Attorneys General

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Credibility, Coherence and Control Face Test on Witness Stand

      by

      The former president will testify Monday in a trial that threatens the business empire that created his public persona. He will be out of his element and under oath.Donald J. Trump took the rally stage on a scorching August day in New Hampshire, a political shark, brazen and sly, as he ridiculed his legal opponents as “racist” and “deranged.”On Monday, the former president will come face-to-face with one of those opponents, but on a stage where he is far less comfortable.New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, will call Mr. Trump to the witness stand at his own civil fraud trial in Manhattan, where, under oath and under fire, the former president will try to convince a single skeptical judge — not a jury — that he did not inflate his net worth to defraud banks and insurers.Attorney General Letitia James has already won the central contention of the case, that the defendants committed fraud.Doug Mills/The New York TimesPrivately, Mr. Trump has told advisers that he is not concerned about his time on the stand. He held preparation sessions when he was in New York attending the trial and will again over the weekend before he makes his appearance after court begins on Monday morning, according to people briefed on the matter.The former president believes he can fight or talk his way out of most situations. Frequent visits to the courtroom have also given Mr. Trump familiarity with the unwieldy proceeding, where he projects control, often whispering in his lawyers’ ears, prompting their objections to the attorney general’s questions.Yet Mr. Trump is deeply, personally enraged by this trial — and by the fact that his children have had to testify, several people who have spoken with him said — and he may not be able to restrain himself on the stand.The testimony will push Mr. Trump far outside his comfort zone of social media and the rally stage, where he is a master of mockery, a no-holds barred flamethrower who relishes most opportunities to attack foes. He leveraged that persona during his days as a tabloid businessman and fixture of New York’s tabloids and found that it worked just as well in the 2016 presidential race. He has since taken control of the Republican Party, and his style has become a defining influence in contemporary politics.The witness stand is a different venue. It’s a seat that requires care and control, where lying is a crime and emotional outbursts can land you in contempt of court. Another risk during his time on the stand: Mr. Trump, 77, has been showing signs of strain and age on the campaign trail, mixing up the names of foreign leaders and at one point confusing which city he was in.The test of the former president’s credibility, coherence and self-control could supply his opponents with ammunition on the campaign trail, where Mr. Trump is the leading Republican contender for the White House.Along with the civil fraud trial, Mr. Trump faces four criminal indictments from prosecutors up and down the East Coast. While the varied legal woes present a costly distraction in the midst of his third White House run, Mr. Trump has managed to bring the campaign trail to the courthouse, where he casts himself as a political martyr under attack from Democrats like Ms. James.Mr. Trump, of course, is no stranger to the courtroom. He has taken the witness stand in at least two other civil trials, most recently a decade ago, in a Chicago case related to his property there. He was cranky and sometimes combative, but ultimately won.Justice Arthur F. Engoron has barred the former president from commenting on court staff and fined him $15,000.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesDuring a long and litigious career, he has also testified under oath in numerous depositions — more than 100 by his own estimate — and he has made it something of a sport to spar with his interrogators. His spontaneity under oath may have cost him: He has lost several lawsuits, and his depositions have often been used against him.A trial is far weightier than a deposition, and it takes place in a more controlled environment. Mr. Trump’s lawyers have long highlighted for him the perils of speaking under oath to those seeking to hold him to account. Mr. Trump, eschewing his instinct to talk and bully his way out of a problem, has chosen silence when the legal stakes are highest.He declined to appear before a Manhattan grand jury that ultimately indicted him on charges related to a hush-money deal with a porn star. He rejected an interview with a special counsel investigating his campaign’s ties to Russia, submitting written responses instead. And he initially invoked his right against self-incrimination rather than answer Ms. James’s questions about his net worth.He eventually had a change of heart in the attorney general’s case, answering questions under oath in a deposition this spring. Although he could have continued to invoke his constitutional right not to testify, he had a strong incentive to talk: In a civil case, a jury or judge is allowed to draw negative conclusions from a defendant’s refusal to testify. Doing so would have almost certainly spelled doom for his defense and further exposed him to the harshest of the penalties that Ms. James is asking for, including a $250 million fine.Still, his testimony at trial is unlikely to do him much good.Mr. Trump got off on the wrong foot with the judge, Arthur F. Engoron, who will decide the outcome of the trial. Justice Engoron barred the former president from commenting on court staff after Mr. Trump criticized the judge’s law clerk, and already fined him $15,000 for twice violating the order.At one point, Justice Engoron summoned Mr. Trump to the witness stand to determine whether he had broken the rule. After three minutes, the judge concluded the former president’s statements in his own defense were “hollow and untrue.”Even before the trial, the judge ruled that the former president had persistently committed fraud. What is left to be determined is any penalty Mr. Trump might have to pay and whether he will be banished from the world of New York real estate that made him famous.At the heart of Ms. James’s case is the accusation that Mr. Trump, his adult sons and their family business manipulated the former president’s net worth on annual financial statements. Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, submitted the statements to banks, duping them into issuing favorable loans, Ms. James says.Last week, Mr. Trump’s elder sons, Eric and Donald Trump Jr., took the stand, seeking to shift blame for the financial statements onto others, including the company’s external accountants.When Donald Trump Jr. was shown a message he had sent to the accountants that certified that the statements were accurate, he referred to it dismissively as a “cover-your-butt letter.”And Eric Trump was defiant when asked whether he had intended to tell lenders the truth about the value of the family’s assets. He certainly had, he said, adding, “I think my father’s net worth is far higher than that number.”Eric Trump, the former president’s son, was among three of his children who will testify in the case.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesThe former president’s testimony is expected to follow the pattern set out in his deposition in April: He is likely to insist that there was a disclaimer on the financial statements — which he refers to as a “worthless” clause — that made it clear that banks should do their own due diligence. He will also probably cling to the principle that real estate valuations are an art, not a science.“Many lawyers have come to me and said, ‘You have the greatest worthless clause I’ve ever seen,’” Mr. Trump said in the deposition. “‘How can they be using this statement against you?’”Mr. Trump’s obsession with his wealth is a defining feature of his celebrity. He once posed as one of his own aides to claim a higher net worth to a Forbes magazine reporter helping assemble the publication’s famous annual list of the wealthy, according to the reporter who took the call.He used the image of an enormously rich titan of industry — despite a relatively small portfolio compared with New York’s largest developers — to sell his book “The Art of the Deal” in 1987. That ghostwritten portrait was the basis for putting Mr. Trump on the reality television show “The Apprentice,” which enhanced his fame and forged a durable national identity that propelled his run for president in 2015.The questions he’ll face on the stand threaten the heart of that identity.But this is not the first case to tackle Mr. Trump’s exaggerations of wealth. In 2006, Mr. Trump sued the journalist Timothy L. O’Brien for writing a book that cast doubt on his net worth, and in a deposition, Mr. Trump made damaging admissions, including that his net worth “can vary actually from day to day,” and that he determined it by gauging “my general attitude at the time.”“Have you ever exaggerated in statements about your properties?” Mr. O’Brien’s lawyer asked him.“I think everyone does,” Mr. Trump replied.A judge later dismissed Mr. Trump’s lawsuit. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Trial Starts Monday. It Will Spotlight What He’s Really Worth.

      by

      The judge in the civil case has already decided Donald J. Trump inflated his financial statements. Now, he will make rulings that will affect Mr. Trump’s future as a businessman.Follow our live coverage of Trump’s civil fraud trial.From his earliest days as a real estate developer to his renegade run for the White House, Donald J. Trump honed a very particular skill: the art of the boast.“I look better if I’m worth $10 billion than if I’m worth $4 billion,” he once said, disputing his ranking on the Forbes billionaires list.After decades of exaggerating with impunity, Mr. Trump will go on trial Monday, facing a lawsuit brought by New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, that accuses him of inflating his riches by billions of dollars and crossing the line into fraud. It will be the first of several government trials he will face in the coming year, a procession of high-stakes courtroom battles that coincide with his third White House run.And it will be an avidly scrutinized spectacle that will lift the curtain on Mr. Trump’s reputation as a businessman, a core piece of his identity.Ms. James’s civil case, separate from Mr. Trump’s four criminal indictments, accuses the former president, his adult sons and their family business of inflating the value of Mr. Trump’s assets to secure favorable loan terms from banks. Mr. Trump, who has denied wrongdoing, is expected to attend the opening day of the trial and eventually will be called to testify.Before the trial even begins, Mr. Trump is losing. The New York State Supreme Court judge overseeing the case ruled last week that Mr. Trump had persistently committed fraud, deciding that no trial was needed to determine the veracity of the claims at the core of Ms. James’s lawsuit. The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, also imposed a heavy punishment, stripping the Trumps of control over their signature New York properties — a move that could crush much of the business known as the Trump Organization.Ms. James is now asking for more from Justice Engoron, who will determine the outcome of the trial himself; there will be no jury. She wants Mr. Trump to be fined as much as $250 million and to be permanently barred from running a business in New York. If she succeeds, the former president would be unceremoniously evicted from the world of New York real estate that made him famous.The New York attorney general, Letitia James, brought the case under a state law that gives her sweeping power.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesWhile there is no doubt that the former president is worth a lot of money, the trial will determine how much he and his adult sons exaggerated that wealth and what the ultimate consequences will be.Howard M. Erichson​, a professor at Fordham Law School who specializes in civil procedure, emphasized that Justice Engoron’s earlier decision had already resolved the question of fraud at the heart of the case. What remained were details, he said.“But those details are important,” he said, “Because those details determine what Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization will be prohibited from doing, as well as the size of any civil penalty.”Until last week, it appeared as if the trial might not start on time, or have much impact on the former president. Mr. Trump had sued Justice Engoron and Ms. James, claiming that they had ignored an appeals court decision in June that raised the prospect that some of the accusations were too old to proceed to trial. The appeals court granted a brief pause while it considered his case.On Thursday, the appeals court rejected that last-ditch effort, clearing the way for the trial to begin.Mr. Trump has accused Ms. James and Justice Engoron, who are both Democrats, of carrying out a political crusade against him. He has called the judge “deranged” and Ms. James, who is Black, a racist.The former president and his sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, who took the reins of the family business when their father ascended to the White House, are all expected to be called to the witness stand. Ms. James has already questioned Mr. Trump twice under oath, though at one session he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. A lawyer for Ms. James indicated last week that Mr. Trump will be one of the last witnesses called.Harlan Levy, who served as chief deputy New York state attorney general under one of Ms. James’s predecessors and is now a partner at Foley Hoag, called the former president’s testimony “a wild card.”Whether or not Mr. Trump ultimately takes the stand, Ms. James’s trial kicks off what is shaping up to be one of the most painful periods in his long public life.In March, he will stand trial on federal criminal charges for his effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. In May, the federal case accusing him of mishandling classified documents and obstructing the government’s efforts to wrest them back is scheduled to go to trial. And after that, he will face two criminal trials from local prosecutors: one in Manhattan, where he was charged related to hush-money payments to a porn star, and the other in Georgia, where he is accused of racketeering for trying to alter the outcome of the state’s vote in the election.The criminal consequences in those cases are starker than the punishments Ms. James is seeking in her civil proceeding; in some of the proceedings, Mr. Trump could face years behind bars.All the legal peril, however, has only helped him politically. Mr. Trump is running far ahead of the rest of the Republican field — his polling went up after he was first indicted this spring — and is a heavy favorite for the 2024 nomination.Yet even as he thrives in the race, Mr. Trump faces a threat to the heart of his identity: Ms. James’s case rips away the facade of unlimited wealth that he is most proud of and that provided the platform for his political rise.The trial will begin at 10 a.m. at the New York State Supreme Court Building on Foley Square in Lower Manhattan, which is emblazoned with the slogan “the true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government.”The witness lists suggest that the trial could last months — and will involve a who’s who of Mr. Trump’s universe. More than 50 people are on Ms. James’s list — including Allen H. Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s former financial gatekeeper who testified in the company’s criminal tax fraud trial last year and who is also a defendant in this case. The list may shrink, and although the trial was scheduled to last nearly until Christmas, it is likely to be shorter.Presiding over it all will be Justice Engoron, a charismatic and eccentric judge who has been a thorn in the side of Mr. Trump and his lawyers for more than a year.Justice Engoron maintains a light atmosphere in the courtroom, often ribbing the lawyers, particularly Christopher M. Kise, who represents Mr. Trump. But he has been harsh at times: Even before he removed Mr. Trump’s control of his New York companies last week, he fined the former president $110,000 for failing to comply with a subpoena. And he fined Mr. Trump’s lawyers $7,500 each for repeating arguments that he had previously rejected.Donald Trump Jr., far left, and Eric Trump took the reins of the family business when their father ascended to the presidency. Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesThose defense arguments essentially amounted to no harm, no foul. Mr. Trump, his lawyers argued, is accused of misleading banks that actually made money from their dealings with him. He never missed a loan payment, and the banks did not rely on the financial statements that Ms. James believes are a work of fiction.But Justice Engoron noted in his ruling last week that a powerful state law allows Ms. James to pursue “persistent fraud” without having to show that a defendant actually intended to defraud anyone, or that their actions resulted in financial loss — a lower bar than most fraud cases. It also affords drastic remedies, empowering her to seek steep financial punishments and the cancellation of Mr. Trump’s certificates to operate a business in New York.Justice Engoron’s decision last week went property by property — from Trump Tower on Fifth Ave to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and a golf course in Scotland — concluding that Mr. Trump had in fact engaged in fraud as Ms. James said. (The accusations concern some of Mr. Trump’s properties outside New York, but any consequences would apply to his assets within the state.)Take, for example, Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment in Trump Tower. Ms. James accused Mr. Trump of overestimating its size, saying it was 30,000 square feet, when it was actually about 11,000. Justice Engoron noted that Mr. Trump’s lawyers had “absurdly” suggested that the calculation of square footage was subjective.“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,” he wrote. The matters still to be hashed out at trial will require Ms. James to show that Mr. Trump intended to commit fraud and may require her to convince Justice Engoron that the inflated financial statements were taken seriously by the banks and insurance companies that received them.If Mr. Trump testifies, he will have to do a better job of defending himself than he did in his sworn deposition earlier this year. Justice Engoron was not impressed, as he made clear in his order last week.“The defenses Donald Trump attempts to articulate in his sworn deposition are wholly without basis in law or fact,” the judge wrote. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      As His Trial Begins, Trump Looks to Capitalize On It

      by

      The former president is making the case to his supporters that he is being wrongfully prosecuted. And it might bring him more support.Former President Donald J. Trump is expected to attend the opening of the civil trial in the New York attorney general’s fraud case against him on Monday, as his political team seeks to turn it into a rallying cry for supporters.The decision to show up voluntarily in court by Mr. Trump, who has already been compelled to courthouses in four different criminal arraignments this year, underscores how personally aggrieved Mr. Trump feels by the accusations of fraud, as well as his own self-confidence that showing up will help his legal cause.The move also reveals how inverted the norms of politics have become in the Trump-era Republican Party: Being accused of wrongdoing could be politically beneficial despite the very real legal jeopardy.In a political age in which candidates are defined as much by their critics and opponents as by their stances, some of Mr. Trump’s advisers see an opportunity in a case first brought by a Democratic New York attorney general, Letitia James, even if the accusations cut to the heart of his identity.In some ways, the Trump campaign, which has seen his supporters galvanized by the criminal charges he’s faced, is trying to turn the civil case into something akin to a fifth indictment — a moment to motivate his base.“Trump seems to be approaching his legal troubles like a hand of hearts — one or two indictments hurt you politically, but if you collect them all, you might shoot the moon,” Liam Donovan, a Republican operative, said. “The sheer volume and variety obscures the individual cases and their fact patterns, and plays into Trump’s argument that his opponents are trying to take him down by whatever means they can.”For Mr. Trump, his attendance at trial is far more personal than political, according to a person familiar with his thinking. The former president is enraged by the fraud charges and furious with both the judge and the attorney general. And Mr. Trump, who is a control enthusiast, believes that trials have gone poorly for him when he hasn’t been present, and he hopes to affect the outcome this time, according to the person.The former president, for instance, never attended the civil trial earlier this year in which the writer, E. Jean Carroll, accused him of raping her in the 1990s, despite publicly toying with the idea of appearing. Mr. Trump was found liable for sexually abusing Ms. Carroll and defaming her.People close to Mr. Trump cautioned that he could decide against appearing, since he was not required to do so, but they were planning for him to attend at least the first day and possibly the second day as well.Over the weekend, Mr. Trump’s campaign openly sought to take advantage of the attention, sending fund-raising solicitations that teased his possible attendance and accusing Democrats of “trying to keep me off the campaign trail.”“After four sham arrests, indictments, and even a mug shot failed to break me, a Democrat judge is now trying to destroy my Family Business,” Mr. Trump wrote in a fund-raising message on Saturday.The push to highlight the trial comes at a critical juncture for Mr. Trump’s primary challengers, who face a narrowing window to show signs of life in a race that Mr. Trump has threatened to run away with.The specifics of the case can seem almost beside the point. A New York trial judge, Arthur F. Engoron, issued a surprise pretrial ruling last week that found Mr. Trump liable for overvaluing his properties. The ruling left his assets, including Trump Tower itself, vulnerable to seizure. The point of the trial is to determine the scope of damages that Mr. Trump and his company must pay — as much as $250 million. Mr. Trump and his lawyers have argued that the ruling is illegitimate and doesn’t follow the facts of the case.Years ago, a decision like the one that Justice Engoron issued would have been a source of embarrassment for a candidate and might have been considered by that candidate’s supporters as a reason to back someone else.But this is the new post-shame period of politics, in which candidates have observed over time that the mistake is allowing oneself to be thrown out of the ring. That sentiment affects both parties, to a degree: A Democratic senator, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, was indicted on corruption charges, and gold bars were found in his house. He has pleaded not guilty and vowed to stay in the Senate.However, a number of his colleagues have called for him to resign, in stark contrast to how the vast majority of Republican officials have gingerly handled — and continued to support — Mr. Trump, echoing his repeated claim that he’s the victim of political persecution.Mr. Trump’s single previous highest day of fund-raising, according to the campaign, came after his mug shot was released in his Georgia indictment, which accused him of being part of a criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election.Corry Bliss, a veteran Republican political strategist, said all the previous indictments and legal cases have blended together for most Republican primary voters into a single picture of a former president wrongly under attack.“If anything, it’s reinforced a belief among the large segment of the base that Trump is treated unfairly and the Democrats dislike him so much that they’re willing to do whatever it takes to defeat him — whether that’s electorally or in the judicial system,” Mr. Bliss said. “The legal facts that most Republicans are interested in are the Hunter Biden facts. Period. End of discussion.”Any attention on the Trump case is also likely to rob Mr. Trump’s rivals of the political oxygen they need to close the substantial advantage that the former president holds in the polls. None of his opponents, including Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, have yet to figure out a way to turn Mr. Trump’s multitude of legal troubles against him, or to cut through the extensive media coverage.“It starves them,” said Raheem Kassam, editor in chief of The National Pulse, a conservative news site, who interviewed Mr. Trump last week. “It starves them.”For Mr. Trump, Mr. Kassam said, “every step of the way it drags on, it only empowers him” in part because “notoriety at this point” is an advantage itself. And that trend, he noted, is not exclusive to Mr. Trump, citing Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, a Trump ally, who faced an investigation related to sex-trafficking that was eventually dropped.“If you look at what happened to Gaetz, his star rose because of it,” Mr. Kassam said.Mr. Trump’s family has explicitly tried to frame the coming trial as an example of political persecution, deploying the same language as they have in his criminal cases. Mr. Trump has called Judge Engoron “deranged,” the very same term he has sought to apply to the Justice Department’s special counsel, Jack Smith.“I’ve never even seen anything like it,” Donald Trump Jr. said in an interview last week on The Charlie Kirk Show. “This is sort of like the start of the Bolshevik Revolution — we don’t like you, so we’re going to confiscate property.”He added, “Hey, our last name is Trump, so we have to be punished.” More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      N.H. GOP Fights 14th Amendment Bid to Bar Trump From Ballot

      by

      In New Hampshire, Republicans are feuding over whether the 14th Amendment bars Donald J. Trump from running for president. Other states are watching closely.New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary is quickly becoming the leading edge for an unproven legal theory that Donald J. Trump is disqualified from appearing on the ballot under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.A long-shot presidential candidate has filed a lawsuit in state court seeking an injunction to keep Mr. Trump off the ballot. And a former Republican candidate for Senate is urging the secretary of state to bring a case that could put the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court.On Wednesday, Free Speech for the People, a liberal-leaning group that unsuccessfully tried to strike House Republicans from the ballot in 2022, sent a letter to the secretaries of state in New Hampshire, as well as Florida, New Mexico, Ohio and Wisconsin, urging them to bar Mr. Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment.These efforts employ a theory that has been gaining traction among liberals and anti-Trump conservatives: that Mr. Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021, disqualify him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars people from holding office if they took an oath to support the Constitution and later “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”The theory has been gaining momentum since two prominent conservative law professors published an article this month concluding that Mr. Trump is constitutionally disqualified from running for office.But even advocates of the disqualification theory say it is a legal long shot. If a secretary of state strikes Mr. Trump’s name or a voter lawsuit advances, Mr. Trump’s campaign is sure to appeal, possibly all the way to the Supreme Court, where the 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices nominated by Mr. Trump.“When it gets to the Supreme Court, as it surely will, this will test the dedication of the justices to principles of law, more than almost anything has for a very long time,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard who believes the insurrection disqualification clearly applies to Mr. Trump, “because they will obviously realize that telling the leading candidate of one major political party, ‘no, no way, you’re not eligible’ is no small matter.”However long the odds of success, discussion of the amendment is bubbling up across the country. In Arizona, the secretary of state said he had heard from “concerned citizens” about the issue, and the Michigan secretary of state said she was “taking it seriously.” In Georgia, officials are looking at precedent set by a failed attempt to use the 14th Amendment to disqualify Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene from the ballot in the 2022 midterms.But New Hampshire has jumped out as the early hotbed of the fight.The New Hampshire Republican Party said this week that it would challenge any effort to remove Mr. Trump, or any other candidates who have met requirements, from the ballot.“There’s no question that we will fight, and we’ll use all of the tools available to us to fight anyone’s access being denied on the ballot,” said Chris Ager, a Republican state committeeman in New Hampshire. “And if there’s a lawsuit, we are likely to intervene on behalf of the candidate to make sure that they have access. So we take it very seriously that the people of New Hampshire should decide who the nominee is, not a judge, not a justice system.”Chris Ager, a Republican state committeeman in New Hampshire, shaking Mr. Trump’s hand at the state party meeting in January.Doug Mills/The New York TimesLate last week, Bryant Messner, a former Trump-endorsed candidate for U.S. Senate, who goes by Corky, met with New Hampshire’s secretary of state, David M. Scanlan, to urge him to seek legal guidance on the issue. After Politico first reported the meeting, Mr. Scanlan and John M. Formella, the state’s attorney general, issued a joint statement saying that “the attorney general’s office is now carefully reviewing the legal issues involved.”Other secretaries of state have also been seeking legal guidance.“We’re taking a very cautious approach to the issue,” Arizona’s secretary of state, Adrian Fontes, said in an interview. “We’re going to be consulting with lawyers in our office and other folks who will eventually have to deal with this in the courts as well. We don’t anticipate that any decision that I or any other election administrator might make will be the final decision. This will get ultimately decided by the courts.”Adrian Fontes, Arizona’s secretary of state, said his office had already heard from “concerned citizens” regarding Mr. Trump’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesThough the argument is particularly appealing to liberals who view Mr. Trump as a grave threat, most of the recent momentum on this topic has come from conservative circles.Mr. Messner, a self-described “constitutional conservative,” said he was seeking to create case law around the issue. He said he had not yet filed a legal challenge because he first wanted the secretary of state to open up the candidate filing period and decide whether he would accept Mr. Trump’s filing. He argued that the lawsuit filed on Sunday by a Republican candidate, John Anthony Castro, was unlikely to advance because the filing period has not yet opened.“Section 3 has not been interpreted,” Mr. Messner said in an interview. “So, my position is let’s find a way for this to get into the court system as soon as possible. And then hopefully we can expedite through the legal system, to get it to the Supreme Court as soon as possible.”The precedent is by no means settled. A case filed against then-Representative Madison Cawthorn, Republican of North Carolina, ended with Judge Richard E. Myers II of U.S. District Court, an appointee of Mr. Trump, siding with Mr. Cawthorn. The judge ruled that the final clause of Section 3 allowed for a vote in Congress to “remove” the disqualification and that the passage of the Amnesty Act of 1872 effectively nullified the ban on insurrectionists.But on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overruled that argument, saying the Amnesty Act clearly applied only to confederates, not future insurrectionists. The case was declared moot after Mr. Cawthorn lost his re-election in the 2022 primaries.Other cases may also come into play. An administrative law judge in Georgia ruled that plaintiffs failed to prove that Ms. Greene, Republican of Georgia, was in fact an insurrectionist. And cases against Representatives Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, Republicans of Arizona, were similarly dropped.Advocates of the disqualification clause fear that judges and secretaries of state could decide that any case against Mr. Trump will have to wait until a jury, either in Fulton County, Ga., or Washington, D.C., renders judgment in the two criminal cases charging that Mr. Trump had tried to overturn the 2020 election.Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger of Georgia indicated that previous cases involving Ms. Greene would continue to guide his office, and that “as secretary of state of Georgia, I have been clear that I believe voters are smart and deserve the right to decide elections.”“In Georgia, there is a specific statutory process to follow when a candidate’s qualifications for office are challenged,” Mr. Raffensperger said in a statement. “The secretary of state’s office has and will continue to follow the appropriate procedures in state law for any candidate challenges.”There has been one settled case since Jan. 6 that invoked the 14th Amendment. In September, a judge in New Mexico ordered a county commissioner convicted of participating in the Jan. 6 riot removed from office under the 14th Amendment. He was the first public official in more than a century to be barred from serving under a constitutional ban on insurrectionists holding office. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Matt DePerno, Trump Meddler in Michigan, Is Charged in Election Breach

      by

      A key figure in a multistate effort to overturn the 2020 election, Mr. DePerno lost his race for Michigan attorney general in 2022. He later finished second to lead the state’s Republican Party.Matthew DePerno, a key orchestrator of efforts to help former President Donald J. Trump try to overturn the 2020 election in Michigan and an unsuccessful candidate for state attorney general last year, was arraigned on four felony charges on Tuesday, according to documents released by D.J. Hilson, the special prosecutor handling the investigation.The charges against Mr. DePerno, which include undue possession of a voting machine and a conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to a computer or computer system, come after a nearly yearlong investigation in one of the battleground states that cemented the election of Joseph R. Biden Jr. as president.Former State Representative Daire Rendon was also charged with two crimes, including a conspiracy to illegally obtain a voting machine and false pretenses.Both Mr. DePerno and Ms. Rendon were arraigned remotely on Tuesday before Chief Judge Jeffery Matis, according to Richard Lynch, the court administrator for Oakland County’s Sixth Circuit, and remained free on bond.The charges were first reported by The Detroit News.Mr. DePerno denied any wrongdoing and said that his efforts “uncovered significant security flaws” in a statement from his lawyer, Paul Stablein.“He maintains his innocence and firmly believes that these charges are not based upon any actual truth and are motivated primarily by politics rather than evidence,” Mr. Stablein said.The criminal inquiry in Michigan has largely been overshadowed by developments in Georgia, where a grand jury is weighing charges against Mr. Trump for trying to subvert the election, but both are part of the ongoing reckoning over the conspiracy theories about election machines promoted by Mr. Trump and his allies.The efforts to legitimize the falsehoods and conspiracy theories promoted widely by Mr. Trump and his allies continued long after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and after Mr. Biden took office. In Arizona, such efforts included the discredited election audit of Maricopa County led by Republicans in the state legislature.In a statement, Mr. Hilson said, “Although our office made no recommendations to the grand jury as to whether an indictment should be issued or not, we support the grand jury’s decision and we will prosecute each of the cases as they have directed in the sole interests of justice.”Dana Nessel, Michigan’s attorney general and a Democrat who went on to defeat Mr. DePerno in the November election, has not been involved in the investigation since the appointment of a special prosecutor in August last year. In a statement on Tuesday, Ms. Nessel said that the allegations “caused undeniable harm to our democracy” and issued a warning for the future.“The 2024 presidential election will soon be upon us. The lies espoused by attorneys involved in this matter, and those who worked in concert with them across the nation, wreaked havoc and sowed distrust within our democratic institutions and processes,” Ms. Nessel said. “We hope for swift justice in the courts.”The charges stemmed from a bizarre plot hatched by a group of conservative activists in early 2021 to pick apart voting machines in at least three Michigan counties, in some cases taking them to hotels and Airbnb rentals as they hunted for evidence of election fraud.In the weeks after the 2020 election, he drew widespread attention and the admiration of Mr. Trump when he filed a lawsuit challenging the vote tallies in Antrim County, a rural area in Northern Michigan where a minor clerical error fueled conspiracy theories.He falsely claimed that voting machines there had been rigged, a premise that was rejected as “idiotic” by William P. Barr, an attorney general under Mr. Trump, and “demonstrably false” by Republicans in the Michigan Senate.Mr. Hilson, the prosecutor in Muskegon County appointed as special prosecutor, had initially delayed bringing charges, asking a state judge to determine whether it was against state law to take possession of a voting machine without the secretary of state’s permission or a court order. A judge determined last month that doing so was against the law, clearing the way for charges.Democrats swept the governor’s race and other statewide contests last fall, in addition to flipping the full Legislature for the first time in decades. Mr. DePerno, who was endorsed by Mr. Trump, lost the attorney general’s race by eight percentage points.This year, Mr. DePerno had been a front-runner to lead the Michigan Republican Party after its disappointing showing in last year’s midterm election, but he finished second to another election-denier: Kristina Karamo.In his campaign to lead the G.O.P. in Michigan, Mr. DePerno had vowed to pack the party’s leadership ranks with Trump loyalists, close primaries to just Republicans and ratchet up the distribution of absentee ballot applications to party members — despite what he said was lingering opposition to voting by mail within the party’s ranks.His candidacy was supported by Mike Lindell, the MyPillow chief executive who has spread conspiracy theories about election fraud and appeared at a fund-raising reception for Mr. DePerno in Lansing on the night before the chairmanship vote.Mr. DePerno lost to Ms. Karamo after three rounds of balloting at the state party convention, a process that was slowed for several hours by the use of paper ballots and hand counting.Danny Hakim More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Conspirators Are Facing the Music, Finally

      by

      We’ve reached a turning point in the effort to ensure there are consequences for those who deliberately attempt to undermine our democracy: Michigan’s attorney general, Dana Nessel, charged 16 Republican leaders in her state on Tuesday for their role as fake electors working to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The charges, coming on the heels of news that the special counsel Jack Smith has informed Donald Trump that he’s a target of the Department of Justice’s investigation into the Capitol riot, mean we are witnessing a new and necessary phase in this quest for accountability, one in which the federal and state wheels of justice work to hold people accountable not only for the violence on Jan. 6, but also for what got us there: the alleged scheme to interfere with the transfer of power.The charges in Michigan will surely meet criticism on all sides. Some will say the case is not broad or bold enough, that Mr. Trump and the other alleged national ringleaders should have been charged as well. Others will say Ms. Nessel cast too wide a net, pulling in low-level party functionaries who did not know better. We think those critiques are misconceived. Ms. Nessel got it just right, prosecuting crimes firmly within her jurisdiction, while opening the way for federal authorities to net even bigger fish.Ms. Nessel brought the same eight counts against all 16 defendants. The offenses include conspiracy to commit forgery, since the defendants are accused of signing documents stating they were the qualified electors (they were not), and publishing forged documents by circulating these materials to federal and state authorities. On paper, the penalties for the offenses range from five to 14 years, but sentencing in this case would presumably be lower than that maximum.Until now there have been no charges centered on the fake electors plot. For that reason alone, Michigan’s action brings a sense of needed accountability for those who fanned the rioters’ passions leading up to Jan. 6 by spinning a false narrative about a stolen election.Michigan saw some of the most outrageous fake electoral certificates to emerge during the period leading up to the Capitol riot. Unlike the fake certificates in Pennsylvania and New Mexico, the Michigan documents did not include a disclaimer that they were to be used only in the case of litigation. What’s more, the documents contained more outright false statements than simply declaring that the signers were the lawful electors of the winning candidate.For example, they state that the electors “convened and organized in the State Capitol,” when, according to the attorney general, they were hidden away in the basement of the state Republican headquarters. (It seems likely that the fake electors included this lie because Michigan law requires presidential electors to meet in the Capitol — a requirement and legal problem that a Trump campaign legal adviser, Kenneth Chesebro, had flagged in his confidential memorandum setting out the scheme.)In proving these cases, establishing intent will be key. Here, there are several indicators that the defendants may have been aware of the illicit nature of their gathering. According to congressional testimony from the state Republican Party’s chairwoman at the time, Laura Cox, the group originally planned to meet inside the Capitol and hide overnight, so they could vote in the building the following day. Ms. Cox said she told a lawyer working with the Trump campaign and supposedly organizing the fake electors “in no uncertain terms that that was insane and inappropriate,” and “a very, very bad idea and potentially illegal.”As she put it, Ms. Cox was “very uncomfortable” with facilitating a meeting of the fake elector group, and said so at the time in accord with her lawyers’ opinion. Ms. Cox even urged the group to draft a significantly more measured document simply “stating that if perhaps something were to happen in the courts, they were willing and able to serve as electors from Michigan for Donald Trump.” Her advice was not followed.At the time the fake electors met to allegedly forge their documents, they should have been aware that state officials had certified the election results for Joe Biden — it was national and state news. By that point, there was no prospect of changing that outcome through either litigation or legislative action. On the day prosecutors say the fake electors met, two of the most powerful Republicans in the state acknowledged as much. Mike Shirkey, the majority leader in the State Senate, and Lee Chatfield, the House speaker, both issued statements declaring the presidential race over. Mr. Shirkey said that Michigan’s “Democratic slate of electors should be able to proceed with their duty” without the threat of harassment or violence.The fake electors were told they were not allowed to bring their phones into the meeting at the Republican headquarters that day, according to testimony one of them gave congressional investigators. They were instructed to maintain secrecy and not to share any details about what was occurring. That secrecy suggests that they knew what they were doing was wrong.Michigan’s former secretary of state, Terri Lynn Land, who had been designated a Trump elector, declined to participate in the proceedings, saying, according to Ms. Cox’s testimony, she was not comfortable doing so.With these facts, it would have been unthinkable for the state attorney general to choose not to prosecute the Michigan 16. Ms. Nessel’s office has regularly brought prosecutions, some of them against her fellow Democrats, centered on false documents in connection with elections. The case of the fake electors is far more egregious than most of those other cases: The defendants here were politically engaged individuals who should have been aware of the election results, as well as the flat rejection by the courts and Michigan Legislature of the Trump campaign’s claims of voter fraud.To be sure, some critics of the case may still think that the Michigan attorney general should have gone after Mr. Trump and his top lieutenants, who helped organize the false electors. But prosecutors have a responsibility first to pursue those individuals within their jurisdiction. By focusing solely on the figures who undertook their acts in Michigan, Ms. Nessel is wisely insulating her case against charges that she overreached, exceeding her jurisdiction.Of course, broader prosecutions may still be justified. Reporting indicates that the district attorney for Fulton County, Ga., Fani Willis, may be considering a different kind of wide-ranging case, involving state RICO crimes. Unlike the Michigan prosecution, her case may focus on Mr. Trump’s direct efforts to pressure state election officials — efforts that were caught on tape — and Rudy Giuliani’s attempt to provide false statements of election fraud to state officials.If broad-based indictments ultimately emerge out of Georgia, and are supported by the facts and appropriate law, then we would welcome it. That is part of the genius of American democracy: The states, which are responsible for running our elections, are laboratories of both democracy and of accountability.Ms. Nessel’s case also leaves a clear lane for Mr. Smith, the special counsel. She has avoided charging high-level national individuals whom Mr. Smith is apparently investigating. If anything, her case provides greater foundation for Mr. Smith to act, and he now seems to be following through. If Ms. Nessel can move against these individuals in Michigan, Mr. Smith can and should do the same against the ringleaders. Together, they can hold both the foot soldiers and their organizers accountable for their actions leading up to the Capitol riot.Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee for the first impeachment and trial of Donald Trump. Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University, is a co-editor in chief of the Just Security website.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Few of Trump’s G.O.P. Rivals Defend Justice Dept. Independence

      by

      The evolution of the Republican Party under the influence of former President Donald J. Trump calls into question a post-Watergate norm.Donald J. Trump has promised that if he wins back the presidency he will appoint a special prosecutor to “go after” President Biden and his family.But he’s not the only Republican running for president who appears to be abandoning a long-established norm in Washington — presidents keeping their hands out of specific Justice Department investigations and prosecutions.Mr. Trump, who leads the G.O.P. field by around 30 percentage points in public national polls, wields such powerful influence that only a few of his Republican rivals are willing to clearly say presidents should not interfere in such Justice Department decisions.After Mr. Trump’s vow to direct the Justice Department to appoint a “real” prosecutor to investigate the Bidens, The New York Times asked each of his Republican rivals questions aimed at laying out what limits, if any, they believed presidents must or should respect when it comes to White House interference with federal law enforcement decisions.Their responses reveal a party that has turned so hard against federal law enforcement that it is no longer widely considered good politics to clearly answer in the negative a question that was once uncontroversial: Do you believe presidents should get involved in the investigations and prosecutions of individuals?Mr. Trump’s closest rival, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, has flatly said he does not believe the Justice Department is independent from the White House as a matter of law, while leaving it ambiguous where he stands on the issue of presidents getting involved in investigation decisions.Mr. DeSantis’s spokesman, Bryan Griffin, wrote in an email that comments the governor made on a recent policy call “should be instructive to your reporting.”Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida said the president can lawfully exert more direct control over the Justice Department and F.B.I. than has traditionally been the case.Jason Henry for The New York TimesIn the comments, Mr. DeSantis says that “the fundamental insight” he gleans from the Constitution is that the Justice Department and F.B.I. are not “independent” from the White House and that the president can lawfully exert more direct control over them than traditionally has been the case.“I think presidents have bought into this canard that they’re independent, and that’s one of the reasons why they’ve accumulated so much power over the years,” Mr. DeSantis said. “We will use the lawful authority that we have.”But the context of Mr. DeSantis’s remarks was mostly about a president firing political appointees and bureaucrats at the Justice Department and the F.B.I., not about a president ordering them to target specific people with investigations and prosecutions. Mr. Griffin did not respond when asked in a follow-up on this point.Mr. Trump has portrayed his legal troubles as stemming from politicization, although there is no evidence Mr. Biden directed Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Mr. Trump. Under Mr. Garland, Trump-appointed prosecutors are already investigating Mr. Biden’s handling of classified documents and on Tuesday secured a guilty plea from Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter, on tax charges.Especially since Watergate, there has been an institutional tradition of Justice Department independence from White House control. The idea is that while a president can set broad policies — directing the Justice Department to put greater resources and emphasis on particular types of crimes, for example — he or she should not get involved in specific criminal case decisions except in rare cases affecting foreign policy.This is particularly seen as true for cases involving a president’s personal or political interests, such as an investigation into himself or his political opponents.But even in his first term, Mr. Trump increasingly pressed against that notion.William P. Barr, left, Mr. Trump’s attorney general, refused Mr. Trump’s baseless demand that he say the 2020 election had been corrupt.Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesIn the spring of 2018, Mr. Trump told his White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, that he wanted to order the Justice Department to investigate his 2016 rival, Hillary Clinton, and James B. Comey Jr., the former head of the F.B.I. Mr. McGahn rebuffed him, saying the president had no authority to order an investigation, according to two people familiar with the conversation.Later in 2018, Mr. Trump publicly demanded that the Justice Department open an investigation into officials involved in the Russia investigation. The following year, Attorney General William P. Barr indeed assigned a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, John Durham, to investigate the investigators — styling it as an administrative review because there was no factual predicate to open a formal criminal investigation.Mr. Trump also said in 2018 and 2019 that John F. Kerry, the Obama-era secretary of state, should be prosecuted for illegally interfering with American diplomacy by seeking to preserve a nuclear accord with Iran. Geoffrey S. Berman, a former U.S. attorney in Manhattan whom Mr. Trump fired in 2020, later wrote in his memoir that the Trump Justice Department pressured him to find a way to charge Mr. Kerry, but he closed the investigation after about a year without bringing any charges.And as the 2020 election neared, Mr. Trump pressured Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham to file charges against high-level former officials even though the prosecutor had not found a factual basis to justify any. In his own memoir, Mr. Barr wrote that the Durham investigation’s “failure to deliver scalps in time for the election” eroded their relationship even before Mr. Barr refused Mr. Trump’s baseless demand that he say the 2020 election had been corrupt.Where Mr. Trump’s first-term efforts were scattered and haphazard, key allies — including Jeffrey B. Clark, a former Justice Department official who helped Mr. Trump try to overturn the 2020 election — have been developing a blueprint to make the department in any second Trump term more systematically subject to direct White House control.Against that backdrop, Vivek Ramaswamy, one of the long-shot G.O.P. challengers, has pledged to pardon Mr. Trump if Mr. Ramaswamy wins the presidency. He said that as a constitutional matter, he thinks a president does have the power to direct prosecutors to open or close specific criminal investigations. But he added that “the president must exercise this judgment with prudence in a manner that respects the rule of law in the country.”Vivek Ramaswamy said he would respect the post-Watergate norm regarding Justice Department independence.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesAsked if he would pledge, regardless of his views on what the law may technically allow presidents to do, to obey the post-Watergate norm, Mr. Ramaswamy replied: “As a general norm, yes.”Two Republican candidates who are both former U.S. attorneys unequivocally stated that presidents should not direct the investigations or prosecutions of individuals. Tellingly, both are chasing votes from anti-Trump moderate Republicans.Chris Christie, a former New Jersey governor who was a U.S. attorney in the George W. Bush administration, said he knew “just how important it is to keep prosecutors independent and let them do their jobs.”“No president should be meddling in Department of Justice investigations or cases in any way,” Mr. Christie added. “The best way to keep that from happening is with a strong attorney general who can lead without fear or favor.”And Asa Hutchinson, a former Arkansas governor and congressman who served as a U.S. attorney in the Reagan administration, said that “preserving an independent and politically impartial Department of Justice in terms of specific investigations is essential for the rule of law and paramount in rebuilding trust with the American people.”A spokesman for former Vice President Mike Pence, Devin O’Malley, was terse. He said a president could remove senior law enforcement officials and expressed some support for Justice Department independence. But he declined to add further comment when pressed.“Mike Pence believes that the president of the United States has the ability to hire and fire the attorney general, the F.B.I. director, and other D.O.J. officials — and has, in fact, pledged to do so if elected — but also believes the D.O.J. has a certain level of independence with regard to prosecutorial matters,” Mr. O’Malley said.Mr. Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence, through a spokesman, expressed some support for Justice Department independence.John Tully for The New York TimesMost other candidates running against Mr. Trump landed in what they apparently deemed to be a politically safer space of blending general comments about how justice should be administered impartially with vague accusations that the Biden-era Justice Department had targeted Republicans for political reasons.Many did not specifically point to a basis for those accusations. Among a broad swath of conservatives, it is taken as a given that the F.B.I. and Justice Department must be politically motivated against them on a variety of fronts, including the scrutiny over the 2016 Trump campaign’s links to Russia, the prosecution of people who rioted at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and the Trump documents case.Matt Gorman, a senior communications adviser for Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, declined to say whether or not Mr. Scott believed presidents should interfere in specific investigations. He pointed only to Mr. Scott’s comments on the most recent “Fox News Sunday” appearance.In those remarks, Mr. Scott said: “We have to clean out the political appointments in the Department of Justice to restore confidence and integrity in the D.O.J. Today, we want to know that in our justice system, Lady Justice wears a blindfold and that all Americans will be treated fairly by Lady Justice. But today, this D.O.J. continues to hunt Republicans while they protect Democrats.”Nikki Haley, the former United Nations ambassador, also provided an ambiguous answer through her spokeswoman, Chaney Denton. She pointed to two specific conservative grievances with law enforcement: Seven years ago, Hillary Clinton was not charged over using a private email server while secretary of state, and the Trump-era special counsel, Mr. Durham, wrote a report this year criticizing the Russia inquiry.“The Department of Justice should be impartial, but unfortunately it is not today,” Ms. Denton said. “The Durham Report, the non-prosecution of Hillary Clinton, and other actions make it clear that a partisan double standard is being applied. The answer is not to have both parties weaponize the Justice Department; it’s to have neither side do it.”“The Department of Justice should be impartial,” a spokeswoman for Nikki Haley said, without getting into specifics.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesWhen specifically pressed, Ms. Denton declined to say whether Ms. Haley believes presidents should get involved in prosecutions or investigations of individuals.One recent entrant to the race, Mayor Francis X. Suarez of Miami, disavowed the post-Watergate norm, putting forward a premise that law enforcement officials are currently politically biased and so his White House interference would be to correct that purported state of affairs.“I certainly would not promise that I would allow a biased department operate independently,” he said in part of a statement. “I believe it is the president’s responsibility to insist that justice is delivered fairly without bias or political influence.”A spokesman for Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota, Lance Trover, was even more vague.“Gov. Burgum believes that citizens’ faith in our institutions is the foundation of a free and just society and will not allow them to be a political enforcement extension of the party in power as we have seen in failed countries,” he said. “If Americans have distrust in the Justice Department when he takes office, he will do what it takes to restore the American people’s faith in the Department of Justice and other bedrocks of our democracy.” More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Arizona Sues After County Puts an Election Skeptic in Charge of Voting

      by

      Cochise County, a hotbed of conspiracy theories, transferred election duties from a nonpartisan office to the county’s elected recorder, a Republican.An Arizona county is being sued by the state’s Democratic attorney general after it transferred voting oversight to the county’s Republican recorder, who has cast doubts about past election results in a place where former President Donald J. Trump won nearly 60 percent of the vote in 2020.It is the latest clash between Democrats in statewide office and Cochise County, a deeply Republican area in southeastern Arizona, where conspiracy theories about voter fraud and irregularities still swirl.The county’s nonpartisan elections director, Lisa Marra, announced in January that she would resign, citing threats against her after she refused to comply with rogue election directives from the Republicans who control county government, including plans to count ballots by hand after last year’s midterm elections. She recently accepted a position with the secretary of state’s office.The county’s board of supervisors then made David W. Stevens, the Republican recorder, the interim elections director, with the board’s two G.O.P. members supporting the new power structure in a Feb. 28 vote, and its lone Democrat opposing it.On Tuesday, Kris Mayes, who was narrowly elected as Arizona’s attorney general in November and took office in January, filed a lawsuit against the county and called the power shift an “unqualified handover.”Understand the 4 Criminal Inquiries Into Donald TrumpCard 1 of 5Intensifying investigations. More