [Politico, 11/13/23]
Judge Engoron Referred To Trump Jr’s Testimony As “A Whole Morning Of Irrelevance.” According to Politico, “When she first introduced the news story about 40 Wall Street, a Trump lawyer objected to it. ‘You’re going to start questioning the relevance of this document?’ Engoron asked. Referring to the Trump presentation, he said: ‘I just gave you a whole morning of irrelevance.’” [Politico, 11/13/23]
November 14, 2023: Trump’s Expert Witnesses Testified That Almost Anything Goes When It Comes To Appraising Property Values. According to Business Insider, “Lawyers for Donald Trump, his sons, and his company began presenting the meat of the New York fraud-trial defense case on Tuesday, with a pair of experts who pushed an almost-anything-goes theory of how to stick a price tag on a piece of property. Want to low-ball what your sky-scraper is worth, in hopes of a property tax break? Or to high-ball the same property, to impress a bank? It's all good, defense experts said in day-long testimony at the non-jury trial, where Trump is fighting New York civil allegations that he wildly exaggerated – by billions of dollars a year – the value of his properties in a decade of financial statements.” [Business Insider, 11/14/23]
Trump Friend Steve Witkoff And Forensic Accountant Jason Flemmons Testified For The Defense. According to Business Insider, “Trump's two defense expert witnesses were markedly different from each other, in terms of objectivity and experience. The first, Witkoff, is a self-described Trump friend, longtime fundraiser and fellow developer who had never been an expert witness before. The second, Flemmons, is a highly qualified consultant who for 12 years helped catch financial bad guys as a forensic accountant for the Securities and Exchange Commission.” [Business Insider, 11/14/23]
November 20, 2023: Former Trump Organization Controller McConney Testified That Trump’s Outside Accountant Was To Blame For The Discrepancies In Trump’s Financial Statements. According to the Messenger, “The Trump Organization’s former controller Jeffrey McConney returned to the witness stand on Monday in the former president's civil fraud trial and sought to shift blame for Donald Trump's financial statements to the company’s outside accountant. From the start of the trial in New York State Supreme Court, Trump and his co-defendants have signaled a strategy to blame the company’s accountant, Donald Bender from the firm Mazars, for any discrepancies in the former president’s statements of financial condition.” [Messenger, 11/20/23]
Defense Expert Witness Miller Testified That Zurich Likely Did Not Inspect Trump’s Financial Statements Closely. According to the Messenger, “Engoron has given the defense broad latitude to present their case, overruling an attempt by New York Attorney General Letitia James to block testimony by four expert witnesses. The last of these witnesses, insurance executive David Miller, testified earlier on Monday that the company Zurich most likely didn't inspect too closely Trump Organization financial statements in order to maintain close ties with Aon, a heavy-hitter broker.” [Messenger, 11/20/23]
November 27, 2023: Trump Organization COO Mark Hawthorn Testified That The Organization No Longer Prepared The Statements Of Financial Condition That The New York Attorney General Said Were Fraudulent. According to the Associated Press, “Donald Trump’s company no longer prepares the sweeping financial statements that New York state contends were full of deceptive numbers for years, an executive testified Monday at the former president’s civil fraud trial. Trump’s 2014 to 2021 ‘statements of financial condition’ are at the heart of state Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit against him, his company and some of its key figures. The defendants deny wrongdoing, but James says they misled lenders and insurers by giving them financial statements that greatly inflated Trump’s asset values and overall net worth. Nowadays, the Trump Organization continues to prepare various audits and other financial reports specific to some of its components, but ‘there is no roll-up financial statement of the company,’ said Mark Hawthorn, the chief operating officer of the Trump Organization’s hotel arm.” [Associated Press, 11/27/23]
November 28, 2023: Deutsche Bank Executive Williams Said It Was “Atypical, But Not Entirely Unusual” To Cut A Client’s Stated Value In Half And Still Approve A Loan, As They Did With Trump. According to Bloomberg, “A Deutsche Bank AG executive gave testimony that could bolster Donald Trump’s defense in his civil fraud trial, telling a New York judge that prospective clients can get loans even after reporting a net worth far higher than the lender’s own calculations. David Williams, who worked on at least one of three loans Deutsche Bank made to Trump in the years before he was elected president, testified Tuesday that it’s ‘atypical, but not entirely unusual’ for the bank to cut a client’s stated asset value by 50% and approve a loan anyway, as it did with Trump.” [Bloomberg, 11/28/23]
Deutsche Bank Cut Trump’s Stated Net Worth By Almost $2 Billion From 2011 To 2012, But Still Approved Loans To Trump. According to Bloomberg, “Deutsche Bank, which loaned Trump hundreds of millions of dollars for properties in Miami, Chicago and Washington, cut his stated net worth in 2011 and 2012 from about $4.2 billion to $2.3 billion when evaluating his loan requests, according to internal bank credit memos used as evidence in the case. The same documents show the bank approved the loans anyway because it expected them to generate a profit based on Trump’s history of successful developments and other criteria.” [Bloomberg, 11/28/23]
Williams Originally Testified That Trump Never Breached His Loan Covenants, But Backtracked When Presented Documents In Cross-Examination. According to Bloomberg, “Williams testified he wasn’t aware of any breaches by Trump on loan covenants. But during his cross-examination by a lawyer for the state, Williams was shown internal bank documents referencing at least two breaches related to his commitments on cash flow, including one in 2019 related to Trump’s luxury Washington hotel. Williams agreed that both were examples of breaches. The documents showed that Trump cured the breaches, and Williams testified that there was nothing particularly unusual about the way Trump’s company got back into compliance. Deutsche Bank ‘was satisfied with the resolution,’ Williams said.” [Bloomberg, 11/28/23]
December 5, 2023: Real Estate Broker Moens Testified That He Would Value Mar-a-Lago At Over $1 Billion. According to the Associated Press, “Former President Donald Trump’s civil business fraud trial turned Tuesday to one of the topics that has vexed him most — the value of his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida. Testifying for Trump’s defense, a Florida real estate attorney said the club could be sold as a home, notwithstanding decades-old legal documents in which Trump said he intended to forswear its use as anything but a club. That’s a restriction that is key to New York state lawyers’ claims that the former president fraudulently overhyped the property’s value. A Palm Beach luxury real estate broker played a glimmering video of the historic estate and testified that he’d value it at over $1 billion as of 2021. ‘It’s something breathtaking. It’s something amazing to see,’ broker Lawrence Moens said during testimony that took a rare turn when he briefly answered a personal phone call while on the witness stand.” [Associated Press, 12/5/23]
December 5, 2023: Real Estate Attorney Shubin Testified That Mar-a-Lago Could Be Sold As A Private Residence Despite Previous Agreements. According to the Associated Press, “Moreover, in a 2002 agreement with the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the club and Trump signed over ‘any and all of their rights to develop the property for any usage other than club usage.’ Yet when pulling information together for Trump’s annual financial statements, his former corporate controller Jeffrey McConney valued Mar-a-Lago club as though the property could be sold as a private home. The statements pegged it as high as $612 million in 2021. James said that those values ignored the agreement with the National Trust. The attorney general, a Democrat, maintains that Trump should have valued Mar-a-Lago the same way the county does, based on its club income. But Trump, in his own testimony last month, said that he believes he retains the right to re-designate the property as a home. And Miami-based real estate attorney John Shubin testified Tuesday that ‘there is absolutely no prohibition on the use of Mar-a-Lago as a single-family residence.’” [Associated Press, 12/5/23]
NYU Professor Bartov Testified That Trump’s Valuations Were Based In Reality. According to Bloomberg, “A prominent New York University accounting professor who is being paid to testify in Donald Trump’s defense in a civil fraud trial heaped praise on the former president’s financial records for hours under oath while blasting as ‘absurd’ the suit brought by the state attorney general. Eli Bartov, who’s making $1,350 an hour working on the case for Trump, testified Thursday in Manhattan that he did not believe Deutsche Bank AG or other Trump lenders would have made decisions on hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to the former president based solely on his allegedly inflated financial statements. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who filed the suit last year, claims Trump exaggerated the value of his assets by billions of dollars a year to get better interest rates from banks. But Bartov argues Trump’s higher valuations in annual records from 2011 to 2021 were based in reality and that banks do their own due diligence anyway when deciding if a potential client is too risky.” [Bloomberg, 12/7/23]
Trump Had Already Paid Bartov $520,000 For His Work. According to Bloomberg, “Bartov confirmed during a deposition taken in late July that Trump had already paid him at least $520,000 for work as an expert.” [Bloomberg, 12/7/23]
November 28, 2023: Trump Moved For An Immediate Directed Verdict. According to Bloomberg, “After Williams was excused as a witness, Trump attorney Christopher Kise asked the judge to issue an immediate verdict in favor of the former president, arguing the testimony from the Deutsche Bank executive had refuted the state’s claim that any asset inflation was material to the lender’s decisions. ‘The bank had no problem with a $2 billion difference, a $3 billion difference — large changes to net worth are not unusual,’ Kise said. ‘There’s been no demonstration of any materiality issues at all.’” [Bloomberg, 11/28/23]
Judge Engoron Did Not Immediately Rule On The Request, But Seemed Unlikely To Grant It. According to Bloomberg, “Engoron said he’d rule on Kise’s request at a later time, but suggested he wasn’t convinced by the argument. ‘The mere fact that lenders were happy doesn’t mean the statute wasn’t violated,’ the judge said.” [Bloomberg, 11/28/23]
November 15, 2023: Trump Requested A Mistrial. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump is seeking a mistrial in New York state’s $250 million civil fraud lawsuit, alleging the judge and his law clerk have tainted the case with rampant political bias. The request, filed Wednesday in Manhattan, is the latest clash between Trump’s legal team and Justice Arthur Engoron, who issued a gag order against the former president barring him from publicly commenting on his law clerk. Trump has been fined a total of $15,000 for twice violating the order.” [Bloomberg, 11/15/23]
November 17, 2023: Judge Engoron Rejected Trump’s Motion For A Mistrial. According to the New York Times, “The New York state judge presiding over Donald J. Trump’s civil fraud trial defended his work on Friday as he rejected a mistrial bid from the former president’s lawyers in which they had accused him of political bias. The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, a Democrat, has been attacked by Mr. Trump, his lawyer and his allies for his handling of the case, which stems from a lawsuit brought by the New York attorney general.” [New York Times, 11/17/23]
The NYAG Upped Her Request For Damages From $250 Million To $370 Million
The New York Attorney General Asked For $370 Million In Damages From Trump, More Than The Original $250 Million Requested In 2022. According to the New York Times, “The New York attorney general on Friday asked the judge who had overseen the civil fraud trial of Donald J. Trump to penalize the former president about $370 million, saying the trial had demonstrated that he had gained that amount through unlawful conduct. The sum was well over the $250 million that the attorney general, Letitia James, had estimated in the fall of 2022, when she sued Mr. Trump, accusing him of inflating his net worth to obtain favorable treatment from banks and insurers.” [New York Times, 1/5/24]
Judge Engoron Denied Trump’s Request To Delay Closing Arguments By Two Weeks
Judge Engoron Declined Trump’s Request To Delay Closing Arguments Until At Least January 29th. According to the New York Times, “On Tuesday, Mr. Kise alerted the court to the death of Mr. Trump’s mother-in-law, and asked that the closing arguments be postponed until Jan. 29 or later. But Justice Engoron, while expressing his condolences, denied the request.” [New York Times, 1/10/24]
Trump Planned On Delivering His Own Closing Argument. According to the Associated Press, “Former President Donald Trump aims to deliver his own closing argument Thursday in his New York civil business fraud trial in addition to his legal team’s summations, according to two people familiar with the highly unusual plan. Trump is a defendant in the case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. She claims his net worth was inflated by billions of dollars on financial statements that helped him secure business loans and insurance.” [Associated Press, 1/9/24]
Judge Engoron Approved Of The Plan To Allow Trump To Speak During Closing Arguments. According to the Associated Press, “An attorney for Trump informed Judge Arthur Engoron earlier this week that the former president wished to speak during the closing arguments, and the judge approved the plan, according to one of the two people who spoke to The Associated Press. Both persons who confirmed the plan did so on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to disclose the information to reporters.” [Associated Press, 1/9/24]
Judge Engoron Tentatively Approved Trump’s Request To Give A Closing Statement, As Long As He Followed The Same Rules That His Defense Attorney’s Had To Abide By. According to the Daily Beast, “Emails filed in court show that the judge tentatively approved Trump’s request that he make a formal appearance in court to make the case’s final argument on his own—as long as he’d follow the same rules his defense lawyers would. ‘Closing arguments are for an advocate to comment on the evidence presented, on the relevant law, and on how the latter applies to the former to justify the result sought. Such arguments may not be used to testify, to introduce new evidence, to make a campaign speech, or to comment on irrelevant matters,’ Engoron emailed Trump’s legal team on Tuesday afternoon.” [Daily Beast, 1/10/24]
Trump Lawyer Christopher Kise Told The Judge His Stipulation Was “Very Unfair” To Trump. According to the Daily Beast, “Christopher Kise, a former Florida solicitor general who was Trump’s lead defense lawyer at trial, initially indicated that Trump would indeed show up and speak. But when the judge pressed him to make clear that Trump would follow the rules, Kise shot back with the whininess that has become his trademark since the trial’s start in October. ‘That is very unfair, your Honor,’ he shot back. ‘You are not allowing President Trump, who has been wrongfully demeaned and belittled by an out of control, politically motivated Attorney General, to speak about the things that must be spoken about.’” [Daily Beast, 1/10/24]
Judge Engoron Responded That This Was A “Take It Or Leave It” Offer, Not A Negotiation. According to the Daily Beast, “‘Dear Mr. Kise,’ he wrote back midday Wednesday, ‘I won’t debate this yet again. Take it or leave it. Now or never. You have until noon, seven minutes from now. I WILL NOT GRANT ANY FURTHER EXTENSIONS.’” [Daily Beast, 1/10/24]
When Kise Did Not Respond, Judge Engoron Revoked His Previous Agreement. According to the Daily Beast, “When Kise didn’t respond, the judge officially nixed the whole misadventure. ‘Not having heard from you by the third extended deadline (noon today), I assume that Mr. Trump will not agree to the reasonable, lawful limits I have imposed as a precondition to giving a closing statement above and beyond those given by his attorneys, and that, therefore, he will not be speaking in court tomorrow,’ Engoron wrote.” [Daily Beast, 1/10/24]
Trump Addressed The Court During Closing Arguments. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, spoke from the defense table after several hours of closing arguments by his lawyers. For five minutes, he addressed Justice Arthur Engoron, who had previously instructed him that any comments had to stick to the facts and law of the case. Instead, Trump called the case a witch hunt carried out by his political enemies bent on sabotaging his re-election. ‘I’m an innocent man,’ he told Engoron, who is deciding the case without a jury. ‘I’ve been persecuted by someone running for office, and I think you have to go outside of the bounds.’” [Wall Street Journal, 1/11/24]
Trump Addressed The Court Without Receiving Judge Engoron’s Permission. According to Rolling Stone, “On Wednesday, the theatrical plan by Trump and his attorneys fell apart after Trump’s legal team, led by Chris Kise, refused to agree to conditions that would restrict him from going off-topic or attacking individuals involved in the trial. Trump didn’t care. Without waiting for Engoron’s permission, Trump began delivering a grievance-laden tirade from the defense table after asking once again if he could address the court, calling the trial a ‘political witch hunt,’ and saying that ‘we should receive damages for what we went through.’” [Rolling Stone, 1/11/24]
Judge Engoron Told Trump’s Lawyer To “Please Control Your Client.” According to the Wall Street Journal, “After several minutes, Engoron and Trump spoke over each other, as Trump criticized the judge. ‘Mr. Kise, please control your client,’ Engoron said, addressing Trump’s lead lawyer, Chris Kise.” [Wall Street Journal, 1/11/24]
Barbara Jones, The Independent Monitor Assigned To Oversee The Trump Organization, Filed A Report With Judge Engoron Which Concluded That The Trump Organization Still Lacked A Formal Compliance Department, Issued Statements With Errors And Misstatements, And Operated In a Manner That Reflected “A Lack Of Effective Governance.” According to ABC News, “The report – issued at the request of Judge Arthur Engoron to summarize the 14 months of the Trump Organization's court-appointed monitorship – found that the company has been cooperative, implemented some changes, and issued necessary corrections to financial statements. However, based on her review of over 3000 documents, retired judge Barbara Jones identified that the Trump Organization often provided documents ‘lacking in completeness and timeliness’. […] Jones also said that the Trump Organization still lacks a formal compliance department, issued statements that include errors and misstatements, and operates in a manner that reflects ‘a lack of effective governance.’” [ABC News, 1/26/24]
The Court-Appointed Monitor To Oversee The Trump Organization Found A $48 Million Loan That May Have Not Have Ever Existed. According to the Daily Beast, “Always read the footnotes. That’s where former federal judge Barbara Jones, the court-appointed special monitor in Donald Trump’s New York business fraud case, just planted a financial bombshell that legal experts say suggests Trump lied knowingly and repeatedly on his federal financial disclosures about a major loan that never existed—and may have evaded taxes on $48 million in income. The detail came in a letter Jones filed on Friday to update New York Judge Arthur F. Engoron, first reported by The Messenger, on her efforts to get a full and clear accounting of the Trump Organization’s assets. The letter claims, yet again, that Trump and his company have filed statements containing inconsistencies and errors, but have been ‘cooperative’ in the review process.” [Daily Beast, 1/27/24]
Jones Wrote That A Loan Agreement Between Trump And Chicago Unit Acquisition Never Existed. According to the Daily Beast, “But Jones tucked a major revelation into footnote 6, writing that a massive chunk of debt Trump has claimed to owe one of his own companies for years apparently does not exist, and never did. ‘When I inquired about this loan, I was informed that there are no loan agreements that memorialize the loan, but that it was a loan that was believed to be between Donald J. Trump, individually, and Chicago Unit Acquisition for $48 million,’ Jones wrote, referencing the name of Trump’s LLC that held his debt. ‘However, in recent discussions with the Trump Organization, it indicated that it has determined that this loan never existed—and thus that it would be removed from any upcoming forms submitted to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) and would also be removed from subsequent versions of [corporate financial statements],’ Jones wrote. If true, that would essentially be an admission from the Trump Organization that all the financial disclosures Trump has filed with the federal government listed an entirely fictional debt worth tens of millions of dollars, which Trump claimed he personally owed to one of his own companies.” [Daily Beast, 1/27/24]
The Entity That Trump Allegedly Owed $50 Million Was A Company Trump Owned And Valued At Nothing. According to the Daily Beast, “This mysterious chunk of debt has long been a white whale for Trumpworld financial reporters. It has always seemed odd that Trump owed $50 million or more to a company that he fully owns. Odder still, Trump also reports that this company—Chicago Unit Acquisition LLC—doesn’t make money or have any value at all. It would seem logical, reports point out, that a company with a $50 million credit on its books would have a value of at least that amount. This LLC, however, is reported as having no value. ‘There should be an offsetting entry somewhere,’ Harvard real estate professor Richard Peiser told Forbes in 2020. ‘I can’t explain that.’” [Daily Beast, 1/27/24]
The Chief Legal Counsel For The Trump Organization Said That Not Only Did The Loan Exist, But In Fact Chicago Unit Acquisition Owed Trump, Despite Trump’s Public Statements And Filings With The Office Of Government Ethics. According to the Daily Beast, “Asked to comment on Jones’ letter, Alan Garten, chief legal counsel for the Trump Organization, told The Daily Beast that her claim—that the company confessed to the loan never existing—was inaccurate and the loan did in fact exist. ‘That’s one of many inaccuracies contained in the monitor’s letter, which we will be addressing with the court,’ Garten said in a phone interview. Moreover—in contradiction to the ex-president’s own statements about the mystery loan—Garten repeatedly insisted that the LLC actually owed the money to Trump. Asked to confirm the loan, Garten replied, ‘Yes, the loan existed,’ specifying that it was ‘an internal loan’ where Trump ‘lent money to the entity that he owns.’ Yet all of Trump’s financial disclosures, including his most recent amended version approved by the OGE last October, clearly state that it was Trump who owed Chicago Unit Acquisition LLC. He’s consistently listed his debt as more than $50 million, in the form of what’s known as ‘springing loan’—a loan with unfavorable terms to the borrower. In fact, Trump confirmed this arrangement himself. In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Trump claimed that he bought back this loan from ‘a group of banks several years ago.’ Trump said that he’d chosen to keep the debt on his books, the Times reported, claiming that he pays interest on it to himself—despite the LLC’s ‘practically worthless’ valuation. ‘We don’t assess any value to it because we don’t care,’ Trump said in the interview. ‘I have the mortgage. That is all there is. Very simple. I am the bank.’” [Daily Beast, 1/27/24]
Tax Experts Suggested That The Fake Loan May Have Been An Attempt To Avoid Income Taxes. According to the Daily Beast, “The Daily Beast consulted multiple tax experts to analyze the new revelation, and the general opinion was that Trump may have created a fake loan to avoid income taxes. ‘The fact that Jones, as a court appointed monitor, officially references the transaction as a $48 million loan that never existed, should raise eyebrows.’ That’s because Jones’ letter appears to match a 2019 analysis from Mother Jones’ Russ Choma—which concluded that Trump may have committed tax fraud by fabricating the loan, making it look like his LLC still owned a debt that had in reality been fully forgiven. That would have allowed Trump to duck taxes on $48 million of canceled debt, a rate which could run up to 39 percent. Jones’ letter, citing the Trump Organization itself, backs up what would be the centerpiece to that theory: That the loan does not exist.” [Daily Beast, 1/27/24]
2012: Trump Had $48 Million As Part Of A Loan On Trump Chicago Cancelled. According to the Daily Beast, “As Mother Jones and other outlets have reported, the loan supposedly stemmed from a complex emergency financial restructuring that Trump scrambled to throw together amid the 2008 real estate crash, when he was loaded down with $800 million in debt from his faltering Chicago Hotel and Tower and his empire faced a very real risk of collapse. […] During his maneuvering, Trump convinced one of the entities funding that project—a financial firm called Fortress—to cut him a deal on the slightly less than $100 million they’d loaned him for the project. As prior reports show, Fortress eventually agreed to cancel half that original amount in 2012, forgiving Trump a total of $48 million.” [Daily Beast, 1/27/24]
Trump Made It Look Like He Bought The Loan Rather Than Had It Cancelled, Because Cancelled Debt Would Be Reportable, Taxable Income. According to the Daily Beast, “Normally, tax experts told The Daily Beast, that would qualify as $48 million in reportable, taxable income. But instead, these experts said—as experts previously told Mother Jones—it now looks like Trump may have made it look like the debt wasn’t canceled, but that he instead bought it from Fortress. His 2016 statements to The New York Times—that he had in fact bought this specific loan back from a group of banks—further supports this theory. Martin Lobel, a prominent Washington, D.C., tax lawyer who also spoke to Mother Jones for the 2019 report, said that the new information appears to confirm the tax fraud hypothesis. ‘It would appear, assuming Judge Jones’ letter is accurate, that this amounts to tax evasion,’ Lobel told The Daily Beast.” [Daily Beast, 1/27/24]
Trump Family Attorney Clifford Robert Compared Court-Appointed Monitor Barbara Jones To The Police Inspector From “Les Miserables.” According to the Messenger, “The Donald Trump family’s lawyer went on the offensive against the court-appointed monitor in the New York state civil fraud case on Monday, comparing her to the overzealous police inspector of Victor Hugo’s novel-turned-musical ‘Les Miserables.’ […] In the past, Trump and his lawyers have counterattacked any prosecutor, regulator, judge, or court employee perceived of acting against them, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, Engoron, and the judge’s principal law clerk. Even though such bias accusations failed in the past, the pattern continued to expand on Monday, as the Trump family’s lawyer Clifford Robert took aim at Jones, who previously escaped the former president’s wrath.” [Messenger, 1/29/24]
Robert Accused Jones Of Wanting To Maintain Her Position So She Could Charge “Exorbitant Fees.” According to the Messenger, “In his letter, Robert suggested that Jones is attacking Trump for money, calling her report an ‘unabashedly self-serving statement’ aimed at trying to preserve her position — in order to continue charging ‘exorbitant fees.’ ‘The January 26 Report, issued mere days before an expected decision, has only two obvious purposes: (1) ensure the Monitor continues to receive exorbitant fees (in excess of $2.6 million to date); and (2) fill the gaping hole in the Attorney General’s case, namely, that there is no basis to support continued oversight,’ Robert wrote.” [Messenger, 1/29/24]
Trump Attorney Chris Kise Called Jones’ Report “Truly A Joke.” According to Newsweek, “Former President Donald Trump’s attorney said it is ‘shocking’ that he’s been forced by a Manhattan court to pay an independent monitor millions of dollars to ‘prove what he has said from the outset.’ Trump lawyer Chris Kise slammed reports from former federal judge Barbara Jones, the court-appointed monitor overseeing Trump’s businesses, in a Monday statement for having found issues with the former president’s disclosures when she was tasked with identifying fraud. ‘The Monitor’s six reports never once mention financial reporting misconduct, suspicious activity, or suspected or actual fraud. No accounting or other governing standards are even cited in the January 26 Report much less violated,’ Kise told Newsweek in a statement. ‘Instead, wandering beyond her mandate, it appears the Monitor has been paid $2.6 million to ‘uncover” seven (7) immaterial disclosure items, three (3) irrelevant inconsistencies and five (5) clerical errors. She even attempts to sensationalize President Trump’s $40 million in tax payments by disingenuously characterizing them as a failure of disclosure. This is truly a joke.’” [Newsweek, 1/29/24]
Jones Was Appointed To Monitor The Trump Organization After Being Nominated By Both The New York Attorney General And Trump’s Lawyers. According to the New York Times, “Justice Engoron chose Ms. Jones to oversee the Trump Organization in the fall of 2022, shortly after Ms. James filed the lawsuit that led to the civil fraud trial. She was nominated by both the attorney general’s lawyers and lawyers for Mr. Trump.” [New York Times, 1/29/24]
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, theeoplee said.” [New York Times, 2/1/24]
Weisselberg Would Also Have To Admit He Lied To The New York Attorney General’s Office. According to the New York Times, “Mr. Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer at Mr. Trump’s family business, also would have to say that he lied under oath during in an interview with the New York attorney general’s office, which brought the civil fraud case.” [New York Times, 2/1/24]
Judge Engoron Wanted More Information About Allen Weisselberg’s Possible Perjury Plea Deal. According to the Associated Press, “The judge in Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial is demanding more information after a key witness was reported to be in negotiations to plead guilty to perjury in connection with his testimony in the lawsuit. In an email posted to the trial docket Tuesday, Judge Arthur Engoron asked lawyers in the case to provide him with a letter ‘detailing anything you know’ about the situation involving Allen Weisselberg, the former longtime finance chief at Trump’s company, the Trump Organization. ‘I do not want to ignore anything in a case of this magnitude,’ Engoron wrote, suggesting he may disregard all of Weisselberg’s testimony if he were to admit to lying on the witness stand. Engoron cited a Feb. 1 report in The New York Times that Weisselberg was in negotiations with the Manhattan district attorney’s office to plead guilty to perjury and ‘admit that he lied on the witness stand’ when he testified at the civil fraud trial in October. The newspaper cited ‘people with knowledge of the matter.’” [Associated Press, 2/6/24]
Both The New York Attorney General And Trump’s Attorneys Agreed That Allen Weisselberg’s Possible Perjury Plea Should Not Delay Judge Engoron’s Decision. According to CNN, “Last week, CNN and other news organizations reported that Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, is in talks with the Manhattan district attorney’s office to potentially plead guilty to a perjury charge related to his testimony as part of the attorney general’s fraud investigation. The information prompted Judge Arthur Engoron to ask the lawyers for Trump and the attorney general’s office whether he should consider the possible perjury admission and if it should impact the timing of his decision, which is expected this month. Trump’s attorneys say it’s inappropriate for the judge to consider news reports about a potential perjury charge, while the state lawyers say they don’t think the criminal investigation should delay the judge’s decision in this case. The attorney general’s office is seeking $370 million as the result of improper gains and to ban Trump from doing business in the state.” [CNN. 2/7/24]
A Judgment Against Trump Could Cost Him Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars In Interest Payments On Top Of The Judgment
A Judgment Against Trump In The Tax Fraud Case Could Cost Him Tens Of Millions Of Dollars More Than The Verdict Amount Due To New York Law. According to the Daily Beast, “Donald Trump is just days away from getting slammed with a court judgment that could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars as a punishment for his decades of bank fraud with the Trump Organization. And two little-known New York laws could leave Trump scrambling for cash: a requirement that he immediately front the money to appeal the decision, and a sky-high state interest rate.” [Daily Beast, 2/7/24
Any Judgment Would Be Automatically Inflated By A 9% Interest Rate And Trump Would Have To Pay The Court The Judgment Amount Plus Interest Plus An Additional 10% To 20% In Order To Appeal. According to the Daily Beast, “Trump’s sudden cash demands are exacerbated by a quirk in New York law. Not only would the judgment get automatically inflated by an unusually high interest rate of 9 percent, but Trump would need to give the court the enlarged total—plus an extra 10 to 20 percent—in order to appeal and have another day in court. And it would all be due by mid-March.” [Daily Beast, 2/7/24]
The 9% Interest Rate Would Likely Back Date To The Beginning Of The Investigation In 2018, Meaning Trump Could Owe Hundreds Of Millions In Interest On Top Of The Judgment. According to the Daily Beast, “Whatever the enormous judgment will be, the state-mandated 9 percent interest rate on the sum is likely to date back to the start of AG Letitia James’ investigation in 2018, which means Trump could be in the hole for nine-figures more. If the judgment against Trump is, for instance, $370 million, he would face an additional $33.3 million tacked on annually to the base amount of the original judgment. It’s simple interest, which means it only applies to the original judgment, but if the time period stretches back six years, Trump would automatically owe 54 percent more than whatever the judgment comes out to be. (In this hypothetical of $370 million with six years of interest, it’d be almost exactly $200 million more.).” [Daily Beast, 2/7/24]
Judge Engoron Found Trump Liable And Ordered Him To Pay $355 Million, The Amount Rose To $453 Million When Accounting For Interest
Judge Engoron Found Trump Liable For Conspiring To Manipulate His Net Worth And Ordered Him To Pay $355 Million In Penalties. According to the New York Times, “A New York judge on Friday handed Donald J. Trump a crushing defeat in his civil fraud case, finding the former president liable for conspiring to manipulate his net worth and ordering him to pay a penalty of $355 million that could wipe out his entire stockpile of cash. The decision by Justice Arthur F. Engoron caps a chaotic, yearslong case in which New York’s attorney general put Mr. Trump’s fantastical claims of wealth on trial. With no jury, the power was in Justice Engoron’s hands alone, and he came down hard: The judge delivered a sweeping array of punishments that threatens the former president’s business empire as he simultaneously contends with four criminal prosecutions and seeks to regain the White House.” [New York Times, 2/16/24]
Including A Nine Percent Interest Rate, Trump Owed $453.5 Million. According to Forbes, “Including interest, Trump actually owed $453.5 million as of Friday, according to the New York attorney general’s office, based on a nine percent interest rate that Engoron ruled started accruing on the fines in March 2019, May 2022 and June 2023, respectively—adding $98.6 million to the amount Trump owes.” [Forbes, 2/20/24]
Interest On Trump’s Penalties Did Not Stop Accruing Until The Penalties Were Paid Off, Even If Trump Appealed. According to Forbes, “That interest will keep accruing until it’s paid off—even if Trump appeals the ruling, which won’t stop him from having to post an appeals bond or putting cash into a court-controlled account.” [Forbes, 2/20/24]
Trump’s Penalties Accrued Interest At $2.7 Million Per Month, $614,196 Per Week, And $87,502 Per Day. According to Forbes, “The nine percent rate means Trump will owe an additional $31.9 million in interest per year, which breaks down to $2.7 million per month, $614,196 per week and $87,502 per day.” [Forbes, 2/20/24]
Trump Had 30 Days To Come Up With The Money
Trump Had 30 Days To Come Up With The Money. According to the New York Times, “Mr. Trump will appeal the financial penalty — which could climb to $400 million or more once interest is added — but will have to either come up with the money or secure a bond within 30 days. The ruling will not render him bankrupt, because most of his wealth is tied up in real estate.” [New York Times, 2/16/24]
The Judge Imposed A Three-Year Ban On Trump From Serving In A Top Role In Any New York Company
The Judge Imposed A Three-Year Ban On Trump From Serving In A Top Role In Any New York Company. According to the New York Times, “Not only did Justice Engoron impose a three-year ban preventing Mr. Trump from serving in top roles at any New York company, including his own, but the judge also applied that punishment to the former president’s adult sons for two years and ordered that they pay more than $4 million each. One of the sons, Eric Trump, is the Trump Organization’s de facto chief executive, and the ruling throws into doubt whether any member of the family can run the business in the near term.” [New York Times, 2/16/24]
The Judge Extended The Independent Monitor To Oversee The Trump Organization For An Additional Three Years
The Judge Extended The Appointment Of The Independent Monitor Over The Trump Organization For At Least Three Years. According to the New York Times, “But there might be little Mr. Trump can do to thwart one of the judge’s most consequential punishments: extending for three years the appointment of an independent monitor who will be the court’s eyes and ears at the Trump Organization, watching for fraud and second-guessing transactions that look suspicious.” [New York Times, 2/16/24]
Judge Engoron Decided Against Breaking Up The Trump Organization Despite Trump’s Lack of Remorse
Judge Engoron Reversed His Previous Decision To Revoke The Trumps’ Business Licenses. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump was banned from doing business in New York for three years and ordered to pay $354 million for lying about his wealth, but one thing missing from the judge’s order was an earlier edict to dissolve all the companies the billionaire owns in the state. In a surprise move, Justice Arthur Engoron backed off Friday when he issued punishments in the civil fraud case, walking back his earlier ruling and leaving Trump’s control over his New York empire largely intact — for now. Instead, the judge said any decision about forced sales would depend on what two appointed monitors learn about individual Trump businesses. Back in September, the judge ordered the cancellation of all Trump Organization LLC business licenses in New York after concluding before the trial that the real estate mogul was liable for a decade of fraud as alleged by the state in a lawsuit. That could have led to a messy liquidation process that threatened to expose Trump’s murky private businesses.” [Bloomberg, 2/17/24]
Judge Engoron Found The Trumps’ Lack Of Remorse “Borders On Pathological.” According to Bloomberg, “In the end, Engoron found Trump, his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump were liable for submitting ‘blatantly false financial data’ year after year to get better terms on loans, as alleged by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The judge, who sometimes asked the Trumps direct questions on the stand, described them in his verdict as having a lack of remorse that ‘borders on pathological.’ ‘Instead, they adopt a ‘See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’ posture that the evidence belies,’ Engoron wrote.” [Bloomberg, 2/17/24]
The NYAG Said She Would Seize Trump’s Assets If He Did Not Pay His Fine
New York Attorney General Letitia James Said She Would Seize Trump Assets If He Did Not Pay His $354 Million Fine. According to ABC News, “Four days after a judge ordered former President Donald Trump to pay $354 million in his civil fraud case, New York Attorney General Letitia James told ABC News that she is prepared to seize the former president's assets if he is unable to find the cash to cover the fine. ‘If he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets,’ James said in an interview with ABC News' Aaron Katersky.” [ABC News, 2/20/24]
Trump Wanted To Propose A “Counter-Judgment”
Trump Wanted To Propose A “Counter-Judgment” To Judge Engoron. According to Newsweek, “Donald Trump's attorney requested to propose a new judgment on Wednesday in the former president's civil fraud trial ruling, in which Judge Arthur Engoron ruled that Trump will be fined roughly $355 million. […] On Wednesday, Clifford Robert filed a letter in the New York City civil court addressed to Engoron which argues Trump was ‘deprived’ of the chance to speak out against the ruling before it was filed. According to court records, Roberts requested the chance to propose a ‘counter-judgment’ to Engoron's ruling, adding that it would be ‘contrary to fundamental fairness’ if not allowed to submit a counter-judgment.” [Newsweek, 2/21/24]
Trump Requested A 30-Day Extension To Pay His $355 Million Fine And Was Denied
Trump Requested A 30-Day Extension To Pay His $355 Million Fine. According to The Hill, “Former President Trump’s attorneys requested a 30-day extension Wednesday on the time frame to pay a $355 million business fraud verdict levied against him last week. The attorneys argued that New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) is in an ‘unseemly rush’ to enforce the verdict, ‘particularly given the magnitude of Judgment.’ Trump would have one month to come up with the funds to pay the verdict after it is enforced. The request Wednesday would delay the enforcement of the verdict itself by 30 days.” [The Hill, 2/21/24]
Judge Engoron Denied Trump’s Request For A 30-Day Delay In Enforcing The Penalties Leveled Against Him. According to ABC News, “The judge in former President Donald Trump's civil fraud case has rejected a request from the defense to delay the enforcement of the penalties in the case. The defendants had asked Judge Arthur Engoron to delay the enforcement of the penalties by 30 days to allow for an ‘orderly post-judgment process.’ ‘You have failed to explain, much less justify, any basis for a stay,’ Engoron wrote in an email posted Thursday to the court docket. ‘I am confident that the Appellate Division will protect your appellate rights.’” [ABC News, 2/22/24]
February 23, 2024: Judge Engoron Finalized His Ruling, Starting The 30-Day Clock For Trump To Appeal His $454 Million Penalty, Which Required Depositing The Required Funds With The Court. According to the Associated Press, “The staggering civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump was finalized in New York on Friday, making official a verdict that leaves the former president on the hook for more than $454 million in fines and interest. The procedural step by the New York county clerk starts the clock on Trump’s appeals process, while allowing the debt to begin racking up post-judgment interest of nearly $112,000 each day, according to a spokesperson for New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the case. In his Feb. 16 ruling, Judge Arthur Engoron ruled that Trump lied for years about his wealth in order to secure favorable loans and make deals that helped prop up his real estate empire. He was ordered to pay $354.9 million in penalties plus nearly $100 million in interest. The formalized verdict gives Trump a 30-day window to appeal, which he has vowed to do. Within that same time frame, he must deposit ‘sufficient funds’ in a court-controlled account or secure a bond for the total amount, James’s office said.” [Associated Press, 2/23/24]
February 28, 2024: Associate Justice Singh Denied Trump’s Attempt To Pause The Enforcement Of The $454 Million Penalty Levied Against Him. According to Politico, “An appeals court judge on Wednesday denied Donald Trump’s request to pause the enforcement of a $450 million judgment for widespread business fraud, dealing a blow to the former president’s efforts to delay payment. In a court filing asking for the pause earlier in the day, Trump had signaled that he doesn’t have the cash to prevent the enforcement of the judgment. He asked an appeals court to put a hold on the monetary penalty as well as a series of other penalties ordered earlier this month by Justice Arthur Engoron, who found that Trump had inflated the value of his real estate holdings and his own net worth. Following Wednesday’s interim ruling by Associate Justice Anil Singh, a full panel of the New York appeals court — known as the First Department of the Appellate Division — is expected to consider whether to halt the judgment while Trump pursues his appeal.” [Politico, 2/28/24]
Trump Offered A $100 Million Bond In Place Of The $454 Million Judgment, Saying That He Might Have To Sell Properties To Come Up With The Money. According to the New York Times, “Donald J. Trump offered a New York appeals court on Wednesday a bond of only $100 million to pause the more than $450 million judgment he faces in his civil fraud case, saying that he might need to sell some of his properties unless he gets relief. It was a stunning acknowledgment that Mr. Trump, who is racing the clock to either secure a bond from a company or produce the full amount himself, lacks the resources to do so. Without a bond, the New York attorney general’s office, which brought the fraud case, could seek to collect from Mr. Trump at any moment.” [New York Times, 2/28/24]
March 18, 2024: Trump Asked A New York Appeals Court To Prevent The New York Attorney General Form Collecting The Judgment Against Him While Trump Appeals The Decision. According to NBC News, “Trump and his company need to post a bond for the full amount by next week in order to stop New York Attorney General Letitia James from being able to collect while he appeals. They've asked an appeals court to step in in the meantime and said Monday that they have not had any success getting a bond.” [NBC News, 3/18/24]
March 18, 2024: Trump Asked The Court To Pause The $454 Million Judgment Against Him Because He Was Unable To Secure A Bond. According to the New York Times, “Donald J. Trump’s lawyers disclosed on Monday that he had failed to secure a roughly half-billion dollar bond in his civil fraud case in New York, raising the prospect that the state could seek to freeze some of his bank accounts and seize some of his marquee properties. The court filing, coming one week before the bond is due, suggested that the former president might soon face a financial crisis unless an appeals court comes to his rescue. Mr. Trump has asked the appeals court to pause the $454 million judgment that a New York judge imposed on Mr. Trump in the fraud case last month, or accept a bond of only $100 million. Otherwise, the New York attorney general’s office, which brought the case, might soon move to collect from Mr. Trump.” [New York Times, 3/18/24]
The NYAG’s Office Accused Trump Of Moving Assets To Florida To Get Around The Judgment In The Civil Fraud Trail
The New York Attorney General’s Office Accused Trump Of Moving Assets From New York To Florida To Avoid Enforcement Of The Judgment. According to the Daily Beast, “‘In the absence of a stay on the terms herein outlined, properties would likely need to be sold to raise capital under exigent circumstances, and there would be no way to recover any property sold following a successful appeal and no means to recover the resulting financial losses from the Attorney General,’ Trump’s lawyers wrote on Wednesday. But when the AG raised objections in court documents to the proposal to put up a reduced amount of collateral, Letitia James drew attention to another matter entirely: Trump appears to be trying to move assets out of her reach. Dennis Fan, a senior assistant solicitor general at the AG’s office, alerted appellate judges at the state’s First Judicial Department that Trump has sneakily relocated business entities from New York to Florida. ‘There is substantial risk that defendants will attempt to evade enforcement of the judgment (or make enforcement more difficult) following appeal,’ Fan wrote, noting that ‘after the court issued its February 16 order, defendants announced for the first time that various Trump Organization entities operating in New York are allegedly now located in Florida.’ As the court recognized earlier in this case, there is unfortunately a distinct need to ‘ensure that defendants do not dissipate their assets or transfer them out of this jurisdiction,’’ he continued.” [Daily Beast, 2/28/24]
Justice Singh Did Pause The Penalty That Banned Trump From Getting A Loan From A New York Bank For Three Years. According to Politico, “Though he didn’t grant Trump’s primary request, Singh did order a pause of one penalty imposed by Engoron: a three-year ban on Trump obtaining a loan from a New York bank. That means Trump can seek to obtain an appeal bond for the full amount of the penalty, which would prevent collection efforts while the appeals process proceeds.” [Politico, 2/28/24]
February 26, 2024: Trump Appealed The Civil Fraud Judgment. According to the Associated Press, “Donald Trump has appealed his $454 million New York civil fraud judgment, challenging a judge’s finding that Trump lied about his wealth as he grew the real estate empire that launched him to stardom and the presidency. The former president’s lawyers filed a notice of appeal Monday asking the state’s mid-level appeals court to overturn Judge Arthur Engoron’s Feb. 16 verdict in Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit. Trump’s lawyers wrote in court papers that they’re asking the appeals court to decide whether Engoron ‘committed errors of law and/or fact’ and whether he abused his discretion and/or his jurisdiction.” [Associated Press, 2/26/24]
August 21, 2024: Prosecutors Urged The New York Appellate Division To Uphold The Almost $500 Million Civil Fraud Judgment Against Trump. According to the Associated Press, “New York state lawyers urged an appeals court late Wednesday to uphold Donald Trump’s nearly $500 million civil fraud judgment, arguing there’s ‘overwhelming evidence’ to support a judge’s finding that the former president lied for years about his wealth as he built his real estate empire. In paperwork filed ahead of oral arguments next month, New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office said the current Republican nominee’s appeal is awash in ‘meritless legal arguments’ and ignores volumes of trial evidence showing that he and his co-defendants engaged in ‘fraud and illegality on an immense scale.’ ‘On appeal, defendants tellingly ignore almost all their deceptions,’ Assistant Solicitor General Daniel S. Magy wrote in a 168-page submission to the state’s mid-level appeals court known as the Appellate Division.” [Associated Press, 8/21/24]
September 26, 2024: Judges On New York’s Appeals Court Appeared Receptive To Trump’s Arguments To Overturn The Almost-$500 Million Judgment Against Him. According to the Associated Press, “Some judges in a New York appeals court appeared receptive Thursday to possibly reversing or reducing a civil fraud judgment that stands to cost Donald Trump nearly $500 million. One judge called the former president’s penalty ‘troubling’ and wondered if the state’s policing of private business transactions was ‘deterrence’ or ‘mission creep.’ A five-judge panel in the state’s intermediate appeals court in Manhattan quizzed lawyers representing Trump and the New York attorney general’s office during oral arguments in the Republican presidential nominee’s fight to get the Feb. 16 verdict overturned. At times the judges appeared dubious of Trump’s side, too. Appeals court judges often ask pointed questions of both sides to test their arguments.” [Associated Press, 9/26/24]
Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg Pleaded Guilty To Perjury Resulting From His Testimony In The Civil Fraud Case. According to the New York Times, “Allen H. Weisselberg, a longtime lieutenant to former President Donald J. Trump, has reached an agreement with Manhattan prosecutors to plead guilty to perjury charges on Monday, according to people with knowledge of the matter. Yet Mr. Weisselberg, who for years has remained steadfastly loyal to Mr. Trump in the face of intense prosecutorial pressure, is not expected to implicate his former boss. That unbroken streak of loyalty has frustrated prosecutors and already once cost him his freedom. Mr. Weisselberg, 76, is now expected to concede that he lied to investigators from the New York attorney general’s office when they were investigating Mr. Trump for fraud. The attorney general, Letitia James, had accused Mr. Trump of wildly inflating his net worth to obtain favorable loans and other benefits. That civil case recently ended with a judge imposing a huge financial penalty on the former president — more than $450 million with interest.” [New York Times, 3/4/24]
April 10, 2024: Former Trump Organization CFO Weisselberg Was Sentenced To Five Months In Jail For Lying In The New York Civil Fraud Case. According to the New York Times, “Allen H. Weisselberg, Donald J. Trump’s longtime financial lieutenant, was sentenced Wednesday to five months in the Rikers Island jail complex for perjury, capping a legal saga that has now landed him behind bars twice. The sentence, handed down by a state court judge in Manhattan, came just five days before Mr. Trump is to go on trial in the same courthouse on accusations that he covered up a sex scandal. Mr. Weisselberg was not charged in the same case as Mr. Trump, but he would not be headed to jail if not for his former boss’s own troubles: Prosecutors set their sights on Mr. Weisselberg after he refused to turn on Mr. Trump. Last month, Mr. Weisselberg, 76, pleaded guilty to two counts of perjury committed while he was being questioned in 2020 by the New York attorney general’s office, which was investigating Mr. Trump for fraud.” [New York Times, 4/10/24]
March 21, 2024: The NYAG’s Office Filed Judgments In Westchester County, Which Would Be The First Step In Seizing Trump’s Golf Course And Private Estate. According to CNN, “The New York attorney general’s office has filed judgments in Westchester County, the first indication that the state is preparing to try to seize Donald Trump’s golf course and private estate north of Manhattan, known as Seven Springs. State lawyers entered the judgments with the clerk’s office in Westchester County on March 6, just one week after Judge Arthur Engoron made official his $464 million decision against Trump, his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization. The decision against Trump and the difficulty the former president is having securing a bond while he appeals the verdict strikes directly at Trump’s image as a billionaire as he attempts to raise more cash for both his legal bills and third run for the White House. Entering a judgment would be the first step a creditor would take to attempt to recover property. Additional steps, such as putting liens on assets or moving to foreclose on properties, or taking other actions in court would follow, if the asset is going to be seized.” [CNN, 3/21/24]
Judgments Had Already Been Filed In New York City. According to CNN, “The judgment is already entered in New York city where Trump’s properties including Trump Tower, his penthouse at Trump Tower, 40 Wall Street, his hotel abutting Central Park, and numerous apartment buildings are located.” [CNN, 3/21/24]
March 21, 2024: Judge Engoron Appointed Barbara Jones To Monitor The Trump Organization For The Next Three Years. According to ABC News, “Effective Thursday, former President Donald Trump's namesake family real estate company has a babysitter. New York Judge Arthur Engoron, who oversaw Trump's civil fraud trial, imposed a monitor over the Trump Organization as part of a judgment that also required Trump to pay a nearly-half billion dollar penalty. Barbara Jones, a retired federal judge, has been overseeing the Trump Organization's finances since November 2022 as part of a preliminary injunction. She is now installed for the next three years. As part of the arrangement, the Trump Organization must open its books to Jones, who has also been given the ability to suggest court-ordered changes in how the Trump Organization operates. She must be notified about any large cash transfers, the creation or dissolution of assets, the restructuring of debt and ‘any efforts to secure surety bonds,’ according to Engoron's order issued Thursday.” [ABC News, 3/21/24]
March 25, 2024: A New York Appeals Court Lowered Trump’s Appeal Bond To $175 Million. According to the New York Times, “With Donald J. Trump on the clock to secure a nearly half-billion-dollar bond in his civil fraud case, a New York appeals court handed the former president a lifeline on Monday, saying it would accept a far smaller bond of $175 million. The ruling by a panel of five appellate court judges was a crucial and unexpected victory for Mr. Trump, potentially staving off a looming financial disaster. Had the court denied his request for a smaller bond in the fraud case, which was brought by the New York attorney general, Mr. Trump risked losing control over his bank accounts and even some of his marquee properties. For now, those dire outcomes might be on hold. If Mr. Trump obtains the smaller bond, it will prevent the attorney general from collecting while he appeals the $454 million judgment against him. The appeal in the case, in which a trial judge found that Mr. Trump fraudulently inflated his net worth, could take months or longer to resolve.” [New York Times, 3/25/24]
Trump Had 10 Days To Secure The Bond. According to the New York Times, “Mr. Trump has 10 days to secure the bond, and two people with knowledge of his finances said he should be able to, though doing so will effectively drain much of his cash. In order to obtain the bond — a promise from an outside company that it will cover his judgment if he ultimately loses the appeal and cannot pay — Mr. Trump will have to pay the company a fee and pledge about $200 million in cash and other investments as collateral.” [New York Times, 3/25/24]
April 1, 2024: Trump Posted The $175 Million Bond Necessary To Avoid Enforcement Of The $454 Million Judgement Against Him. According to Politico, “Former President Donald Trump posted a $175 million bond Monday to stop collection of a half-billion dollar judgment in the civil fraud case against him, preventing state authorities from seizing his assets while he appeals the verdict. Trump’s posting of the bond comes after a panel of appellate judges last week ruled that he could post a bond in a significantly smaller amount than the $454 million he owes as a result of the verdict. That decision came after Trump’s lawyers said he lacked the cash to cover the full amount of the penalty and had been rejected by dozens of insurance companies for a bond for the full amount.” [Politico, 4/1/24]
April 4, 2024: The NYAG’s Office Questioned If The Company That Posted Trump’s Bond Actually Had The Resources To Fulfill Its Obligation. According to the New York Times, “The New York attorney general’s office on Thursday took exception to a $175 million bond that Donald J. Trump recently posted in his civil fraud case, questioning the qualifications of the California company that provided it. […] Now, however, Ms. James is raising questions about the company that provided the guarantee to Mr. Trump, Knight Specialty Insurance Company, owned by Don Hankey, a billionaire who made his fortune with subprime loans. In a court filing on Thursday, Ms. James noted that Knight was not registered to issue appeal bonds in New York, and so she demanded that the company or Mr. Trump’s lawyers file paperwork to “justify” the bond within 10 days. Ms. James is seeking to clarify whether Knight, which had never posted a similar court bond before aiding Mr. Trump, is financially capable of fulfilling its obligation to pay the $175 million if Mr. Trump defaults.” [New York Times, 4/4/24]
April 15, 2024: Trump’s Lawyers Said His Bond Was Adequately Secured And The Hearing On Whether His $175 Million Bond Satisfied New York State Requirements Should Be Cancelled. According to CNN, “Lawyers for former President Donald Trump said his $175 million bond posted to satisfy the judgement in the New York civil fraud case is financially sound, and they asked the judge to set aside the attorney general’s challenge to the bond and award him costs and fees. In court filings Monday night, Trump said the bond secured by Knight Specialty Insurance Company is backed by Trump’s Charles Schwab account with more than $175 million in cash. Knight Specialty can take control of the Schwab account and is fully backed by its parent company to assume any risk, one of Trump’s filings said. ‘The DJT Trust granted KSIC a security interest in a Schwab brokerage account, in which the DJT Trust is obligated to maintain no less than $175 million in cash or cash equivalents at all times,’ according to an affirmation filed in support of the bond by Gregory Serio, a former superintendent of insurance for New York state and partner of Park Strategies, a government consulting firm. ‘KSIC also has a standing agreement with its parent company, Knight Insurance Company, Ltd. (‘KIC’), by which KIC reinsures 100% of KSIC’s risk,’ the affirmation said. ‘The $175 million bond at issue is adequately secured.’” [CNN, 4/15/24]
April 22, 2024: The NYAG And Trump Agreed On The Conditions For His $175 Million Bond. According to the New York Times, “The New York attorney general’s office and representatives for Donald J. Trump agreed in court on Monday to slightly modify the terms of a $175 million bond posted by the former president in his civil fraud case after the state questioned the qualifications of the company that provided it and sought to have it rejected.” [New York Times, 4/22/24]
The Money Would Remain In A Money-Market Account And Grant The Bond Provider Exclusive Control. According to the New York Times, “The deal will keep the bond largely unchanged, with the $175 million in cash that Mr. Trump deposited as collateral remaining in a money-market account, while adding new terms stipulating that the $175 million must remain as cash, and not be transferred into mutual funds, for example. The two sides also agreed to give the California firm that provided the bond, Knight Specialty Insurance Company, exclusive control over the money-market account.” [New York Times, 4/22/24]
May 8, 2024: New York’s Judicial Oversight Body Opened An Investigation Into An Alleged Conversation Between Judge Engoron And Attorney Bailey Over The Trump Civil Fraud Case. According to NBC New York, “A high-profile New York real estate lawyer, whose law license was once suspended, said he approached the judge presiding over Donald Trump’s civil fraud case to offer unsolicited advice about a law at issue in the case. Attorney Adam Leitman Bailey made the claim during an interview with NBC New York, saying he spoke to Judge Arthur Engoron three weeks prior to the judge’s February decision to fine the former president $454 million for falsely inflating the value of his assets. The judge, through a court spokesman, denied impropriety and said he was ‘wholly uninfluenced’ by Mr. Bailey. New York’s judicial oversight body has now launched an investigation into the alleged interaction, according to sources familiar with the matter.” [NBC New York, 5/8/24]
July 9, 2024: Judge Engoron Narrowed, But Approved, A Subpoena For Adam Bailey, Who Claimed He Offered The Judge Unsolicited Advice In The New York Civil Fraud Case. According to The Hill, “The New York judge overseeing former President Trump’s civil fraud case narrowed a subpoena issued to an outside lawyer who said he offered unsolicited advice about the case as the judge’s multimillion-dollar decision was pending. Judge Arthur Engoron ruled Tuesday that Trump’s subpoena of New York real estate lawyer Adam Leitman Bailey sought to achieve an ‘improper wholesale fishing expedition’ of any communications between himself and the lawyer, noting that Bailey and his firm had appeared before his court ‘often’ and that unrelated conversations would likely be swept up in the broad request. However, Engoron conceded that the subpoena was not ‘wholly without merit,’ asserting that Bailey’s ‘extraordinary claims to the media’ opened the door for Trump’s lawyers to seek any communications or documents related to their conversation.” [The Hill, 7/9/24]
Late October 2024: Most Likely Time When A Decision From The Court Would Be Announced. According to the Associated Press, “The appeals court, known as the Appellate Division, typically rules about a month after arguments, meaning a decision could come before Election Day, Nov. 5. It could uphold the trial verdict, reduce or overturn it.” [Associated Press, 9/26/24]
Colorado’s Supreme Court Ruled Trump Was Disqualified From Holding Office Under The 14th Amendment For Engaging In Insurrection Leading Up To The Attack On The Capitol On January 6. According to the New York Times, “Colorado’s top court ruled on Tuesday that former President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from holding office again because he engaged in insurrection with his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol, an explosive ruling that is likely to put the basic contours of the 2024 election in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Colorado Supreme Court was the first in the nation to find that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which disqualifies people who engage in insurrection against the Constitution after taking an oath to support it — applies to Mr. Trump, an argument that his opponents have been making around the country.” [New York Times, 12/19/23]
The Ruling Only Concerned The Primary, Not The General Election. According to the New York Times, “The ruling directs the Colorado secretary of state to exclude Mr. Trump’s name from the state’s Republican primary ballot. It does not address the general election.” [New York Times, 12/19/23]
Trump Appealed The Decision To Remove Him From The Colorado Ballot To The U.S. Supreme Court. According to the New York Times, “Former President Donald J. Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to keep him on the primary ballot in Colorado, appealing an explosive ruling from the state Supreme Court declaring him ineligible based on his efforts to overturn the 2020 election that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. The move adds to the growing pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to act, given the number of challenges to Mr. Trump’s eligibility and the need for a nationwide resolution of the question as the primaries approach. Mr. Trump’s petition seeking review of the state court’s ruling followed a similar one last week from the Colorado Republican Party. The six voters who had prevailed in the Colorado Supreme Court filed a motion urging the justices to put the case on an exceptionally fast track.” [New York Times, 1/3/24]
The Colorado Republican Party Appealed The Decision To The U.S. Supreme Court. According to BBC News, “Colorado Republicans have appealed to the US Supreme Court after the state’s top court ruled that Donald Trump was ineligible to run for president. The appeal means he will remain for now on the ballot for the Colorado primary. Last week, the ex-president was disqualified from running in the state for his alleged role in the 6 January 2021 attack on the US Capitol. Mr Trump is the Republican frontrunner and is expected to be the party’s candidate for the 2024 US election. In its appeal, the Colorado Republican Party’s legal team accused the state Supreme Court of ‘fundamentally changing the course of American democracy,’ according to the BBC’s US partner CBS News.” [BBC News, 12/28/23]
The Supreme Court Announced They Would Take Up The Colorado Ballot Eligibility Case. According to the New York Times, “The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is eligible for Colorado’s Republican primary ballot, thrusting the justices into a pivotal role that could alter the course of this year’s presidential election. The sweep of the court’s ruling is likely to be broad. It will probably resolve not only whether Mr. Trump may appear on the Colorado primary ballot after the state’s top court declared that he had engaged in insurrection in his efforts to subvert the 2020 election, but it will most likely also determine his eligibility to run in the general election and to hold office at all.” [New York Times, 1/5/24]
Trump Filed A Brief With The Supreme Court Arguing That There Would Be “Chaos And Bedlam” If He Would Be Barred From State Ballots. According to NBC News, “Former President Donald Trump on Thursday pleaded with the Supreme Court to allow him to remain on the Republican primary ballot in Colorado as he seeks to overturn a state ruling that found him ineligible because of his role leading up to the Jan. 6. Attack on the Capitol. Trump’s lawyers filed a brief laying out his position ahead of oral arguments scheduled for Feb. 8. […] In Thursday’s filing, Trump’s lawyers touched upon those themes, saying that a president is not an ‘officer of the United States,’ that Trump did not ‘engage in insurrection’ and that only Congress can enforce the provision in question. ‘The court should put a swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and which promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado’s lead and exclude the likely Republican presidential nominee from their ballots,’ Trump’s lawyers wrote.” [NBC News, 1/18/24]
Trump’s Legal Team At The Supreme Court Was Led By Former Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell, Scott Gessler, Harmeet Dhillon, And David Warrington. According to Politico, “Former Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell is serving as Trump’s lead counsel at the Supreme Court, joined by Colorado attorney Scott Gessler, California attorney Harmeet Dhillon and Virginia attorney David Warrington, among others.” [Politico, 1/18/24]
The Supreme Court Unanimously Ruled Trump Was Eligible To Remain On The Ballot In Colorado, Concluding That States Do Not Have The Authority To Enforce Section 3 Of The 14th Amendment Against Presidential Candidates. According to the Wall Street Journal, “The Supreme Court restored Donald Trump’s name to Colorado’s ballot, ruling that states lack authority to reject presidential candidates on the grounds they engaged in rebellion or insurrection against the U.S. Monday’s decision, in an unsigned opinion, effectively puts an end to a series of ballot challenges that argued Trump isn’t eligible to be president a second time under a long dormant constitutional provision barring former officials who engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding office again. ‘The Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates,’ the court said, referring to the 14th Amendment provision.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/4/24]
The Maine Secretary Of State Ruled That Trump Was Ineligible For The Ballot
Maine’s Secretary Of State Ruled Trump Was Disqualified From The Ballot For His Role On The January 6 Attack On The Capitol. According to the New York Times, “Maine on Thursday became the second state to bar Donald J. Trump from its primary election ballot after its top election official ruled that the former president’s efforts to remain in power after the 2020 election rendered him ineligible to hold office again. Hours later, her counterpart in California announced that Mr. Trump would remain on the ballot in the nation’s most populous state, where election officials have limited power to remove candidates. The official in Maine, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, wrote in her decision that Mr. Trump did not qualify for the ballot because of his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. A handful of citizens had challenged his eligibility by claiming that he had incited an insurrection and was thus barred from seeking the presidency again under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. ‘I am mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection,’ Ms. Bellows, a Democrat, wrote.” [New York Times, 12/28/23]
Trump Appealed The Decision To County Superior Court
Trump Appealed The Decision To Disqualify Him From The Maine Primary Ballot To Kennebec County Superior Court. According to the Portland Press Herald, “Former President Donald Trump’s campaign has appealed Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows’ decision to disqualify him from the state’s presidential primary ballot. A complaint filed in Kennebec County Superior Court on Tuesday says Bellows was a ‘biased decision maker’ who should have recused herself from the decision. It also says the Maine secretary of state does not have the legal authority to consider the federal constitutional issues presented in complaints seeking to bar Trump from the ballot and, as a result, that Trump will be illegally excluded from the ballot based on Bellows’ decision. The filing also says that Bellows ‘made multiple errors of law and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.’” [Portland Press Herald, 1/2/24]
February 28, 2024: A Cook County Judge Ruled That Trump’s Name Be Struck From The Primary Ballot In Illinois, But Stayed The Ruling Pending An Appeal. According to the Associated Press, “A Cook County judge ruled the Illinois State Board of Elections must take former President Donald Trump’s name off the state’s March 19 primary ballot Wednesday. But she placed her order on hold until Friday to allow an appeal. Judge Tracie Porter issued her decision after a group of voters trying to remove Trump’s name from the primary ballot over the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol sued to counter the election board’s unanimous rejection of its effort. The five voters argued Trump is ineligible to hold office because he encouraged and did little to stop the Capitol riot.” [Associated Press, 2/28/24]
Trump To Remain On The Illinois Primary Ballot As A Judge Extended Her Stay Of The Ruling That Trump Was Disqualified Over His Role In The January 6 Attack On The U.S. Capitol. According to Bloomberg, “An Illinois judge is extending a hold on a Wednesday decision barring Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot over his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, keeping the delay in place until the suit is fully resolved on appeal. The ruling issued Thursday is a procedural win for Trump because it extends the delay from just a few days to until the challenge plays out on appeal, which could take months. That means a similar case out of Colorado could be resolved by the US Supreme Court first, potentially negating the Illinois challenge. Cook County Circuit Judge Tracie Porter, who kicked Trump off the ballot, has agreed to extend the pause past Friday after Trump appealed her ruling Wednesday night.” [Bloomberg, 2/29/24]
November 4, 2019: E. Jean Carroll Sued Trump For Defamation Over His Denial Of Her Accusation That Trump Sexually Assaulted Her In The 1990s. According to UPI, “Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll sued President Donald Trump for defamation, stating his denials of her accusation that he sexually assaulted her more than 20 years ago damaged her reputation. Carroll filed the suit in the New York Supreme Court on Monday alleging Trump made ‘express statements and deliberate implications’ that accused her of lying about the rape in order to increase sales of her memoir -- where she first publicly described the assault -- as well as to carry out a political agenda by advancing a conspiracy with the Democratic Party. She added that Trump's statements ‘inflicted emotional pain and suffering, they damaged her reputation and they caused substantial professional harm.’ ‘Trump knew that these statements were false; at bare minimum he acted with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity,’ the complaint stated. Carroll is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages in the defamation lawsuit.’” [UPI, 11/4/19]
September 27, 2022: Federal Appeals Court Moved Case To D.C. Court To Determine If Trump Was Acting In His Capacity As President When He Made His Statements About Carroll, Which If So Would End The Case. According to the New York Times, “A District of Columbia court will have to determine whether Donald J. Trump was acting in his official capacity as president when he scoffed at the accusations of a woman who said he raped her decades ago, a federal appeals court in New York ruled on Tuesday. The future of the case, involving the writer E. Jean Carroll, depends on the decision. If the court in Washington rules that Mr. Trump was acting in his role as a federal employee — and the United States becomes the defendant, instead of Mr. Trump — Ms. Carroll’s suit cannot proceed, because the federal government cannot be sued for defamation. The 2-to-1 ruling by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York stems from a lawsuit in which Ms. Carroll said Mr. Trump damaged her reputation when he denied attacking her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s and branded her a liar.” [New York Times, 9/27/22]
October 19, 2022: Trump Was Deposed. According to the New York Times, “Three years after the writer E. Jean Carroll sued Donald J. Trump for defamation in New York, the former president submitted to a sworn deposition on Oct. 19 at Mar-a-Lago, his residence and private club in Florida.” [New York Times, 10/19/22]
November 24, 2022: Carroll Sued Trump For Battery And Defamation In New York Court. According to CNN, “Ex-magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll sued former President Donald Trump for battery and defamation under a new New York law that allows adults alleging sexual assault to bring claims years after the attack. Carroll filed the lawsuit Thursday, the first day that civil lawsuits can be brought under the new law, the Adult Survivors Act, which gives adults a one-year window to file a claim. The lawsuit is the second Carroll has brought against Trump, but the first to seek to hold him accountable for battery for allegedly raping Carroll in the dressing room of a New York department store in the mid-1990s. The lawsuit also alleges a new defamation claim based on statements Trump made last month.” [CNN, 11/24/22]
January 10, 2023: D.C. Court Of Appeals Heard Arguments On Whether Trump Acted Within His Job As President When Denying E Jean Carroll’s Allegations That Trump Sexually Assaulted Her, Determining Whether Carroll’s Defamation Lawsuit Can Move Forward. According to the Washington Post, “The D.C. Court of Appeals on Tuesday heard arguments centering on whether Donald Trump was acting within his job as president when he denied a writer’s allegations that he sexually assaulted her in the mid-1990s — a legal question that is key to whether the writer’s defamation lawsuit against Trump can move forward. Lawyers for the New York-based writer E. Jean Carroll argued that Trump acted as a private citizen when he denied raping Carroll, and therefore can be sued like anyone else. Trump’s lawyers and an attorney for the Justice Department countered that his responses were made as part of his job as president — which would effectively end Carroll’s case against him because of protection government employees have from defamation suits. During a 2½-hour hearing, the judges pressed both sides on the boundaries of Trump’s job responsibilities, and some expressed frustration that they had limited information on which to make a decision.” [Washington Post, 1/10/23]
January 13, 2023: Judge Kaplan Ruled That Portions Of Trump’s Deposition Would Be Publicly Released Over Objections Of Trump. According to the Washington Post, “Some portions of Carroll’s deposition in the defamation lawsuit were already part of the public docket. Portions of Trump’s deposition were ordered released in a separate decision Friday by Judge Kaplan, who is not related to Carroll’s attorney. That decision followed a bid by Trump’s attorneys to keep the previously redacted section sealed.” [Washington Post, 1/13/23]
February 10, 2023: Trump Was Listed As The First Potential Witness His Defense Could Call At The Upcoming E. Jean Carroll Trial. According to the New York Daily News, “Donald Trump and writer E. Jean Carroll, who’s accusing the former president of rape, may testify against each other in a sex assault and defamation civil case the scribe brought against the ex-commander-in-chief in Manhattan Federal Court. Both are listed as the first potential witnesses their lawyers will call at the trial starting April 25. Trump’s lawyers also plan to call CNN host Anderson Cooper, New York Magazine editor David Haskell and Carroll’s friends, whom she claims she told about the alleged assault, according to a Thursday court filing. Carroll plans to call many of her closest confidantes and former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham, among other witnesses.” [New York Daily News, 2/10/23]
April 13, 2023: DC Court Of Appeals Refused To Rule On Whether Trump Was Shielded From Carroll’s Original Defamation Lawsuit. According to Reuters, “A Washington, D.C., appeals court on Thursday refused to decide whether Donald Trump can be shielded from the first of two defamation lawsuits by E. Jean Carroll, a writer who said the former U.S. president raped her nearly three decades ago.” [Reuters, 4/13/23]
April 18, 2023: Carroll Informed The Court That She Would Attend The Trial. According to the New York Daily News, “Writer E. Jean Carroll on Tuesday said she would attend her civil rape case against Donald Trump going on trial next week in Manhattan — but the former president hasn’t said yet if he’ll be there. In a court filing, Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan said she would be present throughout the trial starting April 25. Trump must tell the court whether he plans to be there by Thursday. Typically, defense lawyers advise defendants to attend their trial as their presence bodes better with jurors.” [New York Daily News, 4/18/23]
April 20, 2023: Judge Kaplan Denied Trump’s Request To Tell The Jury He Was Excused For Attending The Trial. According to Bloomberg, “The judge overseeing E. Jean Carroll’s civil sexual-assault lawsuit against Donald Trump denied the former president’s request that jurors be told he’d been excused from attending the trial next week, saying it was up to Trump to decide if he wants to show up. US District Judge Lewis Kaplan issued his ruling Thursday, dismissing Trump’s claim that his presence would overburden the city with security concerns. The judge said defendants in such cases aren’t required to attend their trials. The former president sought the special jury instruction because he said he didn’t want the jury to think negatively of his absence. The trial starts April 25 in Manhattan.” [Bloomberg, 4/20/23]
April 21, 2023: The 2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals Sent Carroll’s Original Defamation Case Against Trump Back To Judge Kaplan. According to ABC News, “A federal appeals court in New York on Friday returned E. Jean Carroll's initial case against former President Donald Trump to a district court judge who had previously decided Trump did not act within the scope of his employment as president when he denied Carroll's rape claim and allegedly defamed her. Carroll, a former Elle columnist who alleges that Trump attacked her in the dressing room of the Bergdorf Goodman luxury department store in the 1990s, claims Trump defamed her in 2019 when, during his presidency, he denied her rape claim by calling her a liar and saying ‘she's not my type.’ Trump, who also denies the accusations, has argued that the Justice Department should be substituted as the defendant in the case because, at the time of his allegedly defamatory statements, he was acting in his official capacity as an employee of the federal government. Friday's decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals remands the case to the district court for further consideration.” [ABC News, 4/21/23]
February 10, 2023: Trump Formally Offered To Provide A DNA Sample, But On The Condition That Carroll Provide “Missing” Pages From Report She Commissioned. According to the New York Times, “A lawyer for Donald J. Trump said on Friday that the former president was willing to provide a DNA sample as part of a lawsuit filed against him by the writer E. Jean Carroll, who has accused Mr. Trump of raping her in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. In a motion filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, Joseph Tacopina, Mr. Trump’s lawyer, wrote that the former president would submit the evidence in exchange for the production of what he said were missing pages from a report that Ms. Carroll commissioned about genetic material gathered from a dress she says she was wearing when the incident occurred. The sample, Mr. Tacopina wrote, would be for the ‘sole purpose of comparing it to the DNA found on the dress at issue.’ He added that the filing was ‘not seeking to delay the trial date.’” [New York Times, 2/10/23]
February 14, 2023: Trump’s Lawyers Attempted To Prevent Trump’s Long History Of Misogynist Comments To Be Introduced At Trial. According to the Daily Beast, “Demeaning a beauty queen, boasting about forcing himself on women, then having the gall to deny he’s ever sexually harassed anyone—that’s the side of Donald Trump the former president’s lawyers don’t want New York City jurors to see as they consider whether or not he raped a magazine columnist decades ago. On Monday, a federal judge finalized some key issues in the Bill Cosby-type civil trial where Trump is accused of raping the magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll in a dressing room at a high-end Manhattan department store. Among them is the evidence that’ll be shown. Trump’s lawyers are trying to stop a long list of video clips and photos from being presented at trial, labeling them ‘irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.’ The judge still has not made a final determination about what he will allow at trial.” [Daily Beast, 2/15/23]
March 10, 2023: Judge Kaplan Ruled That The Access Hollywood Tape Could Be Submitted As Evidence. According to Bloomberg, “A federal judge rejected former President Donald Trump’s effort to block the so-called Access Hollywood tape from being played at the upcoming trial in a defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll, a New York author who claims he raped her in the 1990s. The ruling Friday by US District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan also denied Trump’s effort to block Carroll from calling as witnesses two other women who accused him of assaulting them in the years before he got into politics.” [Bloomberg, 3/10/23]
March 10, 2013: Judge Kaplan Ruled Two Other Trump Accusers Can Also Testify. According to CNN, “US District Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected Trump’s request that the judge block the accusers from testifying at trial. Trump also asked the judge to block the Access Hollywood tape from being played at the trial. Carroll, the former magazine columnist who sued Trump for defamation after he denied raping her in the mid-1990s, has indicated that she will call Natasha Stoynoff and Jessica Leeds, two women who came forward with allegations against Trump in 2016, as well as use their videotaped depositions. Stoynoff alleged Trump sexually assaulted her when she was reporting an article about Trump and his wife, Melania, for People magazine. Leeds alleged Trump groped her while they were on an airplane together. Trump has denied both allegations, as well as Carroll’s rape claims.” [CNN, 3/10/23]
March 20, 2023: Kaplan Ruled That His Decisions Allowing The Access Hollywood Tape And Other Trump Accusers In The Defamation Trial Would Carry Over To The Civil Rape Trial. According to the Associated Press, “In an order Monday, Kaplan ruled specifically that he would allow the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape and testimony by two other women who say Trump attacked them sexually to be included in next month’s trial, repeating his rulings from the defamation case. ‘There is no reason, and Mr. Trump has made no persuasive argument, for me to rule differently,’ he wrote.” [Associated Press, 3/20/23]
March 27, 2023: Judge Kaplan Ruled That Neither Side Could Mention, Much Less Use, DNA Evidence At Trial. According to Business Insider, “The judge presiding over E. Jean Carroll's rape and defamation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump has banned lawyers from even mentioning DNA evidence in front of the jury when the case goes to trial next month. US District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ruled Monday that both sides would be ‘precluded from any testimony, argument, commentary or reference concerning DNA evidence’ during the trial, which is scheduled to begin April 25.” [Business Insider, 3/27/23]
April 24, 2023: Judge Kaplan Rejected Trump’s Motion To Block Stoynoff From Testifying. According to Law & Crime, “Donald Trump lost his second attempt to block a People magazine writer from testifying that he groped her, bolstering E. Jean Carroll’s allegations that the former president is a serial sexual abuser. […] Like Carroll, one of those women, Natasha Stoynoff, is a professional scribe who claims that Trump unexpectedly cornered and groped her long before his presidency. Senior U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan found on Monday that Trump made his request far too late. ‘The application is untimely because any motion for reconsideration should have been filed well before this request,’ Kaplan wrote in his single-page ruling.” [Law & Crime, 4/24/23]
December 22, 2022: Trump’s Attorneys Argued In Court Filing That Carroll’s Lawsuit Should Be Thrown Out Because New York’s Adult Survivors Act Is Unconstitutional. According to Business Insider, “Former President Donald Trump's attorney argued in a court filing Wednesday that E. Jean Carroll's most recent lawsuit against Trump should be thrown out on the grounds that a New York law allowing her and many others to sue over sexual assault is unconstitutional, and that Trump saying she lied about the alleged rape didn't defame her because it didn't call her professionalism into question. Trump's main argument was that the New York Adult Survivors Act — which temporarily allows people fo file sexual assault lawsuits in cases where the statute of limitations has expired — unconstitutionally deprives defendants of due process and arbitrarily allows years- or decades-old allegations to be revived. ‘Notwithstanding the sympathies at play, the Adult Survivors Act is a contravention of the New York State Constitution, an invasion of due process, and a clear abuse of legislative power,’ the filing said.” [Business Insider, 12/22/22]
March 20, 2023: Judge Kaplan Rejected Proposed Joint Trial Of The Two Suits Against Trump By E Jean Carroll. According to CNBC, “A New York federal judge on Monday postponed indefinitely the previously scheduled April trial for the first of two lawsuits accusing former President Donald Trump of defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll after she claimed he raped her in the mid-1990s. Judge Lewis Kaplan also denied a joint request by lawyers for Trump and Carroll to consolidate her two pending civil lawsuits against Trump into a single trial. Kaplan in a brief order wrote that the attorneys overestimated the purported benefits of judicial economy and of avoiding potentially inconsistent rulings by combining the cases in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.” [CNBC, 3/20/23]
March 28, 2023: Trump’s Motion For Summary Judgment In The E Jean Carroll Defamation Lawsuit Was Rejected. According to Rolling Stone, “A FEDERAL JUDGE denied President Trump’s request for a summary judgment against writer E. Jean Carroll’s claim of defamation against him. In his Tuesday ruling, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan gave a written lashing to the former President’s legal arguments. Carroll has brought forth two lawsuits against Trump, including a civil rape lawsuit based on allegations that the former president sexually assaulted her in the dressing room of a department store in the Nineties. A separate suit argues that Trump defamed Carroll through statements that Trump publicly made about her in the aftermath of the accusation. It’s this suit that Trump sought to have thrown out by Kaplan. In his ruling, Kaplan skewered an interpretation of a 2022 Truth Social post from the former president bashing Carroll. Trump’s attorneys argued that the post was not an act of defamation, but merely a summary and/or repetition of ‘his denials and affirmative defense in relation to Ms. Carroll’s allegations.’” [Rolling Stone, 3/28/23]
March 23, 2023: Jury In The E Jean Carroll Trial Would Be Anonymous Because Of Possibility Of Becoming Victims Of Trump Supporter Harassment. According to the New York Times, “A Manhattan judge ruled on Thursday that jurors hearing a trial next month involving a rape allegation against former President Donald J. Trump will be kept anonymous because of concern they could become victims of ‘harassment or worse’ by Mr. Trump’s supporters. The judge, Lewis A. Kaplan of Federal District Court, issued his ruling in a lawsuit filed by E. Jean Carroll, a writer who has accused Mr. Trump of raping her in a dressing room at the luxury department store Bergdorf Goodman in the mid-1990s.” [New York Times, 3/23/23]
April 10, 2023: Judge Kaplan Rejected Motion To Relax The Confidentiality Of The Jurors. According to Law & Crime, “Some weeks after cloaking a jury in complete anonymity to preside over E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit accusing former President Donald Trump of rape, a federal judge refused to relax that ruling even enough to confidentially share their identities with the attorneys. Senior U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan said he couldn’t issue such an order in ‘good conscience,’ especially in light of Trump’s continuing attacks on the jurist presiding over the former president’s criminal case.” [Law & Crime, 4/10/23]
April 13, 2023: Judge Kaplan Rejected Trump’s Motion To Know The Identities Of Potential Jurors. According to Reuters, “Donald Trump will not learn the identities of jurors expected to decide at an upcoming civil trial whether the former president defamed the writer E. Jean Carroll, who also claims Trump raped her. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan on Friday rejected Trump's renewed effort to require that prospective jurors provide their names, employment and 38 other pieces of information on written questionnaires. Kaplan said the law was ‘abundantly clear’ it was his choice whether to use questionnaires, and nothing has changed his decision to seat an anonymous jury at the April 25 trial, reflecting the threat of juror harassment.” [Reuters, 4/14/23]
April 2023: Carroll Attempted To Remove Juror 77 After Learning That He Listened To A Hard-Right Podcast From Tim Pool Called “The Culture War.” According to the New York Times, “During the trial of E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit against President Donald J. Trump, lawyers fought a behind-the-scenes battle over whether to dismiss a juror who listened to an extreme right-wing podcast, court papers that were unsealed on Wednesday revealed. The juror, a 31-year-old man who said he had lived in the Bronx for all his life, said during jury selection on April 25 that he tended to avoid news but listened to ‘independent’ podcasts ‘every now and then’ and listed one example. The original transcription inaccurately captured the podcast’s title as ‘Temple.’ But lawyers for Ms. Carroll, the writer who filed the lawsuit accusing Mr. Trump of rape, later learned through news reports that the anonymous juror, identified only as Juror 77, had actually said he listened to Tim Pool. Mr. Pool’s YouTube channel includes dozens of recordings that push hard-right views. His podcast, which has been criticized as a vector for conspiracy theories, is called ‘The Culture War.’” [New York Times, 5/10/23]
May 2, 2023: Trump’s Lawyers Argued That A Juror’s Political Affiliation Is Not Grounds For Dismissal. According to Politico, “‘A juror’s political affiliation is not grounds for dismissal, even in cases involving a political figure,’ said Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina in a May 2 filing that was unsealed by U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan on Wednesday. Kaplan ultimately sided with Tacopina’s argument, leaving the juror in place.” [Politico, 5/10/23]
May 2023: Judge Kaplan Sided With Trump Without Stating His Reason. According to the New York Times, “Ultimately, the judge allowed the juror to stay. The papers that he ordered unsealed on Wednesday did not include his reasons.” [New York Times, 5/10/23]
April 12, 2023: Trump Asked For A Four-Week Delay In The E Jean Carroll Trial. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump asked for a four-week delay in the start of a civil trial over his alleged rape of author Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s, citing a ‘deluge’ of publicity from the recent unrelated criminal case brought against him by the Manhattan district attorney.” [Bloomberg, 4/12/23]
April 13, 2023: Trump Lawyer Habba Again Asked For A One Month Delay, This Time To Investigate The Funding Issue Or Alternatively Have The Jury Be Told That Carroll Defied Discovery Obligations. According to Bloomberg, “Habba asked the judge for a one-month delay of the trial, which is set to begin April 25, and to allow her team to investigate the funding issue, or to have the court give the jury an instruction about Carroll’s ‘willful defiance of her discovery obligations.’ The defense this week asked for a trial delay given the ‘deluge’ of publicity over Trump’s recent unrelated criminal indictment on state charges in Manhattan.” [Bloomberg, 4/13/23]
April 13, 2023: Judge Kaplan Rejected Trump’s Request For A Delay. According to the Associated Press, “A federal judge rejected a request Thursday to delay former President Donald Trump’s trial this month on civil claims that he raped a woman in the mid-1990s, but he has granted a request by Trump’s lawyers to gather more evidence about who is paying the accuser’s lawyers.” [Associated Press, 4/13/23]
April 17, 2023: Trump’s Request To Delay The Trial Was Denied. According to Reuters, “A U.S. judge on Monday rejected former President Donald Trump's request to delay a scheduled April 25 trial over whether he defamed former Elle magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll by denying he raped her. Last week, Trump's lawyers urged U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan to grant a four-week ‘cooling-off’ period to at least May 23 to give Trump a fair trial, citing a recent ‘deluge of prejudicial media coverage’ of criminal charges against him filed by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.” [Reuters, [4/17/23](https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-rejects-trumps-request-delay-trial-rape-accuser-carrolls-lawsuit-2023-04-17/#:~:text=NEW YORK%2C April 17 (Reuters,by denying he raped her.)]
Trump’s Request For A Mistrial Denied
May 1, 2023: Judge Denied Trump’s Motion For A Mistrial. According to Reuters, “E. Jean Carroll returned to the witness stand on Monday where a lawyer for Donald Trump sought to disprove her claim the former U.S. president raped her, after the judge denied a defense request for a mistrial. Trump's lawyer Joe Tacopina resumed cross-examination of Carroll about five hours after requesting a mistrial in her rape and defamation civil case, saying the judge made several ‘unfair and prejudicial’ rulings. […] The judge denied the motion for a mistrial before testimony resumed.” [Reuters, 5/1/23]
Trump Asked For A Mistrial Because The Judge Made “Pervasive Unfair And Prejudicial Rulings” Against Him. According to CNN, “Former President Donald Trump has asked the judge to declare a mistrial in his civil battery and defamation trial, arguing the judge has made ‘pervasive unfair and prejudicial rulings’ against him.” [CNN, 5/1/23]
April 25, 2023: Judge Kaplan Asked Attorneys For Both Parties To Advise Their Clients Against “Making Any Statements That Will Incite Violence Or Civil Unrest.” According to Business Insider, “The judge presiding over a rape claim lawsuit against former President Donald Trump on Tuesday made a thinly-veiled attempt to stop Trump from publicly commenting on the case. Opening statements are expected to kick off today in E. Jean Carroll's defamation and rape lawsuit against Trump. Trump has denied her allegations and was absent in the courtroom as the jury was selected on Tuesday in Manhattan federal court. Before potential jurors were brought into the room, US District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan asked attorneys for both sides to advise their clients against ‘making any statements that will incite violence or civil unrest.’ Kaplan said the warning was not meant to accuse either side of misconduct, but in order to ‘try to avoid problems down the road.’” [Business Insider, 4/25/23]
April 26, 2023: Trump Called The Lawsuit A Scam, Said Carroll’s Lawyer Was a Political Operative, And Said A Dress Carroll Wore Should Be Admitted Into Evidence. According to the New York Times, ‘Mr. Trump posted twice about the lawsuit, calling it a scam and writing that Ms. Carroll’s lawyer was a ‘political operative.’ He also said that the dress Ms. Carroll wore should be ‘allowed to be part of the case.’” [New York Times, 4/26/23]
Judge Kaplan Called Trump’s Comments “Entirely Inappropriate.” According to the New York Times, “On Wednesday, the judge said Mr. Trump’s out-of-court statements seemed ‘entirely inappropriate’ and suggested Mr. Trump might be trying to influence members of the jury. ‘Your client is basically endeavoring certainly to speak to his quote-unquote public,’ Judge Kaplan said, ‘but more troublesome, to the jury in this case, about stuff that has no business being spoken about.’” [New York Times, 4/26/23]
Judge Kaplan Said Trump “May Or May Not Be Tampering With A New Source Of Potential Liability,” Which Was Thought To Be The Possibility Of A Contempt Sanction. According to the New York Times, “Judge Kaplan responded that he hoped Mr. Tacopina would be successful because ‘we’re getting into an area conceivably in which your client may or may not be tampering with a new source of potential liability — and I think you know what I mean.’ The judge did not elaborate, but he could have been referring to the possibility of a contempt sanction.” [New York Times, 4/26/23]
May 4, 2023: Trump Called The Judge “Extremely Hostile.” According to Reuters, “I have to go back for a woman that made a false accusation about me, and I have a judge who is extremely hostile,’ Trump added.” [Reuters, 5/4/23]
May 10, 2023: Trump Blasted The Judge And Jury For “Allowing Such A Travesty Of Justice To Take Place.” According to The Hill, “Former President Trump on Wednesday lashed out at the New York judge and jury that found him liable for sexual battery and defamation against writer E. Jean Carroll in the civil trial that wrapped up Tuesday. ‘The partisan Judge & Jury on the just concluded Witch Hunt Trial should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for allowing such a travesty of Justice to take place,’ Trump wrote on Truth Social.” [The Hill, 5/10/23]
Trump Claimed That Judge Kaplan “Hated President Donald J. Trump More Than Is Humanly Possible.” According to The Hill, “Trump argued in a separate post on the platform that U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, an appointee of former President Clinton, ‘hated President Donald J. Trump more than is humanly possible’ and that ‘this case should never have been allowed to be tried in this completely partisan venue.’” [The Hill, 5/10/23]
Each Side Made Opening Statements
April 25, 2023: Carroll’s Attorney Called Trump’s Alleged Rape A “Brief, Brutal Attack” In Opening Statement To The Jury. According to Politico, “The civil lawsuit from a woman who says Donald Trump raped her decades ago centers on a ‘brief, brutal attack,’ a lawyer for the woman, E. Jean Carroll, told the jury as the trial kicked off in Manhattan federal court Tuesday. Carroll, a magazine columnist, is suing Trump for allegedly attacking her in a dressing room of luxury department store Bergdorf Goodman in the 1990s and sexually assaulting her — a claim Trump denies, saying the incident ‘never happened.’ She also is suing him for defamation for publicly calling her allegations a ‘hoax.’ She is seeking unspecified money damages. Describing how Carroll and Trump bantered playfully before he allegedly assaulted her in the dressing room, Carroll’s lawyer, Shawn Crowley, told the 9-person jury, ‘the moment they went inside, everything changed. Suddenly, nothing was funny.’ ‘Trump was almost twice her size,’ Crowley said to the jury. ‘He held down her arm, pulled down her tights and then he sexually assaulted her.’” [Politico, 4/25/23]
Trump Attorney Joe Tacopina Called Carroll’s Claim As A “Sick Story.” According to Politico, “Trump, who isn’t required to appear at the proceedings, didn’t attend the first day of the trial. His lawyer, Joe Tacopina, sought to portray Carroll’s claim as a ‘sick story’ while also trying to reassure jurors that they could side with his client even if they dislike him.” [Politico, 4/25/23]
Carroll Testified
April 26, 2023: E Jean Carroll Testified That Donald Trump Raped Her. According to Politico, “In blunt and at times emotional testimony, E. Jean Carroll took the stand Wednesday in her civil lawsuit accusing Donald Trump of rape, saying of the alleged incident that ‘my whole reason for being alive in that moment was to get out of that room.’ Carroll, a magazine columnist, has accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in a dressing room of luxury department store Bergdorf Goodman in the mid-1990s. She is suing him for battery and defamation in a trial that began Tuesday in Manhattan federal court. He has denied the allegations, saying the incident ‘never happened’ and that she has perpetrated a ‘hoax.’ ‘I’m here because Donald Trump raped me,’ Carroll told the jury Wednesday. Referring to a book she wrote in which she detailed the alleged incident, she said: ‘And when I wrote about it, he said it didn’t happen. He lied and shattered my reputation. And I’m here to try to get my life back.’” [Politico, 4/26/23]
April 27, 2023: Carroll Said “He Raped Me Whether I Screamed Or Not” Under Repeated Questioning From Trump Attorney Tacopina. According to CNN, “E. Jean Carroll returned to the stand on Thursday in her civil battery and defamation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, with the columnist telling the jury about her experience with him in a New York department store in the face of cross-examination from Trump’s attorney. Trump’s defense has focused on why Carroll did not publicly report the alleged rape at the time or get the attention of others in the store. Attorney Joe Tacopina repeatedly asked questions about why Carroll did not scream during the approximately 3-minute alleged attack in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room, or even afterward. ‘I’m not a screamer,’ Carroll testified at the US District Court in Manhattan. ‘I was too much in panic to scream.’ ‘You can’t beat up on me for not screaming,’ she told the defense lawyer. ‘Women who don’t come forward, one of the reasons they don’t come forward is they are asked why they didn’t scream. Some women scream, some women don’t. It keeps women silent.’ Carroll added: ‘I’m telling you, he raped me whether I screamed or not. I don’t need an excuse for not screaming.’” [CNN, 4/27/23]
May 2, 2023: Author Birnbach Testified That Carroll Called Her Minutes After Trump Allegedly Sexually Assaulted Carroll And Described The Incident In Detail. According to Bloomberg, “One of E. Jean Carroll’s friends told a New York jury that the author called her within minutes of allegedly being sexually assaulted by Donald Trump to describe the incident in detail — a potentially crucial piece of evidence in Carroll’s civil lawsuit against the former president. Lisa Birnbach, an author known for her best-selling 1980 tome The Official Preppy Handbook, told jurors on Tuesday that Carroll called from her mobile phone to say Trump had just attacked her in a dressing room of the Bergdorf Goodman lingerie department after they decided on a whim to shop together. ‘Lisa, you’re not going to believe what happened to me,’ Birnbach recalled Carroll saying. She described Carroll as ‘breathless, hyperventilating, emotional’ during the phone call. ‘Her voice was doing all kinds of things.’” [Bloomberg, 5/2/23]
May 2, 2023: Jessica Leeds Testified That Trump Sexually Assaulted Her In The Late 1970s. According to CNN, “Jessica Leeds, a woman who has claimed Trump sexually assaulted her while sitting in first class on an airplane in the late 1970’s, also appeared Tuesday to testify. Leeds, now 81, said she found herself seated next to Trump when a stewardess offered her an empty seat in first class. She was ticketed for a seat in coach at the time. When she sat down, the man seated next to the window introduced himself as Donald Trump. The two shook hands, Leeds testified. After they ate the offered meal in first class, it was ‘all of a sudden’ that Trump tried to kiss and grope her, Leeds said. ‘There was no conversation. It was like out of the blue.’ ‘It was like a tussle,’ she said.” [CNN, 5/2/23]
Former People Magazine Reporter Stoynoff Testified That Trump Sexually Assaulted Her At Mar-a-Lago In 2005. According to Bloomberg, “A former People magazine journalist who covered Donald Trump testified that he sexually assaulted her at his Mar-a-Lago estate when she interviewed him for a 2006 story — a claim she first made public just before the 2016 presidential election he went on to win. Natasha Stoynoff recounted the alleged assault Wednesday as a witness in the trial of New York writer E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit accusing Trump of raping her in a department store dressing room in 1996. Stoynoff’s voice wavered as she testified about visiting Mar-a-Lago in December 2005 with a crew of photographers to interview Trump and his family. She broke down in tears as she described how Trump offered to give her a personal tour of the mansion while his wife went to change clothes for another photo shoot, insisting she see one ‘tremendous’ room in particular. ‘I hear the door shut behind me, and by the time I turn around he has his hands on my shoulders and he pushes me against the wall and starts kissing me,’ Stoynoff told the jury.” [Bloomberg, 5/3/23]
May 3, 2023: Psychologist Dr. Lebowitz Testified That Carroll’s Behavior Was Not Inconsistent With The Trauma Carroll Said She Suffered. According to ABC News, “Earlier Wednesday, a psychologist testified that Carroll continued to shop at Bergdorf Goodman after the alleged attack because ‘she didn't feel that Bergdorf Goodman raped her.’ ‘She didn't blame the store. She blamed herself,’ said Dr. Leslie Lebowitz, who evaluated Carroll for the case. The defense suggested the fact that Carroll continued to shop at Bergdorf's, saved the dress she wore the evening of the alleged assault, and watched Trump's reality television show, ‘The Apprentice,’ were behaviors out of step with the deep trauma Carroll said she suffered. Lebowitz pushed back against the inference from the defense that Carroll's rape claim against Trump could not be true because she did not act like it actually happened.” [ABC News, 5/3/23]
Carroll’s Lawyers Played The “Access Hollywood” Tape During Stoynoff’s Testimony. According to the New York Times, “Ms. Stoynoff disclosed what had happened only to a few friends, she said. But more than a decade later, after the disclosure of the ‘Access Hollywood’ recording, in which Mr. Trump boasted in vulgar terms about grabbing women by the genitals, she said she felt ‘a combination of sick to my stomach’ and ‘relief.’ ‘Because I actually for the first time thought to myself, oh, he does this to a lot of women. It’s not just me.’ During Ms. Stoynoff’s appearance, Ms. Carroll’s lawyers played the recording for the jury.” [New York Times, 5/3/23]
May 3, 2023: Carroll’s Lawyers Played For The Jury Excerpts From Trump’s Deposition Video, Where He Called Carroll’s Rape Allegation “The Most Ridiculous, Disgusting Story”. According to the Associated Press, “Donald Trump called a writer’s claims that he raped her at a Manhattan department store ‘the most ridiculous, disgusting story,’ testifying in a deposition shown in court Wednesday that the allegations were ‘made up’ and that the assault never happened. Lawyers for accuser E. Jean Carroll played about 30 minutes of excerpts from the former president’s deposition, including his emphatic denial of the longtime advice columnist’s accusation that he attacked her in the mid-1990s in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room.” [Associated Press, 5/4/23]
In The Deposition, Trump Justified His Statements On The “Access Hollywood” Tape. According to Politico, “In the deposition, conducted at Mar-a-Lago in October, Kaplan asked Trump about the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape, a recording from 2005 in which Trump can be heard saying, ‘When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,’ adding: ‘Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.’ ‘Well, historically that’s true with stars,’ Trump replied after watching a clip of his comments. When Kaplan pressed him on whether he stood by the statement that a star could ‘grab them by the pussy,’ the former president said: ‘Well, I guess if you look over the last million years, that’s been largely true — not always true, but largely true, unfortunately or fortunately.’ ‘And you consider yourself to be a star?’ she asked. ‘I think so, yeah,’ Trump said.” [Politico, 5/4/23]
Trump Told Carroll’s Lawyer That “I Wouldn’t In Any Circumstances Have Any Interest In You.” According to Politico, “During the deposition, Kaplan questioned him about several other women who have accused him of sexual assault, women Trump has characterized as not being his ‘type.’ Growing belligerent, Trump told Kaplan herself that ‘you wouldn’t be a choice of mine, either, to be honest.’ He added: ‘I wouldn’t in any circumstances have any interest in you.’” [Politico, 5/4/23]
May 3, 2023: Trump’s Legal Team Said They Would Not Mount A Defense. According to ABC News, “Former President Donald Trump will not mount a defense in writer E. Jean Carroll's civil defamation and battery case against the former president, Trump's attorney said Wednesday before court resumed for the afternoon. […] Defense attorney Joe Tacopina told the judge he had decided not to call an expert witness that had been expected to testify for the defense. ‘We're not going to move forward,’ Tacopina told Judge Lewis Kaplan.” [ABC News, 5/3/23]
May 4, 2023: Former TV News Anchor Martin Said Carroll Told Her Of Trump’s Attack Shortly After It Happened, But Advised Carroll Not To Go Public. According to USA Today, “Carol Martin, a former television news anchor and a long-time friend of Carroll, testified that she spoke about the attack by Trump with her shortly after it happened. ‘I believed it then, and I believe it today,’ Martin said Martin said she told Carroll not to go public at the time because Trump and his attorneys would ‘bury’ her.” [USA Today, 5/4/23]
Sociologist Humphreys Testified That The Damages To Carroll’s Reputation Were Between $368,000 And $2.76 Million. According to USA Today, “The jury on Thursday also heard from Ashlee Humphreys, a Northwestern University sociologist who estimated that Trump's social media and verbal attacks on Carroll caused between $368,000 and $2.76 million in damages to Carroll’s reputation.” [USA Today, 5/4/23]
Former Editor-In-Chief Of Elle Magazine Myers Testified That Carroll Was A “Truth Teller” And Loved By Her Readers. According to ABC News, “The final witness was Roberta Myers, the former editor-in-chief of Elle magazine, who called Carroll a ‘truth teller’ and spoke to the popularity of her advice column. ‘They loved her. The readers loved her,’ Myers said. Carroll lost her column after going public with her rape claim against Trump in 2019, and testified earlier about what that cost her both financially and emotionally.” [ABC News, 5/4/23]
May 4, 2023: Carroll And Trump Rested Their Cases. According to the Washington Post, “E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers on Thursday rested their case in the civil lawsuit brought against Donald Trump, who she said raped her in a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s. Both sides in the trial rested on Thursday and are expected to deliver their closing arguments early next week, with the case then being put in the nine-member jury’s hands. Carroll sued Trump last year for battery and defamation, and she is seeking unspecified damages in the case. Trump has denied her allegations and called her a liar.” [Washington Post, 5/4/23]
May 7, 2023: Trump Declined Final Opportunity To Testify At Trial. According to the Associated Press, “Former President Donald Trump rejected his last chance Sunday to testify at a civil trial where a longtime advice columnist has accused him of raping her in a luxury department store dressing room in 1996. Trump, a Republican candidate for president in 2024, was given until 5 p.m. Sunday by U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan to file a request to testify. Nothing was filed.” [Associated Press, 5/7/23]
May 8, 2023: Attorneys Made Closing Arguments In The E Jean Carroll Trial. According to CNN, “E. Jean Carroll’s civil battery and defamation trial against Donald Trump neared a close Monday with closing arguments as her attorney told a federal jury in New York that no one is above the law, while Trump’s lawyer said not to hold any negative feelings about the former president against him.” [CNN, 5/8/23]
May 9, 2023: Trump Was Found Liable For The Sexual Abuse Of E. Jean Carroll. According to the New York Times, “A Manhattan jury on Tuesday has found former President Donald J. Trump liable for the sexual abuse of the magazine writer E. Jean Carroll in a widely watched civil trial that sought to apply the accountability of the #MeToo era to a dominant political figure.” [New York Times, 5/9/23]
The Jury Found That Trump Defamed Carroll. According to the New York Times, “The federal jury of six men and three women also held Mr. Trump, 76, liable for defaming Ms. Carroll when he posted a statement on his Truth Social website in October, calling her case ‘a complete con job’ and ‘a Hoax and a lie.’” [New York Times, 5/9/23]
The Jury’s Verdicts Were Unanimous. According to the New York Times, “The jury’s unanimous verdicts came after three hours of deliberation in Federal District Court in Manhattan. Its findings are civil, not criminal, meaning Mr. Trump has not been convicted of any crime and faces no prison time.” [New York Times, 5/9/23]
The Jury Awarded Carroll $5 Million In Damages. According to the New York Times, “The jury awarded Ms. Carroll, 79, a total of $5 million in damages.” [New York Times, 5/9/23]
May 22, 2023: Carroll Filed A Notification In Federal Court To Seek Additional Damages From Trump After His Comments At A CNN Town Hall. According to the New York Times, “E. Jean Carroll, who this month won $5 million in damages from former President Donald J. Trump, is now seeking a ‘very substantial’ additional amount in response to his insults on a CNN program just a day after she won her sexual abuse and defamation case. Ms. Carroll’s filing Monday in Manhattan federal court seeks to intensify the financial pain for Mr. Trump. The jury in her civil case found him liable on May 9 for sexual abuse and defamation. It ordered him to pay Ms. Carroll, a former advice columnist and fixture in Manhattan’s media circles, $2 million for the sexual abuse and $3 million for the defamation.” [New York Times, 5/22/23]
June 13, 2023: A Federal Judge Allowed Carroll To Amend Her 2019 Lawsuit To Include Trump’s Town Hall Comments. According to CNN, “A federal judge will allow E. Jean Carroll to amend her original defamation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump to include comments he made at a CNN town hall. Carroll, a former magazine columnist, asked the judge for permission to amend the initial November 2019 lawsuit so she could try to seek additional punitive damages after Trump repeated statements a federal jury found to be defamatory.” [CNN, 6/13/23]
June 23, 2023: Trump Asked A Judge To Sign Off On An Agreement To Transfer $5.5 Million To A Court-Controlled Account As Part Of Satisfying The Judgement Against Him In The First E Jean Carroll Defamation Lawsuit. According to CNN, “Lawyers for Donald Trump asked a judge on Friday to sign off on an agreement with E. Jean Carroll’s attorneys to transfer $5.5 million to a court-controlled account in a step toward satisfying the judgment from the defamation lawsuit.” [CNN, 6/23/23]
September 6, 2024: The Second Circuit Heard Trump’s Appeal Of The Finding That He Committed Sexual Abuse In Carroll II. According to the Associated Press, “Veering from the campaign trail to a courtroom, Donald Trump quietly observed Friday as his lawyer fought to overturn a verdict finding the former president liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The Republican nominee and his accuser, E. Jean Carroll, a writer, sat at tables about 15 feet (4.5 meters) apart, in a Manhattan federal appeals court. Trump didn’t acknowledge or look at Carroll as he passed directly in front of her on the way in and out, but he sometimes shook his head, including when Carroll’s attorney said he sexually attacked her. Trump attorney D. John Sauer told three 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges that the civil trial in Carroll’s lawsuit was muddied by improper evidence. ‘This case is a textbook example of implausible allegations being propped up by highly inflammatory, inadmissible’ evidence, Sauer said, noting that jurors saw the infamous ‘Access Hollywood’ tape in which Trump boasted in 2005 about grabbing women’s genitals because when someone is a star, ‘you can do anything.’” [Associated Press, 9/6/24]
May 11, 2023: Trump Filed A Notice Of Appeal In The 2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals. According to CNN, “Former President Donald Trump is appealing the $5 million judgment awarded by the Manhattan federal jury that found he sexually abused and defamed former magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll. Trump’s lawyers filed the notice of appeal in the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, hours after federal Judge Lewis Kaplan filed a written ruling endorsing the jury verdict and ordering Trump to pay Carroll the full sum. Kaplan presided over the civil trial in New York.” [CNN, 5/11/23]
June 5, 2023: Trump Moved To Dismiss Carroll’s Original Defamation Suit. According to the Associated Press, “A New York writer who won a $5 million jury verdict against ex-President Donald Trump can’t win a pending defamation lawsuit against him because the jury agreed with Trump that he never raped her, his lawyers told a judge Monday. The lawyers urged Judge Lewis A. Kaplan to reject columnist E. Jean Carroll’s bid to win $10 million or more in a second judgment by rewriting the 4-year-old lawsuit against Trump to conform with the findings of the jury that last month concluded Trump sexually abused Carroll but did not rape her. The lawsuit was filed after Carroll said in a 2019 memoir for the first time publicly that Trump attacked her in the dressing room of a midtown Manhattan Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in the mid-1990s.” [Associated Press, 6/6/23]
June 29, 2023; Judge Kaplan Rejected Trump’s Motion For Dismissal In Carroll’s Original Defamation Lawsuit. According to CNN, “A federal judge denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit, finding the former president’s legal arguments are ‘without merit.’” [CNN, 6/29/23]
July 28, 2023: Trump Sought To Delay The Second Carroll Defamation Trial While He Appealed The Decision Not To Dismiss The Case. According to the New York Post. “Donald Trump is asking a judge to put E. Jean Carroll’s pending defamation suit against him on hold until an appeals court decides on his bid to have her suit tossed out. The embattled former president — who was found liable for sexual abuse and other defamation claims involving Carroll in May — still faces the ‘Ask E. Jean’ advice columnist’s original defamation lawsuit alleging that Trump, 77, defamed her in 2019 when she went public with her accusations. Trump last month lost his attempt to have Carroll’s pending lawsuit dismissed, so he is now asking Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan to pause the case while he appeals the judge’s ruling.” [New York Post, 7/28/23]
August 18, 2023: Judge Kaplan Ruled Trump’s Appeal Of The Decision To Not Dismiss Carroll’s Defamation Lawsuit Was “Frivolous.” According to Reuters, “A U.S. judge on Friday declared that Donald Trump had filed a ‘frivolous’ appeal from his decision not to dismiss the first of writer E. Jean Carroll's two defamation lawsuits against the former U.S. president.” [Reuters, 8/18/23]
August 18, 2023: Judge Kaplan Denied Trump’s Bid To Delay The Trial While Going Through The Appeal Process. According to Reuters, “U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan also denied Trump's bid to delay the case while he appeals. A trial is scheduled for Jan. 15, 2024.” [Reuters, 8/18/23]
June 8, 2023: Trump Asked For Either A New Trial Or A Reduction In Damages In The E Jean Carroll Suit. According to Bloomberg, “Former President Donald Trump asked a judge to grant him a new trial in the sexual assault and defamation suit filed against him by New York author E. Jean Carroll — or to sharply reduce the $5 million damages he was ordered to pay. In a Thursday filing in Manhattan federal court, Trump said the May 9 jury award was ‘grossly excessive’ because the panel found him liable for sexual abuse but not rape. ‘Such abuse could have included groping Plaintiff’s breasts through clothing or similar conduct, which is a far cry from rape,’ Trump’s lawyer Joe Tacopina argued in the filing.” [Bloomberg, 6/8/23]
June 22, 2023: Carroll Opposed Trump’s Motion For A New Trial, Calling It “Magical Thinking.” According to Reuters, “Donald Trump's push for a new trial in the civil case in which a Manhattan jury last month found the former U.S. president had sexually abused and defamed the writer E. Jean Carroll is ‘magical thinking,’ Carroll's lawyers said on Thursday. Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, on June 8 asked for a new trial after the jury awarded Carroll $5 million. Trump said the damages were excessive because the jury did not find Carroll was raped and because the alleged conduct did not cause her a diagnosed mental injury. In court papers filed Thursday in opposition to Trump's request, Carroll's lawyers maintained that the attack has harmed her ability to have romantic and sexual relationships, and that she has suffered intrusive memories. They pointed to a psychologist's testimony at trial that Carroll had some symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. ‘Trump's motion is nothing more than his latest effort to obfuscate the import of the jury's verdict by engaging in his own particular Trump-branded form of magical thinking,’ her lawyers wrote.” [Reuters, 6/22/23]
June 28, 2023: Trump Countersued E Jean Carroll For Defamation. According to the New York Times, “Former President Donald J. Trump, who has been found liable for sexually abusing and defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll, has countersued, accusing her of defaming him in turn by repeating her contention that he had raped her.” [New York Times, 6/28/23]
July 11, 2023: Carroll Called Trump’s Countersuit “Satire” In Court Filing Asking A Judge To Dismiss The Claim With Prejudice. According to Reuters, “The writer E. Jean Carroll, who convinced a jury that Donald Trump owed her $5 million for sexually abusing and defaming her, asked a judge to dismiss the former U.S. president's countersuit that she defamed him by repeating her claim that he raped her. In a Tuesday court filing in Manhattan, Carroll's lawyers called Trump's countersuit his latest effort to ‘spin’ his trial loss by claiming she caused him ‘significant’ harm by implying in a post-trial interview that the assault was also a rape. ‘Here in federal court, where logic and reason rather than satire prevail, it is clear that Trump's new counterclaim for defamation should be dismissed with prejudice,’ wrote Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer for Carroll, a former Elle magazine columnist.” [Reuters, 7/11/23]
August 7, 2023: A Judge Dismissed Trump’s Countersuit Against E Jean Carroll. According to the New York Times, “A federal judge on Monday dismissed a countersuit by former President Donald J. Trump against E. Jean Carroll, the writer whom he was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming after a civil trial in Manhattan this year.” [New York Times, 8/7/23]
Judge Kaplan Wrote That “It Accordingly Is The ‘Truth,’ As Relevant Here, That Mr. Trump Digitally Raped Ms. Carroll.” According to Bloomberg, “In dismissing the claim Monday, US District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan said the jury’s finding that Trump penetrated Carroll with his finger was close enough to rape to justify her use of the word. ‘Indeed, the finding of digital rape is essential to support the size of jury’s damages award on the battery claim — over $2 million,’ Kaplan wrote. ‘It accordingly is the ‘truth,’ as relevant here, that Mr. Trump digitally raped Ms. Carroll.’” [Bloomberg, 8/7/23]
August 10, 2023: Trump Appealed Decision Dismissing His Defamation Claim Against Carroll. According to Reuters, “Donald Trump on Thursday appealed a judge's dismissal of his claim that the writer E. Jean Carroll defamed him by accusing him of rape, after a jury awarded her $5 million for defamation and sexual abuse but not rape. The former president asked the federal appeals court in Manhattan to overturn an Aug. 7 decision by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan that also rejected some of his defenses in a second defamation lawsuit by Carroll.” [Reuters, 8/10/23]
The Department Of Justice Said Trump Should Not Be Immune From Carroll’s Federal Defamation Lawsuit
July 11, 2023: The Department Of Justice Reversed Their Legal Position And Said Trump Was Not Entitled To Immunity From Carroll’s Defamation Lawsuit. According to Politico, “The Justice Department on Tuesday said former President Donald Trump should not be immune from a defamation lawsuit over comments he made about the writer E. Jean Carroll while he was president. The new court filing — which reverses a legal position first adopted under Trump and then maintained under President Joe Biden — paves the way for the lawsuit to proceed to trial in January. It would be the second time Trump has faced Carroll in court in less than a year.” [Politico, 7/11/23]
September 6, 2023: Judge Kaplan Ruled That The Second Defamation Suit Would Only Concern Damages Since Trump Was Already Found Liable In The First Suit. According to Reuters, “A federal judge on Wednesday said the writer E. Jean Carroll's second defamation trial against Donald Trump will be limited to damages only, in a defeat for the former U.S. president. Carroll accused Trump of defaming her by denying in June 2019 that he had raped her in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan said a May jury verdict awarding Carroll $5 million after Trump defamed her in Oct. 2022 established that he made his 2019 statements with ‘actual malice,’ leaving only the issue of how much he should pay in damages.” [Reuters, 9/6/23]
September 13, 2023: A Federal Appeals Court Rejected Trump’s Request To Stay The Upcoming Defamation Trial. According to ABC News, “A federal appeals court on Wednesday denied former President Donald Trump’s attempt to stay the 2019 defamation lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll. The lawsuit by the former Elle magazine columnist is scheduled to go to trial on Jan. 15. It alleges that Trump defamed her in 2019 when he said she was "not my type" and accused her of having a political and financial motive when he denied her claim that he raped her in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the 1990s.” [ABC News, 9/13/23]
The 2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals Said They Would Expedite Trump’s Appeals. According to Reuters, “A federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected Donald Trump's bid to put the writer E. Jean Carroll's second defamation case on hold, but sped up the former U.S. president's appeal. Trump is appealing U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan's June 29 refusal to dismiss Carroll's lawsuit, and Aug. 7 dismissal of some of his defenses and a defamation counterclaim against the former Elle magazine columnist. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan combined the appeals and will hear them on an expedited basis, with oral arguments possible by late October. A trial is scheduled for Jan. 15, 2024.” [Reuters, 9/13/23]
November 3, 2023: Judge Kaplan Ruled That The Second E Jean Carroll Defamation Trial Would Have An Anonymous Jury Due To Trump’s Public Statements. According to the Associated Press, “A New York federal judge cited former President Donald Trump’s ‘repeated public statements’ Friday among reasons why a jury will be anonymous when it considers damages stemming from a defamation lawsuit by a writer who says Trump sexually abused her in the 1990s. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued an order establishing that the jury to be chosen for the January trial in Manhattan will be transported by the U.S. Marshals Service. ‘In view of Mr. Trump’s repeated public statements with respect to the plaintiff and court in this case as well as in other cases against him, and the extensive media coverage that this case already has received and that is likely to increase once the trial is imminent or underway, the Court finds that there is strong reason to believe the jury requires the protections’ anonymity provides, Kaplan wrote in an order.” [Associated Press, 11/3/23]
November 16, 2023: Judge Kaplan Disallowed Trump’s Attempt To Add A New Expert Witness After The Court Excluded His Previous Expert. According to Reuters, “A federal judge rejected Donald Trump's bid to add a new expert witness just two months before a trial addressing how much the former U.S. president owes for defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll, saying Trump ‘made his own bed’ by waiting too long. Trump had claimed he would suffer ‘extreme prejudice’ without a new damages expert for the scheduled Jan. 16, 2024, trial. He said he hadn't foreseen a need for one until after U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who oversees the case, on Oct. 5 excluded testimony from another expert. But Kaplan said both sides were required to propose expert witnesses a year ago, and Trump had been ‘on notice’ in March that his expert's testimony would likely be excluded.” [Reuters, 11/16/23]
A Three-Judge Panel On The Second Circuit Court Of Appeals Denied Trump’s Attempt To Delay The Second Carroll Trial. According to Rolling Stone, “E. Jean Carroll’s defamation trial against Donald Trump will go ahead in January after an appeals court rejected the former president’s motion to stay a previous ruling denying his attempt to use presidential immunity as a defense. Trump’s legal team filed the motion last week, seeking a 90-day stay to consider other appellate court options, or potentially take the case to the Supreme Court. That motion was denied Thursday by a three-judge panel on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.” [Rolling Stone, 12/28/23]
The Second Circuit Court Of Appeals Rejected Trump’s Attempt To Delay The Second E Jean Carroll Trial. According to the Messenger, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Wednesday refused to halt a second trial against Donald Trump over another lawsuit filed against the former president by writer E. Jean Carroll. A federal jury previously awarded $5 million to Carroll after finding Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation.” [Messenger, 1/3/24]
Trump Had Asked For The Court For An En Banc Review Concerning His Argument Over Presidential Immunity. According to the Messenger, “As a second damages trial looms, the former president's attorneys Michael Madiao and Alina Habba sought to revisit the immunity question before the Second Circuit's full bench, a maneuver known as an en banc review. The attorneys sought to pause the second trial until the 13-judge panel could reassess the question. ‘Given the urgency of the circumstance, the irreparable harm to President Trump, and the public’s interest in obtaining a final resolution on the important issues that lie at the heart of this appeal, the trial must be stayed pending resolution of this petition,’ Madiao and Habba wrote.” [Messenger, 1/3/24]
Trump Claimed He Wanted To Testify In The Second E Jean Carroll Trial. According to the New York Times, “The former president said he planned to attend the remaining day of closing arguments in the case before Justice Engoron, and said he wanted to testify in the Carroll case — something he didn’t do during the first trial, and which he made clear in the brief interview that he regretted. He said he had been talked out of it last time. ‘I’m going to testify,’ Mr. Trump said, something that his advisers are not uniformly behind.” [New York Times, 1/3/24]
Trump Posted More Than 30 Times About Carroll On Truth Social. According to Newsweek, “Former President Donald Trump has unleashed a new social media barrage against his sexual assault accuser, E. Jean Carroll. Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll, a former columnist for Elle magazine, at the conclusion of a civil trial last May. A second defamation trial against Trump by Carroll is set to begin on January 16 after an appeals court denied a last-second attempt to delay it on Wednesday. Despite Trump's disparaging social media comments about Carroll being cited as defamation in both suits, the former president unfurled a dizzying array of content focusing on Carroll on Thursday morning, consisting of more than 30 posts to his Truth Social account. The posts, which were all shared in under an hour, consist largely of old quotes or social media posts from Carroll that were sexual in nature. Trump also shared articles from right-wing news websites that included references to Carroll as ‘a wackadoodle.’” [Newsweek, 1/4/24]
Judge Kaplan Ruled That Trump Could Not Dispute Carroll’s Claim That She Was Raped. According to the Associated Press, “A judge late Saturday said former President Donald Trump’s lawyers can’t present legal arguments to a jury assessing damages at a defamation trial on a jury’s conclusion last year that he didn’t rape a columnist in the mid-1990s. U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan made the determination in an order in advance of a Jan. 16 trial to determine defamation damages against Trump after a jury concluded Trump sexually abused columnist E. Jean Carroll but did not find evidence was sufficient to conclude that he raped her.” [Associated Press, 1/7/24]
Judge Kaplan Ruled That Trump Could Not Imply To The Jury That He Did Not Sexually Abuse Carroll. According to the Messenger, “A federal judge on Tuesday blocked Donald Trump's attorneys from suggesting or implying to a jury that the former president did not sexually abuse writer E. Jean Carroll, when the case heads to a second trial early next week. In May 2023, Carroll won a $5 million verdict after a federal jury unanimously found that Trump sexually abused her in the dressing room of a Bergdorf Goodman in the mid-1990s — and then defamed her by falsely denying it.” [Messenger, 1/9/24]
Trump Could Not Deny The Sexual Abuse Claim, Cast Aspirations Against Carroll’s Lawyers, Bring Up The Financing Of Her Attorneys, Or Bring Up Carroll’s Romantic Past, On Tuesday, Kaplan laid out the ground rules for the second trial, which is scheduled to begin on Tuesday, Jan. 16. Trump's attorneys have been forbidden from denying the sexual abuse claims to the second jury, casting aspersions on Carroll's lawyers, bringing up the financing of her litigation, or raising the topic of her romantic history. The former president and his lawyers have repeatedly argued that Carroll's allegations amount to a vendetta, executed by an attorney for prominent Democratic figures and bankrolled by a liberal billionaire.” [Messenger, 1/9/24]
The Second Circuit Court Of Appeals Rejected Trump’s Request For An En Banc Appeal. According to the Messenger, “Donald Trump on Monday lost again in the former president's bid to swat away E. Jean Carroll's defamation lawsuit on the grounds of federal immunity, setting the stage for a potential last-minute petition to the U.S. Supreme Court before a trial that's scheduled to begin next week in Manhattan federal court. In a single-page order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declined to rehear Trump's case before the full 13-judge bench, a maneuver known as an en banc appeal. No active judge from the appellate court called for a vote on the matter, according to the ruling.” [Messenger, 1/8/24]
Trump Was Granted A Delay To Testify Due To The Death Of His Mother-In-Law
Judge Kaplan Said Trump Could Wait Until January 22 To Testify. According to the Washington Post, “Former President Donald Trump can wait a week to testify at a New York defamation trial where he could face millions of dollars in damages after a jury concluded that he sexually abused a columnist in the 1990s, a federal judge said Sunday. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued a one-page order saying Trump could testify on Jan. 22 even if the trial that starts Tuesday is over by Thursday, except for testimony by the Republican front-runner in this year’s presidential race.” [Washington Post, 1/14/24]
Kaplan Previously Denied Trumps’ Request To Delay The Trial Due To The Death Of His Mother-In-Law. According to the Washington Post, “He said he previously denied Trump’s request to delay the start of the trial by a week so Trump could attend the funeral Thursday of his mother-in-law because it would disrupt and inconvenience prospective jurors, lawyers, court staff and security, who were notified of the trial date seven months ago.” [Washington Post, 1/14/24]
While Trump Had Requested To Delay The Trial, He Also Scheduled A Campaign Trip To New Hampshire For The Same Day As The Trial. According to the Washington Post, “The judge also noted that he has learned that Trump, even while seeking to postpone the trial, had scheduled an evening campaign appearance on Wednesday in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. He said Trump’s lawyers notified the judge on Friday that Trump planned to attend the trial.” [Washington Post, 1/14/24]
Carroll And Trump Argued Over Whether Trump Should Be Subject To Warnings For Violating The Grounds Of His Potential Testimony
Carroll’s Attorneys Asked Judge Kaplan To Issue Strict Warnings To Trump If He Should Choose To Testify. According to the Washington Post, “E. Jean Carroll’s attorneys on Friday asked a federal judge to give Donald Trump strict warnings about what grounds he must avoid if he chooses to testify at a trial next week to determine what damages are owed for defamation claims. The letter to U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan seeking firm restrictions cited Trump’s hijacking of summations on Thursday in another lawsuit, a $370 million civil case brought by the New York attorney general against the ex-president and his company for allegedly committing a decade-long fraud beginning in 2011.” [Washington Post, 1/12/24]
Before The Trial, Trump Lawyer Joseph Tacopina Withdrew From Representing Trump
Tacopina Withdrew From Trump’s Appeal In The First E Jean Carroll Trial. According to the New York Times, “Mr. Tacopina also withdrew on Monday from another case in which he was still legally representing Mr. Trump: an appeal of the verdict in a lawsuit brought by the writer E. Jean Carroll. Mr. Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation last year and was ordered to pay Ms. Carroll $5 million.” [New York Times, 1/15/24]
Tacopina’s Partners Chad Seigel And Matthew DeOreo Requested That They Withdraw From Trump’s Legal Team In The Carroll Case. According to Newsweek, “Tacopina filed the declaration about the Carroll case on Monday. He also requested that Judge Lewis Kaplan allow Tacopina's two partners, Chad Seigel and Matthew DeOreo, to withdraw their services, as well. ‘I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of [Tacopina Seigel and DeOreo's] motion, made pursuant to Local Civil Rule 27.1, to withdraw as counsel (including TSD attorneys Joseph Tacopina, Chad D. Seigel and Matthew G. DeOreo) for Trump, with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper,’ Tacopina wrote in the filing.” [Newsweek, 1/15/24]
Trump Attacked Carroll On His Social Media Site While Attending Jury Selection In The Second Trial. According to Business Insider, “Former President Donald Trump is Manhattan on Tuesday to attend the opening of the second E. Jean Carroll defamation trial to determine whether the ex-president will have shell out millions of dollars tied to Carroll's allegations of sexual assault in the 1990s. But Trump's Truth Social account blasted out posts attacking Carroll while the two were sitting in the courtroom, the first time they've been in same room together in decades. One post from the former president's account this morning stated: ‘Can you believe I have to defend myself against this woman's fake story?!’” [Business Insider, 1/16/24]
Trump Left The Courthouse Before Opening Statements Began. According to Politico, “Trump, who was set to speak at a rally Tuesday evening in New Hampshire, left court after jury selection was complete, before the lawyers delivered their opening statements.” [Politico, 1/16/24]
Carroll’s Attorney Said Trump “Used The World’s Biggest Microphone” To Destroy Carroll’s Reputation And Kept Doing It. According to Politico, “Shawn Crowley, a lawyer for Carroll, told the jury that Trump ‘used the world’s biggest microphone to attack Ms. Carroll, to humiliate her and to destroy her reputation.’ ‘Everything he said was a lie,’ Crowley said. ‘As Judge Kaplan instructed you, that has already been decided. It has already been proven.’ Crowley told the jury that their job is to determine how much money he should pay for the harm he has caused Carroll and how much of a financial penalty will motivate Trump to stop attacking her. ‘He keeps doing it,’ Crowley said. ‘He sat in this courthouse — you saw him — and while he was sitting here he posted more defamatory statements. More lies about Ms. Carroll and this case. By our last count, 22 posts just today. Think about that when you consider how much money it will take to get him to stop.’” [Politico, 1/16/24]
Alina Habba, Trump’s Attorney, Argued That Carroll Liked And Benefitted From The Attention. According to Politico, “Habba, Trump’s lawyer, however, painted Carroll as a beneficiary of the attention she attracted after accusing Trump of the assault, saying she enjoyed the spotlight. ‘She has gained more fame, more notoriety than she could have ever dreamed of,’ Habba said. ‘The evidence will show that Ms. Carroll has made Trump the focal point of her identity now,’ Habba said, adding: ‘She doesn’t want to fix her reputation, ladies and gentlemen. She likes her new brand.’” [Politico, 1/16/24]
Judge Kaplan Threatened To Expel Trump From The Trial For Repeatedly Ignoring Warning To Keep His Voice Down While E Jean Carroll Testified. According to the Associated Press, “Donald Trump was threatened with expulsion from his Manhattan civil trial Wednesday after he repeatedly ignored a warning to keep quiet while writer E. Jean Carroll testified that he shattered her reputation after she accused him of sexual abuse. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan told the former president that his right to be present at the trial will be revoked if he remains disruptive. After an initial warning, Carroll’s lawyer said Trump could still be heard making remarks to his lawyers, including ‘it is a witch hunt’ and ‘it really is a con job.’” [Associated Press, 1/17/24]
Carroll’s Attorney Said They Could Hear Trump, And If They Could Hear Him, The Jury Might Be Able To As Well. According to the Associated Press, “Kaplan cracked down after Carroll lawyer Shawn Crowley complained for a second time that Trump could be heard ‘loudly saying things that are false’ as he sat at the defense table, frequently tilting back in his chair and leaning over to speak with his lawyer. Among his comments, Crowley said, were that the longtime Elle magazine advice columnist was lying about the assault and that she seemed to have ‘gotten her memory back.’ Crowley suggested that if Carroll’s lawyers could hear Trump from where they were sitting, about 12 feet (3.7 meters) from him, jurors might’ve been able to hear him too. ‘I’m just going to ask that Mr. Trump take special care to keep his voice down when conferring with counsel to make sure the jury does not hear it,’” Kaplan said before jurors returned to the courtroom after a morning break.” [Associated Press, 1/17/24]
Trump Said He “Would Love It” If Judge Kaplan Expelled Him. According to the Associated Press, “‘Mr. Trump, I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial,’ Kaplan said in an exchange after the jury was excused for lunch, adding: ‘I understand you’re probably eager for me to do that.’ ‘I would love it,’ the Republican presidential front-runner shot back, shrugging as he sat between lawyers Alina Habba and Michael Madaio at the defense table.” [Associated Press, 1/17/24]
Judge Kaplan Said Trump Could Not Control Himself. According to the Associated Press, “‘I know you would like it. You just can’t control yourself in this circumstance, apparently,’ Kaplan responded. ‘You can’t either,’ Trump muttered.” [Associated Press, 1/17/24]
Trump Attacked Judge Kaplan On Social Media As “Seething And Hostile.” According to the Associated Press, “Afterward, Trump ripped Kaplan on social media while the judge denied a request that he step aside from the case. In a Truth Social post, Trump described the Bill Clinton appointee as ‘seething and hostile,” and “abusive, rude, and obviously not impartial.’” [Associated Press, 1/17/24]
Judge Kaplan Denied Trump’s Request To Recuse Himself. According to the New York Times, “After the lunch break, a lawyer for Mr. Trump said that there had been ‘general hostility’ toward the defense and asked Judge Kaplan to recuse himself. ‘Denied,’ Judge Kaplan responded.” [New York Times, 1/17/24]
Expert Witness Ashlee Humphreys Said Carroll Suffered Between $7.3 Million And $12.1 Million In Damages To Her Reputation. According to Politico, “After Carroll finished her testimony Thursday, an expert witness, Ashlee Humphreys, a professor of marketing and communications at Northwestern University, took the witness stand. Humphreys previously testified in last year’s Carroll trial and in a recent defamation trial in a lawsuit filed by two Georgia election workers who won a $148 million judgment against Rudy Giuliani. According to Humphreys, the cost to repair Carroll’s reputation due to the effect of Trump’s remarks would be between $7.3 million and $12.1 million. In the current trial, Carroll is seeking at least $10 million in compensatory damages, plus an unspecified amount in punitive damages. As a result of Trump’s comments, Humphreys testified, ‘damage was severe to [Carroll’s] reputation as a journalist, and the costs to repair it were considerable.’” [Politico, 1/18/24]
Trump Asked For A Mistrial. According to Reuters, “Donald Trump on Friday renewed his request for a mistrial in E. Jean Carroll's defamation case, after she admitted to destroying emailed death threats she received after first accusing the former U.S. president of rape. In a letter to U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan, Trump's lawyer Alina Habba said Carroll's actions ‘severely prejudices the President Trump's defense (sic) since he has been deprived of critical information relating to critical evidence which Plaintiff has described to the jury.’” [Reuters, 1/19/24]
Judge Kaplan Rejected Trump’s Latest Request For A Mistrial. According to Reuters, “The judge separately denied Trump's request for a mistrial, which arose from Carroll's having testified that she destroyed emailed death threats she received after first accusing Trump of rape.” [Reuters, 1/22/24]
Both Sides Filed Written Arguments On The Question Whether Trump Could Argue Carroll Had A Duty To Mitigate Any Harm Caused By Trump’s Statements. According to the Associated Press, “Also on Friday, both sides filed written arguments at the judge’s request on whether Trump’s lawyers can argue to the jury that Carroll had a duty to mitigate any harm caused by Trump’s public statements. Habba asked the judge to instruct the jury that Carroll had an obligation to minimize the effect of the defamation she endured. Robbie Kaplan said, however, that Habba should be stopped from making such an argument to the jury, as she already did in her opening statement, and that the jury should be instructed that what Habba told them was incorrect. ‘It would be particularly shocking to hold that survivors of sexual abuse must keep silent even as their abuser defames them publicly,’ she wrote.” [Associated Press, 1/19/24]
Carroll’s Attorney Notified Judge Kaplan That She Would Introduce Comments Trump Made During The Trial As Evidence. According to Business Insider, “Since the trial for writer E. Jean Carroll's defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump began this week, the former president has already made a habit of talking about the case outside the courtroom — in a post-hearing press conference, at a campaign rally, and on Truth Social. He's repeated the claim that he never knew Carroll; that her allegations of sexual assault, which a previous jury found him liable for, were ‘fabricated,’ and accused her of deleting relevant evidence. On Saturday, Carroll's attorney responded: She'll be using his words as evidence. In court filings viewed by Business Insider, Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, notified US District Judge Lewis Kaplan that she intends to submit several pieces of evidence on Monday for the ongoing defamation trial. Carroll's lawsuit centers entirely on the allegation that Trump defamed her by saying she lied about him raping her in a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s.” [Business Insider, 1/21/24]
Trump Repeatedly Attacked Carroll On Truth Social As The Trial Was Set Resume. According to the Huffington Post, “Donald Trump repeatedly attacked his accuser E. Jean Carroll on his Truth Social platform overnight Wednesday, just hours before the writer’s second defamation trial against him was set to resume in a New York courtroom. Trump shared a mix of 37 videos, tweets, news articles and rants over a two-hour period. It followed a similar pattern to previous online rampages by the four-times-indicted ex-POTUS. The former president was last year ordered to pay Carroll some $5 million in damages after a jury found him liable for sexual abuse after Carroll accused Trump of raping her in a New York department store in the 1990s. Trump was also found liable for defamation after he denied the accusation, claimed not to know Carroll and repeatedly called her character into question.” [Huffington Post, 1/25/24]
Trump Testified For Four Minutes. According to Reuters, “Trump, 77, spent only four minutes on the witness stand after U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who has overseen both trials, said he would not allow ‘do-overs by disappointed litigants’ and let Trump revisit the first jury's findings.” [Reuters, 1/25/24]
Trump Testified That He Stood By His Deposition. According to Reuters, “Donald Trump's testimony in the writer E. Jean Carroll's defamation case ended almost immediately after it began, as the former U.S. president stood by his earlier testimony that Carroll's claim that he raped her was a hoax. ‘100% yes,’ Trump told his lawyer Alina Habba in federal court in Manhattan, when asked if his comments in an October 2022 deposition in Carroll's case were accurate.” [Reuters, 1/25/24]
Trump Said, “This Is Not America” As He Left The Courtroom. According to Bloomberg, “In the Carroll testimony Thursday, Trump shook his head as he left the courtroom around 2:30 p.m. ‘This is not America,’ Trump said, jutting out his jaw and narrowing his eyes. ‘Not America! This is not America.’” [Bloomberg, 1/25/24]
Trump Left The Courtroom While Carroll’s Legal Team Made Their Closing Arguments. According to NBC News, “Donald Trump abruptly stormed out of court during closing arguments in the E. Jean Carroll damages trial Friday as her attorney was telling jurors the former president is a liar who thinks ‘the rules don't apply to him.’ ‘The record will reflect that Mr. Trump just rose and walked out of the courtroom,’ U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan said after his dramatic departure during lawyer Roberta Kaplan's presentation. Roberta Kaplan, who's not related to the judge, had told the jury that Trump spent the ‘entire trial continuing to engage in defamation’ against Carroll by calling her sexual abuse allegations against him a ‘con job.’” [NBC News, 1/26/24]
A Manhattan Jury Ordered Trump To Pay Carroll $83.3 Million. According to the New York Times, “Former President Donald J. Trump was ordered by a Manhattan jury on Friday to pay $83.3 million to the writer E. Jean Carroll for defaming her in 2019 after she accused him of a decades-old rape, attacks he continued in social media posts, at news conferences and even in the midst of the trial itself. Ms. Carroll’s lawyers had argued that a large award was necessary to stop Mr. Trump from continuing to attack her. After less than three hours of deliberation, the jury responded by awarding Ms. Carroll $65 million in punitive damages, finding that Mr. Trump had acted with malice. On one recent day, he made more than 40 derisive posts about Ms. Carroll on his Truth Social website.” [New York Times, 1/26/24]
Trump Called The Verdict “Absolutely Ridiculous.” According to the New York Times, “Mr. Trump, who had walked out of the courtroom earlier during the closing argument by Ms. Carroll’s lawyer, said in a Truth Social post that the verdict was ‘absolutely ridiculous.’ ‘Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon,’ he said, pledging to appeal. ‘They have taken away all First Amendment Rights.’
Notably, he did not attack Ms. Carroll.” [New York Times, 1/26/24]
While Trump Did Not Need To Pay The Full Amount Immediately, He Would Have To Provide A Portion To The Court. According to the New York Times, “Donald J. Trump might one day have to pay E. Jean Carroll the $83.3 million she was awarded, but that day is not today. Mr. Trump called the jury’s decision ‘Absolutely ridiculous!’ and vowed to appeal the verdict, a process that could take months or more. And while he is waiting for an appellate court to rule, Mr. Trump need not cut Ms. Carroll a check. Yet the former president is still on the hook to pay something — possibly a sizable sum — while he waits. Mr. Trump can pay the $83.3 million to the court, which will hold the money while the appeal is pending. This is what he did last year when a jury ordered him to pay Ms. Carroll $5.5 million in a related case. Or, Mr. Trump can try to secure a bond, which will save him from having to pay the full amount up front. A bond might require him to pay a deposit and offer collateral, and would come with interest and fees. It would also require Mr. Trump to find a financial institution willing to lend him a large sum of money at a time when he is in significant legal jeopardy.” [New York Times, 1/26/24]
Trump Was Formally Ordered To Pay E Jean Carroll $83.3 Million. According to CNN, “A federal judge formally ordered Donald Trump to pay $83.3 million to E. Jean Carroll, endorsing the jury’s verdict from the defamation trial last month. The judgment was made in a one-page order on Thursday. The issuance of the judgment takes Carroll one step closer to obtaining her award, but it is only the beginning of a process that can take months or longer to play out, in part depending on how long the appeals process lasts.” [CNN, 2/8/24]
Trump Said He Would Appeal The Verdict. According to the New York Times, “Donald J. Trump might one day have to pay E. Jean Carroll the $83.3 million she was awarded, but that day is not today. Mr. Trump called the jury’s decision ‘Absolutely ridiculous!’ and vowed to appeal the verdict, a process that could take months or more.” [New York Times, 1/26/24]
Trump’s Attorney Dropped Her Complaint That Judge Kaplan And Carroll’s Attorney Roberta Kaplan May Have Had A “Mentor-Mentee Relationship” 30 Years Ago. According to Reuters, “A lawyer for Donald Trump on Tuesday backed off her suggestion that the judge who oversaw E. Jean Carroll's two successful civil defamation trials against the former U.S. president might have had a conflict of interest. In a letter to U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan, Trump's lawyer Alina Habba said she was satisfied that the judge and Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan, who is not related, did not have a ‘mentor-mentee relationship’ when they worked at the same law firm three decades ago. Habba had on Monday suggested that such a relationship might have tainted the $83.3 million jury award that Carroll, a former Elle magazine advice columnist, won against Trump last Friday. She cited a Jan. 27 New York Post article that quoted an unnamed former partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison as saying Judge Kaplan had been ‘like a mentor’ to Roberta Kaplan when both worked for about two years at the firm.” [Reuters, 1/30/24]
Trump Said He Was Interviewing Law Firms To Represent Him In Appealing The $83.3 Million Carroll Decision. According to Forbes, “Former President Donald Trump suggested on Truth Social Tuesday night he could replace his legal team as he appeals writer E. Jean Carroll’s defamation case against him, after a jury ordered him to pay her $83.3 million—and his current attorney Alina Habba was repeatedly chided by the judge at trial and threatened with sanctions for claiming he was biased. Trump was ordered to pay $83.3 million in damages for defaming Carroll based on statements he made in 2019 denying her allegations of sexual assault, as he claimed the writer wasn’t ‘my type.’ Trump intends to appeal the verdict, and said on Truth Social Tuesday he and his team were ‘in the process’ of interviewing ‘various law firms’ to represent him as he appeals what he described as ‘one of the most ridiculous and unfair Witch Hunts our Country has ever seen.’” [Forbes, 1/31/24]
Judge Kaplan Denied Trump’s Motions For A Mistrial, Calling Them “Entirely Pointless.” According to CNN, “A federal judge denied Donald Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the defamation case brought by columnist E. Jean Carroll saying the former president’s arguments had no ‘merit’ and are ‘entirely pointless.’ Judge Lewis Kaplan denied Trump’s motions from the bench during the civil trial and said a written order would follow. In the written order on Wednesday, the judge said granting a request for a mistrial ‘would have been entirely pointless’ because it would only mean that the case would start over.” [CNN, 2/7/24]
February 23, 2024: Trump Asked For His $83.3. Million Defamation Verdict Against E Jean Carroll To Be Suspended. According to the Associated Press, “Donald Trump’s lawyers asked a New York judge Friday to suspend an $83.3 million defamation verdict against the former president, saying there was a ‘strong probability’ that it would be reduced on appeal, if not eliminated. The lawyers made the request in Manhattan federal court, where a civil jury in late January awarded the sum to advice columnist E. Jean Carroll after a five-day trial that focused only on damages. A judge had ordered the jury to accept the findings of another jury that last year concluded Trump sexually abused Carroll in 1996 and defamed her in 2022.” [Associated Press, 2/23/24]
Judge Kaplan Said He Would Not Issue A Stay Of Judgment Until He Heard From Carroll’s Attorney. According to ABC News, “Judge Lewis Kaplan has declined to grant a stay of Donald Trump's $83.3 million judgment in his defamation case and requested a written response from columnist E. Jean Carroll's lawyers. ‘The Court declines to grant any stay, much less an unsecured stay, without first having afforded plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to be heard,’ Kaplan wrote in an order filed Sunday morning.” [ABC News, 2/23/24]
February 29, 2024: Carroll Opposed Granting Trump Additional Time To Post The $83.3 Million A Jury Awarded Her Because Trump Could Not Be Trusted. According to CNN, “E. Jean Carroll said Donald Trump should not be given more time to post the $83.3 million she was awarded in her defamation trial against the former president, telling the judge that Trump is the ‘least trustworthy of borrowers.’ On Friday, Trump asked the judge overseeing the defamation case to give him additional time to satisfy the judgment while he appeals the jury verdict or allow him to post a lesser amount ranging from $24 million to $40 million. Carroll’s lawyers opposed the request, writing in a court filing Thursday that Trump’s request comes down to ‘trust me.’ ‘He doesn’t offer any information about his finances or the nature and location of his assets. He doesn’t specify what percentage of his assets are liquid or explain how Carroll might go about collecting. He doesn’t even acknowledge the risks that now accompany his financial situation, from a half billion-dollar judgment obtained by the New York Attorney General to the 91 felony charges that might end his career as a businessman permanently,’ the attorneys wrote.” [CNN, 2/29/24]
March 5: Trump Sought A New Trial In The E Jean Carroll Defamation Case. According to ABC News, “Former President Donald Trump is seeking a new trial in the defamation case brought by former Elle magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll, arguing that the judge in the case improperly restricted his testimony. Trump in January was ordered to pay $83.3 million in damages to Carroll for defaming her in 2019 when he denied her allegation that he sexually abused her in the dressing room of a Manhattan department store in the 1990s. Trump spent less than five minutes on the witness stand, during which he testified that ‘I just wanted to defend myself, my family and frankly the presidency.’ Judge Lewis Kaplan instructed the jury to disregard the remark because it fell outside the bounds of what Trump was allowed to say. In a court filing Tuesday, defense attorneys argued ‘the Court's restrictions on President Trump's testimony were erroneous and prejudicial’ because Trump was not allowed to explain ‘his own mental state’ when he made the defamatory statements about Carroll. ‘This Court's erroneous decision to dramatically limit the scope of President Trump's testimony almost certainly influenced the jury's verdict, and thus a new trial is warranted,’ defense attorneys Alina Habba and John Sauer said.” [ABC News, 3/5/24]
March 8: Trump Posted A $91.6 Million Bond As He Appealed The Second Carroll Decision. According to CNN, “Former President Donald Trump has posted a $91.6 million bond as he appeals the judgment against him in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case. The notice of Trump’s bond and appeal was made with the federal court in New York on Friday.” [CNN, 3/8/24]
Judge Kaplan Rejected Trump’s Request To Delay Payment Of Damages To Carroll. According to NBC News, “A federal judge on Thursday rejected Donald Trump’s request for three extra days to pay damages in writer E. Jean Carroll’s defamation case against the former president. The payment's scheduled due date is Monday. Trump was ordered to pay $83.3 million, and with interest the full amount will be $91.6 million. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the trial in New York, said Trump has had plenty of time to arrange for payment in the weeks since a jury in January found him liable for defamation by denying that he sexually abused Carroll in the ’90s in a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan. ‘Mr. Trump’s current situation is a result of his own dilatory actions,’ Kaplan wrote in his order. ‘He has had since January 26 to organize his finances with the knowledge that he might need to bond this judgment.’” [NBC News, 3/7/24]
April 25, 2024: Judge Kaplan Upheld The Verdict And Award In The Second E. Jean Carroll Case And Denied Trump’s Motion For A New Trial. According to CNN, “A federal judge on Thursday upheld the verdict and award in E. Jean Carroll’s defamation case against former President Donald Trump and denied Trump’s motion for a new trial. Judge Lewis Kaplan, in a written opinion, said Trump’s legal arguments are without merit. The judge also found that the punitive damages the jury awarded to Carroll ‘passes constitutional muster.’” [CNN, 4/25/24]
May 15, 2024: Carroll Wanted The 2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals To Expedite Trump’s Appeal Of The Verdict In The First Carroll Trial. According to CNN, “Lawyers for E. Jean Carroll have asked a federal appeals court to expedite Donald Trump’s appeal of the verdict in their first trial in which a jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages after finding Trump liable for defamation and battery in May 2023. Carroll wants to see the oral arguments for the appeal scheduled to take place by July, arguing that the former president will try to further delay the proceedings, using his ongoing criminal trial or busy campaign schedule as an excuse. The motion with the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals filed Tuesday cites Trump’s numerous attempts to delay both trials with Carroll as a signal that he’s likely to drag out the appeal.” [CNN, 5/15/24]
May 28, 2024: Carroll’s Attorney Said, “All Options Are On The Table” After Trump Disparaged Carroll Again. According to the Huffington Post, “Roberta Kaplan, an attorney for the writer E. Jean Carroll, reportedly said that ‘all options are on the table’ after former President Donald Trump once again disparaged her client. Trump on Monday used his Truth Social platform to rant about the huge damages he has been ordered to pay Carroll in recent months. He also claimed he’d ‘never met’ her. A civil jury last year found Trump liable for sexual abuse after Carroll accused him of raping her in the 1990s. The presumptive GOP presidential nominee was also found liable for defamation and ordered to pay $5 million in damages. Carroll’s second defamation case against Trump in January ― after he continued making derogatory comments about her ― saw her awarded $83.3 million in damages. Kaplan, according to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, responded to Trump’s latest comments: ‘We have said several times since the last jury verdict in January that all options were on the table. And that remains true today ― all options are on the table.’” [Huffington Post, 5/28/24]
February 16, 2021: Representative Bennie Thompson Sued Trump Over Inciting The January 6 Attack On The Capitol. According to the Associated Press, “A Democratic congressman accused Donald Trump in a federal lawsuit on Tuesday of inciting the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and of conspiring with his lawyer and extremist groups to try to prevent the Senate from certifying the results of the presidential election he lost to Joe Biden. The lawsuit from Mississippi's Rep. Bennie Thompson, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, is part of an expected wave of litigation over the Jan. 6 riot and is believed to be the first filed by a member of Congress. It seeks unspecified punitive and compensatory damages. The case also names as defendants the Republican former president's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and groups including the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, extremist organizations that had members charged by the Justice Department with taking part in the siege.” [Associated Press, 2/26/21]
March 5, 2021: Representative Eric Swalwell Sued Trump For Violating Civil Rights Laws By Inciting The January 6 Attack On The Capitol. According to NBC News, “A Democratic congressman who helped argue the House impeachment case against former President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit against him in federal court Friday, seeking to turn those allegations into a civil case. Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, accused Trump, Donald Trump Jr, Rudolph Giuliani, and Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., of violating federal civil rights laws and local incitement laws. All spoke at a rally near the White House on January 6 before members of the crowd moved on to the Capitol.” [NBC News, 3/5/21]
March 31, 2021: Two Capitol Police Officers, James Blassingame And Sidney Hemby, Sued Trump For Inciting The January 6 Attack On The Capitol. According to NPR, “Two U.S. Capitol police officers are suing former President Donald Trump, for allegedly inciting the riots that took over the Capitol building Jan. 6. Officers James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby argue in court documents reviewed by NPR that Trump is responsible for the physical and emotional injuries the officers received following the violent riots at the Capitol. The insurrection resulted in the death of five people. The lawsuit details the violence Blassingame and Hemby faced during the Jan. 6 attack, as well as the physical and emotional toll they continue to deal with. Lawyers for the officers argue Trump's repeated false claims over several months that the 2020 presidential election could be stolen or was eventually ‘rigged’ motivated the eventual insurrectionists. Trump ‘inflamed, encouraged, incited, directed, and aided and abetted’ the ‘insurrectionist mob’ to force its way into the Capitol building to stop the certification of the election on Jan. 6. The mob ‘forced its way over and past the plaintiffs and their fellow officers, pursuing and attacking them inside and outside the United States Capitol, and causing the injuries.’” [NPR, 3/31/21]
August 26, 2021: Seven U.S. Capitol Police Officers Sued Trump Over The January 6 Attack On The Capitol. According to CNN, “Seven US Capitol Police officers are suing former President Donald Trump, Stop the Steal rally organizers and members of far-right extremist groups, accusing them of spreading lies, using White supremacist sentiments to attempt to overthrow the 2020 election, and ultimately bearing responsibility for the riot that injured more than 140 officers on January 6. ‘Plaintiffs and their fellow law enforcement officers risked their lives to defend the Capitol from a violent, mass attack — an attack provoked, aided, and joined by Defendants in an unlawful effort to use force, intimidation, and threats to prevent Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 Presidential election,’ says the lawsuit, which was filed Thursday in US District Court for the District of Columbia.” [CNN, 8/26/21]
January 5, 2022: Three Police Officers Filed Two Lawsuits Against Trump Alleging Wrongful Conduct In Inciting A Riot On January 6. According to CBS News, “Three more law enforcement officers are suing former President Trump in two separate lawsuits over his words and actions leading up to the January 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol. Two Metropolitan Police officers and one Capitol Police officer have filed separate lawsuits, alleging wrongful conduct in inciting a riot as his followers tried to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Both lawsuits were filed in D.C. federal court Tuesday, two days before the one-year anniversary of the Capitol assault. ‘Trump's words and conduct leading up to and on January 6, 2021, and his ratification through silence when words and action were necessary, and his further ratification by direct praise of the rioters, as set forth herein, demonstrated a willful and wanton disregard for and a reckless indifference to Bobby Tabron and DeDivine K. Carter's safety and that of their fellow officers,’ reads the complaint from Metropolitan Police officers Bobby Tabron and DeDevine Carter.” [CBS News, 1/5/22]
February 18, 2022: Federal Judge Rejected Trump’s Claim Of Absolute Immunity And Said Lawsuits Against Trump Could Continue. According to the Washington Post, “A federal judge on Friday sweepingly rejected former president Donald Trump’s claim of ‘absolute immunity’ from lawsuits accusing him of inciting the violent Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, finding that there was evidence to plausibly suggest that he engaged in a conspiracy with organized groups to intimidate Congress into overturning the results of the 2020 election. In a searing, 112-page opinion that quoted repeatedly and at length from the former president’s own public statements, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta refused to dismiss three lawsuits against Trump by Democratic House members and police officers seeking damages for physical and emotional injuries they incurred in the assault. The judge did or said he would drop as defendants Donald Trump Jr., attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), who joined Trump in addressing rallygoers at the Ellipse before they marched to the Capitol that day. However, Mehta said Trump’s own words and conduct in falsely alleging a ‘stolen’ election were not immune on separation-of-powers grounds because they served only his personal aim of retaining office, falling beyond the ‘outer perimeter’ of a president’s official responsibilities. ‘The President’s actions here do not relate to his duties of faithfully executing the laws, conducting foreign affairs, commanding the armed forces, or managing the Executive Branch. They entirely concern his efforts to remain in office for a second term. These are unofficial acts,’ Mehta wrote.” [Washington Post, 2/18/22]
December 7, 2022: The D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals Heard Arguments On Whether Trump Could Be Held Liable For Damages Caused By The January 6 Attack On The Capitol. According to the Washington Post, “A federal appeals court on Wednesday debated whether Donald Trump can be forced to pay damages for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol to lawmakers and police officers injured by the mob.” [Washington Post, 12/7/22]
January 26, 2023: Federal Judge Rejected Trump’s Effort To Dismiss Lawsuit Over Liability For January 6. According to Law & Crime, “Former President Donald Trump failed to dismiss another — and more massive — complaint in a growing pile of federal lawsuits seeking to hold him liable for the events of Jan. 6, 2021. ‘What is unique about this case is the number and type of named defendants,’ U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta‘s ruling on Thursday states. ‘The earlier actions focused mainly on former President Donald J. Trump and attempted to hold him liable for the events of January 6th. Those actions included a few individual defendants and some groups.’” [Law & Crime, 1/27/23]
March 2, 2023: The Department Of Justice Concluded Trump Was Not Entitled To Absolute Immunity Resulting From The January 6 Attack On The Capitol. According to Bloomberg, “The Justice Department says Donald Trump is not entitled to absolute immunity against civil lawsuits seeking to hold him liable for the attack on the US Capitol on Jan. 6 because he’s accused of inciting ‘imminent private violence.’” [Bloomberg, 3/2/23]
December 1, 2023: The DC Circuit Court Of Appeals Ruled That Civil Lawsuits Against Trump For His Role In The January Attack On The Capitol Could Proceed. According to the New York Times, “A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that civil lawsuits seeking to hold former President Donald J. Trump accountable for the violence that erupted at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, can move forward for now, rejecting a broad assertion of immunity that Mr. Trump’s legal team had invoked to try to get the cases dismissed.” [New York Times, 12/1/23]
The Court Did Not Rule On Whether Trump’s January 6 Speech Was A Private Or Official Act. According to the New York Times, “But the decision, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, left open the possibility that Mr. Trump could still prevail in his immunity claims after he makes further arguments as to why his fiery speech to supporters near the White House on Jan. 6 should be considered an official presidential act, rather than part of his re-election campaign. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution gives presidents immunity from being sued over actions taken as part of their official duties, but not from suits based on private, unofficial acts. The civil cases brought against Mr. Trump have raised the question of which role he was playing at the rally he staged on Jan. 6, when he told supporters to ‘fight like hell’ and urged them to march to the Capitol.” [New York Times, 12/1/23]
Trump Did Not Appeal A Federal Appeals Court Decision That Said Presidents Did Not Have Absolute Immunity From Civil Suits. According to Politico, “Donald Trump is passing up the chance to add a fourth case to a trio of Trump-related appeals already stacked up at the Supreme Court. Trump elected not to ask the justices to reverse a federal appeals court ruling issued in December rejecting his claim that presidents have absolute immunity from being sued for actions taken while they are in office. That means at least three lawsuits brought against him in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol can advance to the next phase — a period of limited evidence-gathering related to Trump’s activities on Jan. 6, 2021 and whether they were official or political in nature. The lawsuits — brought by members of Congress and police officers scarred by the attack — have been pending since 2021 but delayed amid Trump’s bid for the courts to declare him immune from lawsuits related to his actions as president.” [Politico, 2/15/24]
An Appeals Court Ruled That Trump Gave His January 6 Speech In His Capacity As A Candidate, Not As President. According to Politico, “For now, that means a Washington, D.C., appeals court ruling that found Trump could be sued for his role in stoking the violence on Jan. 6 will stand. The unanimous ruling of the three-judge panel, which included a Trump-nominated judge, concluded that Trump’s remarks to supporters on Jan. 6 appeared to be delivered in his capacity as a candidate for reelection — not in his official capacity as president.” [Politico, 2/15/24]
At Least Three Lawsuits Against Trump For His Role In The January 6 Attack On The Capitol Can Go To The Next Step Of Evidence Gathering. According to Politico, “That means at least three lawsuits brought against him in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol can advance to the next phase — a period of limited evidence-gathering related to Trump’s activities on Jan. 6, 2021 and whether they were official or political in nature. The lawsuits — brought by members of Congress and police officers scarred by the attack — have been pending since 2021 but delayed amid Trump’s bid for the courts to declare him immune from lawsuits related to his actions as president.” [Politico, 2/15/24]
Trump Could Appeal The Decision At A Later Date. According to Politico, “But the decision from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals did not totally slam the door on Trump attempting to prove that the event was official. Under an agreement with the plaintiffs in those cases, Trump had a Thursday deadline to halt the effect of the appeals court decision by filing an appeal with the Supreme Court. None was filed as of Thursday evening, and his aides indicated none was expected. But Trump’s allies say he is leaving the door open to reviving a challenge to the ruling later in the process. He could try another appeal after the next round of fact-finding is complete, and the trial judge issues another ruling on whether the cases can proceed.” [Politico, 2/15/24]
March 19, 2024: Trump Asked To Pause Civil Lawsuits Against Him Over January 6 Until After The Conclusion Of His Federal Criminal Trial. According to the New York Times, “Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump asked a judge on Tuesday night to pause a group of civil lawsuits seeking to hold him accountable for the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, until after his federal criminal trial connected to the same events was over. The request by the lawyers to pause the civil cases was the latest example of Mr. Trump trying to pit his multiple legal matters against one another in an effort to delay them. In the past several weeks, the former president and his lawyers have managed to gum up each of the four criminal cases he is facing, sometimes by persuading judges that the timing of the various proceedings were in conflict with one another.” [New York Times, 3/19/24]
April 18, 2024: Judge Mehta Rejected Trump’s Request To Pause Civil Litigation Against Him Concerning The January 6 Attack On The Capitol. According to the Associated Press, “Donald Trump lost a bid Thursday to pause a string of lawsuits accusing him of inciting the U.S. Capitol attack, while the former president fights his 2020 election interference criminal case in Washington. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington denied defense lawyers’ request to put the civil cases seeking to hold Trump responsible for the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on hold while the criminal case accusing him of conspiring to overturn his election defeat to President Joe Biden plays out.” [Associated Press, 4/18/24]
January 5, 2023: The Estate Of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, Who Died The Day After Defending The Capitol During The January 6 Attack, Filed A Wrongful Death Suit Against Trump. According to the Wall Street Journal, “The estate of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who died a day after defending the Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack, sued Donald Trump on Thursday alleging that the officer’s death resulted from the former president’s ‘incendiary’ rhetoric and false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. In a 47-page lawsuit, lawyers for Mr. Sicknick’s estate said Mr. Trump ‘intentionally riled up the crowd and directed and encouraged a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol and attack those who opposed him.’ The lawsuit cited Mr. Trump’s speech at the Ellipse earlier that day, in which he urged a crowd of supporters to ‘fight like hell’ and march to the Capitol. ‘As a direct and foreseeable consequence of Defendant Trump’s false and incendiary allegations of fraud and theft, and in direct response to Defendant Trump’s express calls for violence at the rally, a violent mob attacked the U.S. Capitol,’ the lawsuit said.” [Wall Street Journal, 1/5/23]
Judge Mehta Was Assigned The Case. According to Kyle Cheney of Politico, “The lawsut filed by Brian SICKNICK's partner, Sandra Garza, has been assigned to Judge MEHTA and linked to a series of other lawsuits that are pending currently at the Appeals Court.” [Twitter - @kylecheney, 1/6/23]
August 14, 2023: Trump Asked A Judge To Pause The Suit Against Him. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump asked a judge to pause a civil lawsuit seeking to hold him liable for the violence at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — specifically, the death of a US Capitol Police officer — now that he’s facing criminal charges related to the attack. In a Monday court filing, the former president’s lawyers argued that the criminal indictment ‘substantially overlaps’ with the civil case. Having both go forward ‘would undoubtedly compromise either his right to defend himself in this case, his criminal defense, or both,’ his attorneys said.” [Bloomberg, 8/14/23]
October 18, 2023: Trump’s Motion To Delay Lawsuit Was Rejected. According to The Hill, “A federal judge on Wednesday denied former President Trump’s attempt to delay a lawsuit against him seeking civil damages over the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. After Trump was indicted on federal criminal charges stemming from the 2020 election and Jan. 6, his attorneys in August attempted to put the civil lawsuit on hold, citing substantial overlap. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta denied Trump’s stay motion in a brief order issued Wednesday, calling the request ‘unwarranted.’” [The Hill, 10/18/23]
Judge Mehta Dismissed Three Of Five Civil Counts Against Trump
Federal Judge Amit Mehta Dismissed Three Civil Counts Against Trump Filed By The Domestic Partner Of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick. According to the Messenger, “A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed most counts in a civil suit against Donald Trump and two other men in connection with the death of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick. In a 12-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta dismissed three of the five civil counts in a lawsuit filed last January by Sandra Garza, Sicknick's domestic partner. Sicknick responded to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol Building, where he was incapacitated after being sprayed with chemical spray and collapsed at about 10 p.m., according to court records. He was rushed to the hospital and died the next evening. The D.C. medical examiner's office found that Sicknick died of ‘natural causes’ from a series of strokes and that ‘all that transpired on [January 6] played a role in his condition.’ Garza's lawsuit against Trump and Jan. 6 rioters Julian Khater and George Tanios sought damages from all three men for claims of wrongful death, a claim under the D.C. Survival Act, conspiracy to violate civil rights, and negligence per se based on D.C.'s anti-riot law. The suit also alleged negligence per se against Khater and Tanios.” [Messenger, 1/2/24]
The Lawsuit’s Survival Act And Civil Rights Claims Were Allowed To Move Forward. According to the Messenger, “While it stands as a partial victory for the defendants, the ruling allows the lawsuit to move forward on both the Survival Act claim and the conspiracy to commit civil rights claim on which it is based.” [Messenger, 1/2/24]
February 28, 2024: Trump Media Co-Founders Andy Litinsky And Wes Moss Sued In Delaware Court That Trump Was Trying To Dilute Their Shares In Trump Media. According to the New York Times, “Two early founders of Trump Media & Technology Group have filed suit to preserve their ownership stake in the business, the parent company of the Truth Social online posting platform. The lawsuit, filed Wednesday under seal in Delaware Chancery Court by a partnership led by Wes Moss and Andy Litinsky, claims that Trump Media is trying to dilute its ownership stake in the company, of which Mr. Trump is a majority shareholder.” [New York Times, 3/1/24]
Litinsky And Moss Claimed That Trump Was Diluting Their Stake From 8.6% To Less Than 1% By Increasing The Amount Of Authorized Stock From 120 Million Shares To One Billion Shares. According to Forbes, “The suit alleges that when Litinsky and Moss pitched the idea to the former president they agreed he would receive 90% of the company’s stake and the pair and an attorney on the deal would split the remaining 10% stake, instead of receiving ‘fee or payment for [their] work’ in starting the company. UAV alleges the former president and other leaders recently attempted to ‘drastically dilute UAV’s interests,’ in what the filing describes as an ‘11th hour, pre-merger corporate maneuvering’ to increase the amount of authorized stock from 120 million shares to one billion shares. The suit alleges the former president and the Trump Media board planned to give new shares to ‘Trump and/or his associates and children,’ as part of a ‘dilution scheme’ that would reduce UAV’s stake from 8.6% down to less than 1%.” [Forbes, 2/29/24]
March 24, 2024: Trump Sued Trump Media Co-Founders Litinsky And Moss. According to the Associated Press, “Donald Trump is suing two co-founders of Trump Media & Technology Group, the newly public parent company of his Truth Social platform, arguing that they should forfeit their stock in the company because they set it up improperly.” [Associated Press, 4/2/24]
Trump Sought To Force Litinsky And Moss To Forfeit Their Shares. According to Bloomberg, " In the latest legal skirmish over who gets how much of the hot but flailing meme stock, Trump alleges that Andy Litinsky and Wes Moss violated an agreement about the setup and don’t deserve their 8.6% stake, currently valued at $606 million.” [Bloomberg, 4/2/24]
Trump Blamed Litinsky And Moss For Failing To Set Up Corporate Governance Structures, Launch Truth Social, And Find An Appropriate Merger Partner. According to Bloomberg, “Trump claims Litinsky and Moss failed to properly set up the corporate governance structure of Trump Media, launch his Truth Social platform and find an appropriate merger partner. That failure hurt the company, he argues. He says they then ‘began ceaseless attempts to thwart’ the blank check deal in the struggle for their respective stakes. In their own suit, the two say Trump was planning to seek millions of extra shares, diluting their stake.” [Bloomberg, 4/2/24]
Trump Claimed The Pair Tried To Block The Company’s Efforts To Go Public. According to the Associated Press, “But it also targets the pair over their Delaware suit against Trump, saying that it was one of several attempts they made to block Trump Media’s ultimately successful plan to go public. Trump Media accomplished that goal by merging with a publicly traded shell company called Digital World Acquisition in March.” [Associated Press, 4/2/24]
April 2, 2024: Delaware Judge Sam Glasscock III Threatened Sanctions Against Trump For Filing In Florida Rather That Making Counterclaims In The Already Existing Suit In Delaware. According to Bloomberg, “The judge said he was ‘gobsmacked’ to learn of Trump’s Florida suit — which he filed instead of bringing counterclaims against the two in Glasscock’s own courtroom — and would consider possible sanctions against the former president in the Delaware case.” [Bloomberg, 4/2/24]
April 11, 2024: Trump’s Deposition Cancelled Because The Judge Overseeing The Case Was Retiring. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump won’t be deposed on Monday after all in the case filed against him by two co-founders of his social-media startup, a person familiar with the matter said, resolving questions over a potentially significant conflict with the start of the former president’s first criminal trial. Trump Media & Technology Group Corp.’s co-founders Andy Litinsky and Wes Moss, who sued Trump for allegedly trying to dilute their 8.6% stake, will still seek to depose the former president at another time, said the person, who didn’t want to be identified discussing the plan before it’s public. The person said the plan to depose the presumptive Republican nominee for the November presidential election changed because the Delaware judge handling the case, Sam Glasscock III, is retiring and will be replaced.” [Bloomberg, 4/11/24]
March 24, 2022: Trump Sued Hillary Clinton, The Democratic National Committee, And Others For An Alleged Conspiracy Over Russian Collusion With Trump In The 2016 Campaign. According to NPR, “Former President Donald Trump has filed a sweeping RICO lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and others, alleging that they ‘maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that [Trump] was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty [Russia]’ to try and rig the 2016 election. ‘The Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a malicious conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information about Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hopes of destroying his life, his political career and rigging the 2016 Election in favor of Hillary Clinton,’ Trump's lawyers say in a 108-page lawsuit filed in Florida. ‘When their gambit failed, and Donald J. Trump was elected, the Defendants' efforts continued unabated, merely shifting their focus to undermining his presidential administration.’ The lawsuit, which contains debunked claims, seeks a jury trial and compensatory damages. It says Trump, as a result of defendants' actions, has sustained losses of at least $24 million ‘and continuing to accrue, as well as the loss of existing and future business opportunities.’” [NPR, 3/24/22]
September 9, 2022: Federal Judge Dismissed Trump’s Suit, Calling It “Unsupported By Any Legal Authority.” According to CNN, “A federal judge has dismissed former President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, several ex-FBI officials and more than two dozen other people and entities that he claims conspired to undermine his 2016 campaign by trying to vilify him with fabricated information tying him to Russia. US District Judge Donald Middlebrooks dismissed the lawsuit Thursday, saying ‘most of Plaintiff’s claims are not only unsupported by any legal authority but plainly foreclosed by binding precedent.’ ‘What (Trump’s lawsuit) lacks in substance and legal support it seeks to substitute with length, hyperbole, and the settling of scores and grievances,’ Middlebrooks, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote.” [CNN, 9/9/22]
October 31, 2022: Clinton Requested Trump Pay Her Legal Fees And Impose Sanctions. According to The Hill, “Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is asking a federal court to order former President Trump to pay her legal fees over a suit he filed alleging she and others engaged in a conspiracy to undermine his 2016 campaign with accusations of Russian collusion. In a motion filed on Monday, Clinton’s attorneys cast Trump’s suit — which was dismissed by a federal trial court in September, a move the former president has appealed — as a ‘political stunt’ and argued it met the threshold for the court to impose sanctions. ‘A reasonable attorney would never have filed this suit, let alone continued to prosecute it after multiple Defendants’ motions to dismiss highlighted its fundamental and incurable defects,’ Clinton’s attorneys wrote.” [The Hill, 10/31/22]
November 10, 2022: Trump’s Lawyers Sanctioned $50,000 Plus The Legal Fees For One Of The Defense Attorneys. According to CNBC, “A federal judge Thursday sanctioned attorneys for former President Donald Trump to pay $50,000 as penalty for advancing a ‘frivolous’ lawsuit against a raft of Trump’s political enemies, including Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. Judge Donald Middlebrooks’ scathing order in Florida federal court suggested Trump’s lawyers had undermined the rule of law by pushing a political narrative in court ‘without factual basis or any cognizable legal theory.’ ‘Additional sanctions may be appropriate,’ the judge noted, after suggesting the lawyers’ behavior may require the ‘attention of the Bar and disciplinary authorities.’ The sanctions — which also require Trump’s lawyers to compensate a defense attorney’s legal fees — came two months after Middlebrooks had tossed out the suit, describing it as a ‘two-hundred-page political manifesto.’” [CNBC, 11/10/22]
January 19, 2023: Judge Middlebrooks Ordered Trump And His Attorney Habba To Pay Nearly $1 Million In Sanctions For Filing A Frivolous Lawsuit Against Nearly Three Dozen Entities. According to the New York Times, “In a scathing ruling, a federal judge in Florida on Thursday ordered Donald J. Trump and one of his lawyers together to pay nearly a million dollars in sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit against nearly three dozen of Mr. Trump’s perceived political enemies, including Hillary Clinton and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey. The ruling was a significant rebuke of Mr. Trump, who has rarely faced such consequences in his long history of using the courts as a weapon against business rivals and partners, as well as former employees and reporters. […] The judge said Mr. Trump and the lawyer who filed the case for him, Alina Habba, and her firm, Habba Madaio & Associates, were to pay $937,989.39.” [New York Times, 1/19/23]
February 6, 2023: Trump Appealed Decision Imposing $1 Million In Sanctions On Him And His Attorney Alina Habba. According to CNBC, “Former President Donald Trump and one of his lawyers said Monday they are appealing nearly $1 million in sanctions imposed on them for what a federal judge called their ‘frivolous’ lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and more than two dozen other defendants. The court filing about the appeal came days after a lawyer for Trump and his attorney Alina Habba told the judge in the case they were willing to put up a bond of $1,031,788 to cover the costs of the sanctions while the federal Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit considered the matter.” [CNBC, 2/6/23]
July 27, 2023: Trump Filed A Motion For An Indicative Ruling To Try To Revive His RICO Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton, The Democratic National Committee, And Other People And Entities. According to CNN, “Thursday, Trump launched a Hail Mary bid – relying on the recent report from special counsel John Durham that criticized the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe – to revive the sprawling RICO lawsuit he filed against Hillary Clinton, Democratic National Committee, several ex-FBI officials and more than two dozen other people and entities. The move by US District Judge Donald Middlebrooks to dismiss the Trump lawsuit and to order sanctions against Trump lawyers involved in it was already on appeal at the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals. But the Trump team is now attempting a maneuver known as a motion for an indicative ruling, which allows for a trial court to take back jurisdiction of a case that’s already on appeal in order to consider new evidence or other issues that hadn’t been appropriately resolved.” [CNN, 7/28/23]
February 28, 2024: Trump Urged The 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals To Reverse The $937,989 Fine He And His Attorney Received For Filing A “Frivolous” Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump is battling to reverse a $937,989 fine levied against him by a federal judge in Florida last year for bringing ‘frivolous’ claims against Hillary Clinton — yet another effort by the former president to fight a string of costly courtroom losses. Trump and his lawyer Alina Habba, who are jointly liable for the Florida fine, on Tuesday urged the federal appeals court in Atlanta to vacate a sanction they say was a ‘clear error’ made by a politically biased judge. Trump is the Republican frontrunner in the 2024 presidential election.” [Bloomberg, 2/28/24]
Background
July 7, 2021: Trump Sued Twitter, Facebook, And YouTube In Florida Court. According to the Associated Press, “Former President Donald Trump has filed suit against three of the country’s biggest tech companies, claiming he and other conservatives have been wrongfully censored. But legal experts say the suits are likely doomed to fail, given existing precedent and legal protections. Trump announced the action against Facebook, Twitter and Google’s YouTube, along with the companies’ Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey and Sundar Pichai, at a press conference Wednesday in New Jersey, where he demanded that his accounts be reinstated. Trump has been suspended from the platforms since January, when his followers violently stormed the Capitol building, trying to block Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s presidential win. The companies cited concerns that Trump would incite further violence and have kept him locked out. All three declined comment Wednesday.” [Associated Press, 7/7/21]
October 27, 2021: Judge Ruled Trump’s Suit Must Be Held In California Due To The Forum Selection Clause. According to the Associated Press, “Former President Donald Trump’s lawsuit to get his Twitter account restored must be heard in a California court, not a Florida one, under a user agreement covering everyone on the social media platform, a federal judge ruled. U.S. District Judge Robert Scola in Miami rejected Trump’s contention that because his Twitter account was suspended during his last days as president the California court requirement did not apply to him. The requirement, known as a forum selection clause, was in force when Trump originally joined Twitter as a private citizen in 2009, Scola wrote in his order issued Wednesday. ‘First, Trump’s former status as the president of the United States does not preclude the application of the forum selection clause. Second, the forum selection clause is valid and mandatory,’ Scola wrote in a 13-page order.” [Associated Press, 10/27/21]
May 6, 2022: Federal Judge Dismissed Trump’s Suit. According to the Washington Post, “A California judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit that Donald Trump filed against Twitter, the latest blow to the former president’s high-profile battles with major tech companies over their decisions to suspend his accounts in the fallout of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The lawsuit, which Trump initially filed last year in Florida along with suits targeting Google and Facebook, was viewed as part of a broader strategy to appeal to conservatives who have long argued that social media companies unfairly censor their viewpoints. The judge’s dismissal comes after Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk announced his plans to buy Twitter, taking issue over content moderation decisions he views as limiting free speech — and raising speculation that Trump could return to the platform. In the ruling, U.S. District Judge James Donato rejected Trump’s argument that Twitter was operating as a ‘state actor’ when it suspended his account in January 2021, calling it not plausible. Trump had claimed that Twitter was constrained by the First Amendment’s restrictions on government limitations of free speech because it had acted in cooperation with government officials.” [Washington Post, 5/6/22]
November 14, 2022: Trump Appealed Decision To The 9th Circuit. According to Reuters, “Former U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday asked a U.S. appeals court to revive his lawsuit against Twitter Inc challenging his permanent suspension from the platform after his supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Lawyers for Trump, a Republican, told the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a filing that the ban from Twitter marked ‘overtly partisan censorship’ and was ‘contrary to First Amendment principles deeply rooted in American history and law.’ His lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and a court order requiring Twitter to ‘immediately reinstate’ his account that was permanently suspended on Jan. 8, 2021.” [Reuters, 11/14/22]
May 3, 2023: Trump Claimed In A Court Filing That Elon Musk’s Release Of Internal Files Showed That Trump Was Illegally Censored By Twitter. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump says Elon Musk’s release of internal files at Twitter Inc. show it was illegal censorship when he was banned on the platform for stoking the Jan. 6 insurrection. The ex-president said in a court filing Wednesday it’s not enough that Twitter, under the new ownership of Musk, welcomed him back onto the platform late last year — an invitation he so far has snubbed. He’s now asking the judge who threw out his legal challenge to the ban to reopen the lawsuit in light of ‘new evidence’ — and validate his claim that he never should have been kicked off two days after his supporters stormed the US Capitol.” [Bloomberg, 5/3/23]
Twitter Said The Dispute Was Moot Since Trump’s Account Was Reinstated. According to Bloomberg, “After Trump appealed Donato’s ruling, Twitter’s lawyers argued to the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the fight is moot because Musk reinstated Trump’s account.” [Bloomberg, 5/3/23]
October 2023: A Three Judge Panel Of The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Heard Arguments In The Case. According to Politico, “A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard Trump’s lawyer contend that Twitter, now known as X, acted at the behest of members of Congress and other U.S. government officials when it deplatformed Trump in January 2021, shortly after thousands of his supporters stormed the Capitol. The company said at the time that Trump’s tweets — including one in which he declared he would not be attending Joe Biden’s inauguration — were ‘highly likely’ to incite further violence.” [Politico, 10/4/23]
October 29, 2018: A Class Action Suit Was Filed Against Trump For Fraud For Advertising On Behalf Of ACN. According to CNN, “President Donald Trump, his three eldest children and his company are accused in a class action lawsuit filed Monday in Manhattan federal court of using their brand to make millions by coaxing unsophisticated investors to participate in fraudulent schemes. Filed on behalf of four anonymous individuals, the lawsuit accuses the President and his children Eric, Donald Jr. and Ivanka Trump of promoting what they described as promising business opportunities with three companies in exchange for ‘secret’ payments: ACN Opportunity, a telecommunications marketing company; the Trump Network, a vitamin and health product marketing company; and the Trump Institute, a seminar program that ‘purported to sell Trump’s ‘secrets to success.’’ The suit claims that the Trumps in fact ‘deliberately misled’ consumers about the likely success of their investments. The 160-page lawsuit further claims the Trumps engaged in ‘a pattern of racketeering activity’ and ‘were aware that the vast majority of consumers would lose whatever money they invested in the business opportunities and training programs’ offered by the three companies. None of the three companies is named as a defendant.” [CNN, 10/29/18]
July 24, 2019: Federal Judge Ruled Lawsuit Against Trump And His Children For Promoting Sham Marketing Opportunities Could Proceed. According to Reuters, “A federal judge on Wednesday said U.S. President Donald Trump and his adult children must face part of a lawsuit alleging they used their family name to promote sham marketing opportunities, but dismissed racketeering claims at the center of the case. U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield in Manhattan said the plaintiffs, including investors in a Trump-endorsed business called American Communications Network, could pursue state law-based claims of fraud, false advertising and unfair competition.” [Reuters, 7/24/19]
October 2022: Trump Was Deposed In Lawsuit Concerning Failed Videophone Business. According to Bloomberg, “Lawyers for investors who claim they were defrauded by Donald Trump more than a decade ago finally got a chance to depose the former president about his marketing of a failed videophone venture on ‘Celebrity Apprentice,’ according to a person familiar with the matter. A New York judge had ordered Trump to sit for questions in the videophone case by Oct. 31, after a planned testimony date was derailed by Hurricane Ian and triggered a fierce war of words between lawyers for plaintiffs and Trump. The deposition, which occurred earlier this month, hadn’t been reported. It’s one of several depositions Trump has had to sit for recently. He was deposed in a separate case Wednesday for a defamation suit brought by New York author E. Jean Carroll. She alleges he raped her in a department store dressing room two decades ago and defamed her when he denied it. Trump, his company and his three oldest children were sued in 2018 by four investors who claim they were duped by Trump’s promotions into paying thousands of dollars to become independent sellers with ACN Opportunity LLC, which sold a doomed videophone device that the future US president touted as the next big thing. The clunky devices were made obsolete by smartphones.” [Bloomberg, 10/20/22]
May 19, 2023: Ivanka, Eric, And Donald Jr. Were Dropped As Defendants From The Lawsuit. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump won’t be joined by his children when he goes to trial in a civil suit alleging he ripped off viewers of his Celebrity Apprentice TV show for years by pitching investments in a doomed desktop videophone — a device he insisted was the next big thing. Former Trump fans who filed the suit five years ago voluntarily dropped Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump as defendants to streamline the dispute ahead of a trial set for January, according to a stipulation between the parties signed Friday by the judge overseeing the case.” [Bloomberg, 5/19/23]
October 17, 2023: A Federal Judge Rejected Certifying A Class Action In The ACN Lawsuit Against Trump. According to Politico, “Trump did notch a legal win Tuesday in a lower-profile civil case where he is a defendant. A federal judge in Manhattan turned down a bid to certify a class action in a five-year-old suit against the former president for fraud over his role in marketing a business-services company, ACN. The ruling, from Obama appointee Lorna Schofield, is likely to sharply limit the amount of damages Trump may have to pay.” [Politico, 10/17/23]
January 2024: A Federal Judge Dismissed A Lawsuit Alleging Trump Was Involved With A Fraudulent Marketing Company. According to CNN, “A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit alleging Donald Trump was involved with a fraudulent marketing company several weeks before it was set to go to trial. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2018, alleges that in exchange for ‘secret’ payments totaling millions of dollars, Trump used his reality TV show ‘The Celebrity Apprentice’ and other promotional events as vehicles to boost ACN Opportunity, a telecommunications marketing company linked to a nonprofit that used Trump’s brand to appeal to teens. The lawsuit alleges the scheme preyed on investors – including by recruiting teenagers, promising them success as ‘The Trumps of Tomorrow.’” [CNN, 1/12/24]
The Judge Ruled That Since The Class Action Status Was Denied, The Case Would Be Better Tried In State, Not Federal Court. According to CNN, “District Judge Lorna Schofield said the case, which was previously denied class action status, would be better tried in state court than in federal court and said the plaintiffs are permitted to file their claims there. ‘Because this case now involves only three individual plaintiffs asserting claims under their respective states’ laws, it is not better suited for adjudication in this court than in state court, particularly those of California, Maryland and Pennsylvania,’ the judge wrote. ‘Even though discovery has been completed and certain motions decided, retaining jurisdiction would not serve economy or convenience,’ the order said.” [CNN, 1/12/24]
October 3, 2022: Trump Sued CNN For $475 Million For Defamation Because Of Their Use Of The Term “Big Lie” Regarding Trump’s Claim Of Election Fraud In 2020. According to PBS, “Former President Donald Trump on Monday sued CNN, seeking $475 million in damages, saying the network had defamed him in an effort to short-circuit any future political campaign. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, focuses primarily on the term ‘The Big Lie’ about Trump’s false claims of widespread fraud that he says cost him the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden. There was no immediate comment from CNN. Trump repeatedly attacked CNN as president, which resonated with his conservative followers. He has similarly filed lawsuits against big tech companies with little success. His case against Twitter for knocking him off its platform following the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol insurrection was thrown out by a California judge earlier this year.” [PBS, 10/3/22]
June 16, 2023: Citing “Irreconcilable Differences,” Trump Lawyer Trusty Withdrew From CNN Defamation Lawsuit. According to Politico, “Former President Donald Trump’s attorney Jim Trusty, who withdrew from representing Trump in a pair of federal criminal probes last week, pulled out of yet another Trump legal matter Friday, citing ‘irreconcilable differences’ with the former president. In a filing with the U.S. District Court of Southern Florida, Trusty indicated his intention to withdraw from Trump’s pending defamation lawsuit against CNN. The longshot lawsuit, which Trump filed last October, accuses the network of maligning him as a ‘‘racist,’ ‘Russian lackey,’ ‘insurrectionist,’ and ultimately ‘Hitler.’ ‘Mr. Trusty’s withdrawal is based upon irreconcilable differences between Counsel and Plaintiff and Counsel can no longer effectively and properly represent Plaintiff,’ Trusty wrote in the filing, which he signed.” [Politico, 6/16/23]
July 28, 2023: Judge Dismissed Trump’s $475 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN. According to Politico, “A federal judge late Friday dismissed Donald Trump’s $475 million defamation lawsuit against CNN, in which the former president argued that the cable network’s statements about his false 2020 election fraud claims likened him to Adolf Hitler.” [Politico, 7/29/23]
Judge Singhal Ruled That The Statements Made Were Opinion And Thus Not Subject To Defamation. According to Politico, In the lawsuit, Trump’s team argued that CNN writers and television anchors’ use of the phrase the “Big Lie,” in five specific incidents, incited “readers and viewers to hate, contempt, distrust, ridicule, and even fear” him. But U.S. District Judge Raag Singhal, who Trump appointed in 2019, reasoned that because all of CNN’s statements were opinion, Trump could not legally sue the network for defamation.” [Politico, 7/29/23]
February 26, 2024: Trump Paid $392,000 To The New York Times To Cover The Legal Costs Over His Failed Defamation Lawsuit. According to CNN, “Donald Trump has paid $392,000 to The New York Times to cover the legal costs from his failed lawsuit against the newspaper and its journalists over a 2018 investigation into his finances that included confidential tax records, a spokesman for the Times told CNN on Monday. Trump was ordered to pay the money in January, more than eight months after Judge Robert R. Reed granted the Times’ motion to dismiss the case against it and its journalists, concluding the journalists’ conduct was protected by the New York Constitution.” [CNN, 2/26/24]
December 13, 2022: Trump Filed A Lawsuit Against The Pulitzer Prize Board For Defamation For Awarding Prizes To “Now-Debunked” Reporting On Trump’s Ties To Russia. According to Fox News, “Former President Trump filed a defamation lawsuit on Tuesday against the Pulitzer Prize Board over the 2018 National Reporting prizes given to The New York Times and Washington Post for coverage of ‘now-debunked theory’ of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Trump’s suit, filed Tuesday in Okeechobee County, Florida, was obtained by Fox News Digital. It states that a ‘demonstrably false connection was and remains the stated basis’ for the coverage that received the prestigious award.” [Fox News, 12/13/22]
March 7: Trump Deposed Journalists About Who Was Consulted For The Review That Let The New York Times And Washington Post Keep Their Pulitzers From The Russia Investigation. According to Business Insider, “In an overlooked lawsuit, Donald Trump's lawyers are exhibiting a habit from his White House days: Hunting for anonymous sources. In transcripts of four depositions obtained by Business Insider, Trump's attorneys had the opportunity to question journalists about a mystery that has vexed them for years: Who are the anonymous consultants who reviewed the Pulitzer Prizes awarded to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of Trump's connections to Russia? The depositions were taken last year for a lawsuit Trump brought in December 2022, suing the Pulitzer Prize Board, which administers American journalism's highest honors. He accused the board and its 18 members of defaming him by awarding the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting to The Washington Post and The New York Times for their coverage of Russia's interference in the 2016 election and the country's connections to Trump's presidential campaign and administration. In his lawsuit, Trump complained that journalists and the Pulitzer board conspired together as part of a larger ‘Russia Collusion Hoax,’ which the former president claimed was ‘fully debunked.’” [Business Insider, 3/7/24]
November 2017: Jessica Denson Sued The 2016 Trump Campaign For Harassment And Defamation. According to Bloomberg, “Denson sued in state court in November 2017 seeking $25 million in damages for the alleged harassment and defamation. The Trump campaign then made a $1.5 million arbitration claim, saying Denson had breached the confidentiality and non-disparagement obligations of the NDA.” [Bloomberg, 7/23/19]
Trump Claimed That Denson Violated A Nondisclosure Agreement And Sought $1.5 Million In Damages. According to Bloomberg, “Denson sued in state court in November 2017 seeking $25 million in damages for the alleged harassment and defamation. The Trump campaign then made a $1.5 million arbitration claim, saying Denson had breached the confidentiality and non-disparagement obligations of the NDA.” [Bloomberg, 7/23/19]
March 26, 2018: Denton Sued To Void A Nondisclosure Agreement. According to NBC News, “A Los Angeles woman who worked for President Donald Trump’s campaign has filed a federal lawsuit in Manhattan to void a confidentiality agreement she signed, claiming the agreement has been ‘weaponized’ to silence her allegations of discrimination. Jessica Denson, a journalist and actress, said in court documents filed on March 26 that she was consistently disparaged and sexually and verbally harassed by her supervisor while working for the campaign as a phone bank administrator and later as the Hispanic outreach coordinator.” [NBC News, 4/2/18]
July 23, 2019: Trump 2016 Campaign Awarded $52,230 For Breach Of Nondisclosure Agreement. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was awarded $52,230 in a dispute with a former campaign staffer over her breach of a non-disclosure agreement. Jessica Denson, a Los Angeles-based actress who worked on Trump’s campaign in August 2016, sued in federal court to void her NDA in order to pursue a separate state lawsuit in which she claims she was harassed and defamed by her superiors.” [Bloomberg, 7/23/19]
February 6, 2020: New York Appeals Court Overturned Award. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign lost a court battle with a former staffer who allegedly violated a non-disclosure agreement by going public with claims she was harassed and defamed by her superiors. A New York appeals court on Thursday overturned an almost $50,000 arbitration award against the former worker, Jessica Denson, for breaching the NDA’s confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions by making her allegations in a lawsuit. Denson, a Los Angeles-based actress who worked on Trump’s campaign in August 2016, argued there was no way for her to challenge the validity of the broadly worded NDA without disclosing some factual allegations about the campaign. The court agreed.” [Bloomberg, 2/6/20]
March 30, 2021: Judge Gardephe Nullified The Nondisclosure Agreement. According to the New York Times, “An effort by former President Donald J. Trump’s campaign to silence a former campaign worker who claimed she was the target of abusive treatment and sexual harassment by another member of Mr. Trump’s campaign was effectively voided on Tuesday by a federal court judge in New York. Judge Paul G. Gardephe nullified a confidentiality agreement signed in 2016 by Jessica Denson, who had worked on Mr. Trump’s campaign that year as a phone bank supervisor and Hispanic outreach coordinator. Judge Gardephe concluded the agreement was ‘invalid and unenforceable.’” [New York Times, 3/30/21]
January 24, 2023: Former Trump Campaign Chief Executive Bannon Ordered To Testify. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon was ordered to testify under oath in a long-running sex-discrimination lawsuit against the former president’s 2016 campaign by a former staffer, who claims she was harassed by a male colleague who got angry when she was promoted.” [Bloomberg, 1/25/23]
January 30, 2023: Judge Ruled That Trump’s 2016 Campaign Must Disclose How Much They Would Pay To Settle Nondisclosure Agreement Lawsuit With Jessica Denson In Order To Finalize Deal. According to Bloomberg, “Former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign must disclose the amount of money it would pay to settle a long-running court fight with a former staffer over its nondisclosure agreements, if it wants to go ahead with the deal, a judge ruled. Lawyers for the Trump campaign and Jessica Denson reached a deal earlier this month to end the former worker’s challenge to the validity of agreements that staffers, volunteers, and contractors had to sign to work on Trump’s 2016 presidential bid.” [Bloomberg, 1/30/23]
October 12, 2023: A Federal Judge Voided The Nondisclosure Agreements Of All 422 Members Of Trump’s 2016 Campaign And Awarded Denson Her Settlement. According to the Daily Beast, “Former Trump campaign aide Jessica Denson scored a long-fought and sweeping victory over her ex-boss on Thursday, when a federal judge voided the 2016 campaign’s nondisclosure agreement as overly restrictive. In addition to awarding Denson her settlement (amount undisclosed), the ruling frees every member of the 2016 campaign from the agreement, allowing 422 former employees to speak about their experiences without fear of violating their contract. (The order notes that during negotiations the Trump campaign voluntarily released those employees.) The legal muzzle the campaign placed on its employees was so sweeping that it was ‘invalid and unenforceable,’ the judge ruled. Denson, who accused the Trump campaign of sexual discrimination, previously won a lawsuit focused on her personal NDA, then expanded the effort to include the full campaign.” [Daily Beast, 10/12/23]
September 24, 2020: Mary Trump Sued Her Uncle, Donald Trump, Alleging That He Conspired To Defraud Her Of Tens Of Millions Of Dollars. According to Bloomberg, “President Donald Trump was sued by his niece Mary for allegedly conspiring with his brother and sister to defraud her of tens of millions of dollars using false documents and bogus loans. The suit filed Thursday by Mary Trump comes two months after the publication of her damning tell-all book about the family, which the president’s late brother, Robert Trump, failed to halt in court. Mary Trump’s suit, which focuses on the settlement of disputed wills, brings to light more potentially damaging allegations less than six weeks before the presidential election.” [Bloomberg, 9/24/20]
Mary Trump Claimed That Trump, His Brother Robert, And Sister Maryanne, Failed To Protect Her Interests She Received Following The Death Of Her Father Fred. According to Bloomberg, “She claims Donald Trump, along with Robert Trump and their sister Maryanne, failed to follow through on a pledge to ‘watch over her interests as fiduciaries’ after she inherited minority interests in the family business following the death of her father Fred Trump Jr., the president’s older brother, according to the complaint. ‘They lied,’ the complaint says. ‘Rather than protect Mary’s interests, they designed and carried out a complex scheme to siphon funds away from her interests, conceal their grift, and deceive her about the true value of what she had inherited.’” [Bloomberg, 9/24/20]
Mary Trump Claimed That Trump And His Siblings Siphoned Money With Bogus Loans, Threatened To Bankrupt Her, And Cut Her Off From Health Insurance Her Nephew With Cerebral Palsy Needed. According to Bloomberg, “The suit includes claims that when Donald Trump’s father, Fred, died in 1999, Trump and his siblings tried to ‘squeeze Mary out altogether.’ She accused her aunt and uncles of siphoning money from her interests by using bogus loans, among other things. They also allegedly threatened to bankrupt Mary Trump’s interests and cut her off from the health insurance she claims was keeping her infant nephew with cerebral palsy alive.” [Bloomberg, 9/24/20]
Mary Trump Alleged That She Received Fraudulent Valuations Of The Family Business When She Was “Forced […] To Sign” A 2001 Settlement. According to Bloomberg, “Crucially, Mary Trump claims, the president and his siblings gave her fraudulent valuations as part of a 2001 settlement agreement over the wills and ‘forced her to sign.’ The family members all signed a confidentiality agreement as part of the settlement. Robert Trump, who died in August, sued Mary Trump in a failed effort to block the publication of her tell-all memoir, ‘Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man.’ She claims in the book that when she agreed to the settlement she was told the family estate was worth $30 million, while paperwork she unearthed years later show it was worth closer to $1 billion.” [Bloomberg, 9/24/20]
November 15, 2022: Mary Trump’s Suit Was Dismissed Because Trump Was Not Required To Be Truthful In 2001 Agreement. According to Bloomberg, “Former President Donald Trump won dismissal of a multi-million dollar fraud lawsuit filed by his niece, Mary, who accused him and his siblings of defrauding her of her minority share of the family business. A 2001 family settlement agreement in which Mary Trump cashed out of her inheritance ‘unambiguously’ waived her right to file any future claims against her famous uncle and aunt, former federal judge Maryanne Trump, according to a ruling Monday by New York Supreme Court Justice Robert Reed. Reed said the accord didn’t mandate the elder Trumps to be truthful. ‘The settlement did not require defendants to make true and correct representations to the plaintiff,’ the judge said. ‘If plaintiff did not wish to forego suing on fraud she might discover in the future, she could have insisted that the releases be conditioned on the truth and accuracy of the financial information provided by defendants.’” [Bloomberg, 11/15/22]
December 6, 2022: Mary Trump Asked The New York Court Of Appeals To Reinstate The Lawsuit Because The Judge Wrongfully Ignored Evidence. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump’s niece Mary asked a New York appeals court to reinstate a lawsuit that accused the former president and his siblings of cheating her out of her share of the family fortune. Mary Trump’s case was dismissed last month by a Manhattan judge who ruled she had ‘unambiguously’ waived her right to sue by signing a 2001 family settlement agreement to cash out her inheritance. In an appeal brief filed late Monday, she argued that the judge wrongfully ignored evidence that she signed the agreement under threat.” [Bloomberg, 12/6/22]
2021: Trump Filed A Suit Against The New York Times And Its Reporters Accusing Them Of Seeking Out Mary Trump As A Source And Convincing Her To Turn Over Trump’s Confidential Tax Records. According to the Associated Press, “Donald Trump’s lawsuit, filed in 2021, accused the Times and its reporters of relentlessly seeking out Mary Trump as a source of information and convincing her to turn over confidential tax records. He claimed the reporters were aware her prior settlement agreement barred her from disclosing the documents, which she’d received in a dispute over family patriarch Fred Trump’s estate.” [Associated Press, 1/12/24]
May 2023: The New York Times And Its Reporters Were Dismissed From The Case. According to the Associated Press, “The newspaper and reporters Susanne Craig, David Barstow and Russell Buettner were dismissed from the lawsuit in May. Trump’s claim against his estranged niece, Mary Trump, that she breached a prior settlement agreement by giving tax records to the reporters is still pending. New York Judge Robert Reed said that given the ‘complexity of the issues’ in the case and other factors, it was reasonable that Donald Trump be forced to pay lawyers for the Times and the reporters a total of $392,638 in legal fees.” [Associated Press, 1/12/24]
January 2024: Trump Was Ordered To Pay $392,638 In Legal Fees To The New York Times And Three Reporters After Unsuccessfully Suing Them Over A Pulitzer Prize-Winning Story. According to the Associated Press, “Former President Donald Trump was ordered Friday to pay nearly $400,000 in legal fees to The New York Times and three investigative reporters after he sued them unsuccessfully over a Pulitzer Prize-winning 2018 story about his family’s wealth and tax practices. […] New York Judge Robert Reed said that given the ‘complexity of the issues’ in the case and other factors, it was reasonable that Donald Trump be forced to pay lawyers for the Times and the reporters a total of $392,638 in legal fees.” [Associated Press, 1/12/24]
Trump’s Suit Against Mary Trump Was Still Pending. According to the Associated Press, “The newspaper and reporters Susanne Craig, David Barstow and Russell Buettner were dismissed from the lawsuit in May. Trump’s claim against his estranged niece, Mary Trump, that she breached a prior settlement agreement by giving tax records to the reporters is still pending.” [Associated Press, 1/12/24]
January 30, 2023: Trump Sued Bob Woodward, Publisher Simon & Schuster, And Schuster’s Parent Company Paramount Global For Almost $50 Million For Releasing An Audiobook Of Interviews Trump Did With Woodward. According to Bloomberg, “Former President Donald Trump is suing journalist Bob Woodward for releasing recordings of interviews that he gave to the journalist in 2019 and 2020, claiming he never agreed to those tapes being shared with the public. In a lawsuit filed Monday against Woodward, Simon & Schuster Inc., and the publisher’s parent company Paramount Global, Trump claimed that although he had given Woodward consent to record their conversations ‘for the sole purpose of a book,’ that didn’t extend to packaging those recordings as an audiobook. ‘This case centers on Mr. Woodward’s systematic usurpation, manipulation, and exploitation of audio of President Trump,’ Trump’s lawyers wrote. The complaint alleges violations of Trump’s copyright interests and accuses Woodward and the publisher of unjustly profiting from the tapes. Trump is seeking just under $50 million in damages, a figure his lawyers calculated assuming Woodward would sell two million copies of the audiobook at a download price of $24.99.” [Bloomberg, 1/30/23]
April 3, 2023: Woodward Moved To Dismiss Trump’s Lawsuit. According to Business Insider, “Attorneys for Woodward, his publisher, Simon & Shuster, and parent company Paramount say the case should just be thrown out. In a motion to dismiss, filed Monday, lawyers for the defendants note that the former president never filed his own copyright registration for the works in question. And, they argue, it would not even matter if he did because government employees simply cannot claim ownership of things they said to a journalist while in public office.” [Business Insider, 4/7/23]
June 2023: Trump Argued In A New Court Filing That His Lawsuit Against Woodward And Simon & Schuster Should Proceed. According to Publishers Weekly, “In a filing last week, lawyers for former president Donald Trump argued that Trump's $50 million copyright lawsuit against bestselling author Bob Woodward and publisher Simon & Schuster over the audiobook, The Trump Tapes: The Historical Record, should be allowed to proceed. First filed in January, then amended on April 24, the suit accuses Woodward of improperly turning his recorded voice interviews with Trump, gathered in connection with a series of interviews that were initially recorded for Woodward’s 2021 book Rage, into an audiobook. The suit seeks a declaratory judgment acknowledging Trump's ‘full copyright interest’ in the voice recordings. And based on some very murky math, the suit seeks ‘compensatory, punitive damages and disgorgement’ of ‘at least $49,980,000.’” [Publishers Weekly, 7/3/23]
August 2023: Judge Rogers Ruled That Trump’s Lawsuit Against Woodward Be Transferred To The Southern District Of New York. According to the Pensacola News Journal, “Amid former President Donald Trump's ever-growing legal trouble in various courts around the country, a Pensacola-based federal judge ruled Trump's $50 million copyright lawsuit against famed journalist Bob Woodward must be transferred to a New York court. Federal Judge M. Casey Rodgers ordered that the ‘venue in this district is 'wrong' and ‘improper’ earlier in August, saying Trump's lawsuit must continue in the Southern District of New York. ‘The clerk is directed to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as the court concludes that district is the most appropriate and convenient forum for the parties and witnesses and the one with the strongest connection to the dispute,’ the judge's order said.” [Pensacola News Journal, 8/31/23]
November 20, 2020: Trump And His Reelection Campaign Were Sued By A Group Of Michigan Voters Over Mass Voter Suppression. According to Politico, “A group of Michigan voters has sued Donald Trump and his reelection campaign, asserting the president’s legal challenges to the 2020 election violated the rights of Black voters. In a lawsuit filed in D.C. federal court Friday, the group alleged the Trump campaign is attempting mass voter suppression — particularly among Black voters — by pressuring election officials into not certifying the election results in their state.” [Politico, 11/20/20]
December 22, 2020: The Amended Complaint Alleged Trump Violated The Ku Klux Klan Act. According to Law & Crime, “Outgoing President Donald Trump’s post-election campaign of ‘intimidation and coercion of election officials and volunteers’ targets Black voters in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act of the early Jim Crow era, civil right groups claim in a new complaint. Joining a lawsuit originally brought by the Detroit-based Michigan Welfare Rights Organization last month, the NAACP and three Black voters from the Motor City — Maureen Taylor, Nicole L. Hill and Teasha K. Jones — likened Trump and his campaign’s tactics to those of the white supremacist group. The original complaint only went so far as to accuse Trump of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” [Law & Crime, 12/22/20]
April 1, 2022: Judge Sullivan Ruled That Trump Did Not Have To Face Allegations That He Violated The Voting Rights Act, But Withheld Decision On Whether Trump Violated The Ku Klux Klan Act. According to Law & Crime, “Donald Trump and the Republican party do not have to face allegations that they violated the Voting Rights Act in the 2020 presidential election, a federal judge ruled on Friday. The judge withheld ruling on whether Trump and the GOP must face claims that they violated the Ku Klux Klan Act, which for now survives intact. Trump and the RNC lost a separate motion to transfer the remaining litigation away from the Democratic stronghold jurisdiction of Washington, D.C.” [Law & Crime, 4/1/22]
November 28, 2022: Judge Sullivan Granted The NAACP’s Motion To Proceed With An Amended Complaint Against Trump. According to the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund, “Yesterday, a federal court ruled in favor of the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) and its clients in Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al., a lawsuit alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act and another federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, by former President Trump, the Trump Campaign, and the Republican National Committee. LDF and co-counsel Jenner & Block represent the NAACP and the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization in this case. The Court’s ruling will allow LDF and co-counsel to proceed with filing a second amended complaint on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Complaint alleges that former President Trump sought to prevent the counting and certification of legally cast ballots in an effort to overturn the will of the voters and ensure that then-President Trump remained in office despite losing the 2020 election. The Complaint further alleges that there is a substantial risk that President Trump, and the other Defendants, will engage in similar election subversion measures in the future, in violation of Plaintiffs’ federal civil rights.” [NAACP Legal Defense Fund, 11/29/22]
March 7, 2019: Former Trump Lawyer Cohen Sued The Trump Organization For $3.8 Million In Legal Fees. According to Reuters, “Michael Cohen, the former personal lawyer of U.S. President Donald Trump, on Thursday sued the Trump Organization, saying it reneged on its obligation to reimburse him for millions of dollars of legal fees and costs related to his work. In a complaint filed in the New York state supreme court in Manhattan, Cohen said the Trump Organization stopped paying him last May after it became clear he would cooperate with various probes into his work. These include Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian influence in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, as well as multiple congressional probes. Cohen said the Trump Organization owes him at least $3.8 million (£2.9 million), and its failure to pay breached a reimbursement agreement that predated his cooperation.” [Reuters, 3/7/19]
November 12, 2021: New York Judge Joel Cohen Dismissed Suit. According to CNN, “In another win for Trump on Friday, New York Judge Joel Cohen granted Trump’s motion to dismiss Michael Cohen’s 2019 lawsuit against his company. ‘Mr. Cohen’s legal fees arise out of his (sometimes unlawful) service to Mr. Trump personally, to Mr. Trump’s campaign, and to the Trump Foundation, but not out of his service to the business of the Trump Organization, which is the only defendant in this case,’ Judge Cohen wrote in his order.” [CNN, 11/12/21]
November 16, 2022: New York Appeals Court Unanimously Overturned The Trial Judge And Allowed Cohen To Sue The Trump Organization. According to ABC News, “Former President Donald Trump's onetime personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen can sue the Trump Organization to cover millions of dollars in legal fees, a New York appeals court ruled Wednesday. The unanimous opinion from the Appellate Division, First Department said the trial judge erred when he dismissed Cohen's lawsuit that sought indemnification for outstanding legal fees Cohen incurred in connection with the special counsel and congressional hearings, New York state attorney general and Manhattan district attorney proceedings, and the proceeding related to FBI search warrants.” [ABC News, 11/16/22]
April 13, 2023: Cohen And Trump Were In Settlement Talks Over A Lawsuit Where Cohen Alleged The Trump Organization Failed To Reimburse Cohen’s Legal Bills. According to Forbes, “Donald Trump and his onetime attorney, Michael Cohen, have been at war in public, sparring on social media, on cable news and in court, where the former president recently sued Cohen for $500 million. Out of the public eye, however, their teams have been engaging in settlement talks. They aren’t going to make peace over everything. But they appear to be nearing common ground in a case that has its origins in mid-2017, when Cohen says he entered into an agreement with the Trump Organization for the firm to cover his legal fees in connection with investigations into the 2016 election and lawsuits filed by Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, two women who have claimed they had affairs with Trump. In April 2018, the FBI searched Cohen’s office. Shortly thereafter, he says, the Trump Organization stopped paying his legal bills.” [Forbes, 4/14/23]
July 7, 2023: Former Trump Lawyer Cohen Said He Might Call Donald Trump Jr. As A Witness At The Trial. According to the New York Post, “Michael Cohen may try to call on Donald Trump Jr. at an upcoming trial in the fixer’s suit claiming Trump Organization should have to pay for the legal fees that piled up on the job. […] During the hearing, Cohen lawyer Hunter Winstead said Don. Jr. would offer relevant testimony since he’s still in the family real estate company as CEO, and had to sign off on legal fees the company paid out. ‘I’m not looking for a circus,’ Winstead said. ‘I’m not looking to burden the court.’ But Winstead argued his client should be permitted to called the former first son to the witness stand to question him about his knowledge of the company’s agreement to indemnify Cohen. Trump Org. lawyer Michael Farina countered that Cohen’s side was ‘trying to just sensationalize the trial’ by calling such a high-profile official at Trump Org. when Cohen already has deposition testimony about the pact from Trump Org. executive vice president and chief legal officer Alan Garten. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joel Cohen said he wouldn’t bar calling Don Jr. ‘He’s clearly a fact witness that — if you can legitimately get him here — there is no way I would preclude you from calling him as a witness,’ Judge Cohen told Winstead.” [New York Post, 7/7/23]
Trump Himself Would Not Be Called As A Witness. According to the New York Post, “Earlier in the hearing, Winstead said he might also call the embattled former president to testify if questions come up about the existence of the agreement that Cohen said was made orally. The parties later concluded Trump wouldn’t needed to be called to testify because both sides would stipulate an agreement was struck in 2017.” [New York Post, 7/7/23]
July 21, 2023: Cohen And The Trump Organization Agreed To Settle Cohen’s Lawsuit Via A Confidential Agreement. According to the New York Times, “Michael D. Cohen, the longtime fixer to Donald J. Trump, who was set to go to trial next week against his former boss’s company in a dispute over legal fees, has agreed to settle his lawsuit with the Trump Organization, lawyers for both parties said at a brief court hearing on Friday. Mr. Cohen’s lawsuit, filed in 2019, accused the Trump Organization of failing to abide by the terms of a deal and refusing to pay more than $1 million in legal costs. Jury selection for the trial began earlier this week, and opening arguments were scheduled for Monday. But at the hearing Friday, a lawyer for Mr. Cohen, Hunter Winstead, and a lawyer for the Trump Organization, James D. Kiley, said that they had agreed on terms for a settlement. The settlement is not yet finalized and the details will be kept confidential. The judge in the case, Joel Cohen — who is no relation to Mr. Cohen — said that he would delay the trial pending a final agreement.” [New York Times, 7/21/23]
May 2020: Cohen Was Released From Prison For Home Confinement On A Medical Furlough. According to the New York Times, “Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s onetime lawyer and fixer, was in good spirits on Thursday when he arrived at a Manhattan federal courthouse, where he expected to complete routine paperwork related to his home confinement amid the coronavirus pandemic. Mr. Cohen, who was released from prison in May on a medical furlough, was stunned when probation officers asked him to sign a document that would have barred him from speaking to reporters or publishing a book during the rest of his sentence, his legal adviser said. Mr. Cohen, believing the agreement violated his First Amendment rights, refused to sign it, the adviser, Lanny Davis, said. Less than two hours later, federal marshals stepped out of an elevator with handcuffs and took Mr. Cohen back into custody.” [New York Times, 7/9/20]
July 7, 2020: Cohen Was Sent Back To Prison After Refusing To Sign Agreement Banning Him From Speaking To Reporters Or Publishing A Book While Completing His Sentence. According to the New York Times, “Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s onetime lawyer and fixer, was in good spirits on Thursday when he arrived at a Manhattan federal courthouse, where he expected to complete routine paperwork related to his home confinement amid the coronavirus pandemic. Mr. Cohen, who was released from prison in May on a medical furlough, was stunned when probation officers asked him to sign a document that would have barred him from speaking to reporters or publishing a book during the rest of his sentence, his legal adviser said. Mr. Cohen, believing the agreement violated his First Amendment rights, refused to sign it, the adviser, Lanny Davis, said. Less than two hours later, federal marshals stepped out of an elevator with handcuffs and took Mr. Cohen back into custody.” [New York Times, 7/9/20]
July 23, 2020: Federal Judge Hellerstein Released Cohen From Prison After Ruling That Authorities Retaliated Against Cohen. According to the Daily Beast, “A Manhattan federal judge on Thursday ordered Michael Cohen to be released from prison this week after finding that authorities ‘retaliated’ against the former Trump lawyer for writing a tell-all book about the president. ‘I make the finding that the purpose of transferring Mr. Cohen from furlough and home confinement to jail is retaliatory,’ U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein stated Thursday, adding that ‘it’s retaliation because of his desire to exercise his First Amendment rights to publish a book and to discuss anything about the book or anything else he wants on social media and with others.’” [Daily Beast, 7/23/20]
December 2021: Cohen Sued Trump Alleging Retaliation. According to the Associated Press, “Michael Cohen claimed in a new lawsuit Thursday that Donald Trump retaliated against him for writing a tell-all memoir, saying his abrupt return to federal prison last year endangered his life and amounted to punishment for criticizing the president.” [Associated Press, 12/16/21]
November 2022: Federal Judge Liman Dismissed Cohen’s Lawsuit. According to CNN, “A federal judge dismissed Michael Cohen’s retaliation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump and others alleging he was sent back to prison because he was outspokenly critical of the ex-president. Judge Lewis Liman was empathetic to Cohen’s position but said Supreme Court precedent bars him from allowing the case to move forward.” [CNN, 11/14/22]
April 2023: Cohen Asked The Second Circuit Court Of Appeals To Revive His Lawsuit Against Trump. According to Reuters, “Michael Cohen on Monday asked a U.S. appeals court to revive his lawsuit against Donald Trump and other government officials, seeking damages for sending him back to prison in retaliation for publishing a tell-all memoir criticizing the former U.S. president. Lawyers for Cohen said in a filing with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan that the judiciary has a responsibility to remediate the harm done by Trump and his subordinates.” [Reuters, 4/24/23]
January 2024: The Second Circuit Court Of Appeals Rejected Cohen’s Attempt To Revive His Lawsuit. According to CNN, “A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected Michael Cohen’s attempt to revive his lawsuit against Donald Trump for allegedly retaliating against him for promoting a tell-all book critical of the former president. Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, had sued Trump, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and other Justice Department officials for allegedly violating his constitutional rights when he was thrown back into prison after speaking critically of Trump. A lower court judge ruled against Cohen, saying that Supreme Court precedent doesn’t allow him to pursue damages as a remedy for his claims. Tuesday, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.” [CNN, 1/2/24]
July 11, 2024: Cohen Asked The Supreme Court To Take Up His Appeal Alleging Trump Retaliated Against Him During Cohen’s Prison Sentence. According to NBC News, “Michael Cohen wants the Supreme Court to take up his appeal seeking damages against Donald Trump and others for alleged retaliation during the former president’s administration. But while the petition from Trump’s former fixer serves to highlight the potential dangers of a revenge-packed second Trump term, he faces a tough road getting the justices to review his case. The appeal, filed Wednesday, stems from when Cohen was serving federal time for Trump-related crimes and he started writing a book that would be unfavorable to the then-president. He was released to home confinement in 2020 after Covid-19 hit, but his lawyers say that when Cohen ‘did not agree immediately to waive his right to free speech, he was summarily sent back to prison and thrown into solitary confinement.’” [NBC News, 7/11/24]
April 12, 2023: Trump Sued His Former Attorney Michael Cohen For More Than $500 Million. According to Fox News, “Former President Trump is suing his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen for more than $500 million, alleging a breach of his attorney-client relationship, unjust enrichment, and more, Fox News Digital has learned.” [Fox News, 4/12/23]
Trump Demanded “Actual, Compensatory, Incidental, And Punitive Damages” That Were “To Substantially Exceed $500,000,000.” According to Fox News, “Trump is demanding that Cohen pay ‘actual, compensatory, incidental, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but expected to substantially exceed $500,000,000.’” [Fox News, 4/12/23]
Trump’s Suit Was Filed In The Southern District Of Florida. According to Fox News, “Trump’s legal team filed the more-than 30-page federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Wednesday.” [Fox News, 4/12/23]
Trump Alleged Cohen Violated Attorney-Client Privilege, Confidentiality Agreements, And Partook In Misconduct. According to Fox News, “‘This is an action arising from [Cohen’s] multiple breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion and breaches of contract by virtue of [Cohen’s] past service as [Trump’s] employee and attorney,’ the lawsuit states. The lawsuit alleges Cohen breached his attorney-client relationship by ‘spreading falsehoods’ about Trump that were ‘likely to be embarrassing or detrimental, and partook in other misconduct,’ while also breaching contractual terms of a confidentiality agreement he signed as a condition of employment with Trump. The lawsuit alleges Cohen spread falsehoods about Trump ‘with malicious intent and to wholly self-serving ends.’” [Fox News, 4/12/23]
May 8, 2023: Cohen Asked A Federal Judge To Dismiss Trump’s $500 Million Lawsuit. According to Reuters, “Donald Trump's onetime lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen asked a court to throw out the former U.S. president's $500 million lawsuit against him, calling it an ‘abusive act of pure retaliation and witness intimidation.’ Cohen's lawyers in a filing late Monday in Miami federal court said the lawsuit combined the ‘worst of Mr. Trump's vindictive impulses,’ and that its timing was no coincidence.” [Reuters, 5/9/23]
July 20, 2023: Magistrate Judge Torres Placed A Protective Order Over The Transcript And Video To Trump’s Deposition In Suit Against Cohen. According to Politico, “A magistrate judge on Thursday placed a protective order over a forthcoming deposition by former President Donald Trump in his $500 million lawsuit against his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen in a dispute with implications for the former president’s criminal case in New York. The judge, Edwin Torres, ordered both the transcript and video from the deposition be kept confidential — at a minimum until he finishes setting the parameters for what evidence in the case will be made public or kept from the public. The civil lawsuit in question, which Trump filed in April, alleges that Cohen violated attorney-client confidentiality.” [Politico, 7/20/23]
August 2, 2023: Trump Argued That Trump Organization Financial Records Requested By Cohen As Part Of Discovery Should Be Subject To A Confidentiality Order. According to Bloomberg, “Donald Trump is concerned that evidence sought by Michael Cohen in a $500 million lawsuit the former president filed against his ex-lawyer could potentially incriminate him in other cases. Trump argued in a court filing Wednesday in Miami that documents sought by Cohen, particularly Trump Organization financial records, should be covered by a confidentiality order amid the former president’s separate criminal proceedings. Cohen has said the evidence should be made public, regardless of any prosecutions.” [Bloomberg, 8/3/23]
October 5, 2023: Trump Dropped His Lawsuit Against Michael Cohen. According to the New York Times, “Donald J. Trump on Thursday dropped a lawsuit he had filed against his former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, abandoning what has been seen as an effort to silence Mr. Cohen, who has become one of the former president’s loudest critics. The decision to drop the case came just days before Mr. Trump was scheduled to be questioned under oath by Mr. Cohen’s lawyers. It also comes on the verge of Mr. Cohen’s testifying against Mr. Trump in an unrelated civil fraud case brought by the New York attorney general.” [New York Times, 10/5/23]
Trump Dropped The Case Days Before Trump Was Scheduled To Be Deposed. According to the New York Times, “Donald J. Trump on Thursday dropped a lawsuit he had filed against his former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, abandoning what has been seen as an effort to silence Mr. Cohen, who has become one of the former president’s loudest critics. The decision to drop the case came just days before Mr. Trump was scheduled to be questioned under oath by Mr. Cohen’s lawyers. It also comes on the verge of Mr. Cohen’s testifying against Mr. Trump in an unrelated civil fraud case brought by the New York attorney general.” [New York Times, 10/5/23]
Trump’s Spokesperson Said Dropping The Case Was Only Temporary. According to the New York Times, “A spokesman for Mr. Trump, in a statement, suggested that Mr. Trump was too busy with his campaign and with fighting the criminal cases he was facing to sit for the deposition and said that he would refile it later. ‘President Trump has decided to temporarily pause his meritorious claims against Michael Cohen,’ the statement said, adding that after Mr. Trump had ‘prevailed’ in the trials, ‘he will continue to pursue his claims about Michael Cohen.’ The statement jabbed at Mr. Cohen, noting that he had pleaded guilty to crimes unrelated to Mr. Trump.” [New York Times, 10/5/23]