More stories

  • in

    What a Matt Gaetz Justice Department Would Mean for Business

    The Trump loyalist supports an “aggressive” antitrust approach and has called for breaking up Big Tech. But can the controversial nominee win Senate approval?Matt Gaetz may be Donald Trump’s most surprising and contentious pick yet to join his cabinet.Mike Blake/ReutersA “disrupter” for the Justice DepartmentMatt Gaetz is known for his outspoken defenses of Donald Trump, numerous scandals and a House ethics investigation. He can now add another distinction: being the president-elect’s pick to be nominee for attorney general.It isn’t clear whether Gaetz, perhaps the most divisive of Trump’s cabinet choices so far, will get Senate confirmation. But if he does, he could keep corporate America on its toes.Trump and his allies see the position of attorney general as especially important, given the president-elect’s numerous legal woes.The Times reports that Trump weighed more traditional candidates, including Jay Clayton, who was S.E.C. chair in his first administration, and Bob Giuffra, a co-chair of the white-shoe law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. But he ultimately chose a loyalist who supported efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.Gaetz “is a disrupter,” said Representative Chip Roy, Republican of Texas, praising Trump’s selection. Gaetz, who resigned from his position as representative of Florida last night, repeatedly challenged Republican leaders, picked fights with Democrats and pulled off stunts like trying to barge into the secure chambers for the House Intelligence Committee.Will he go after Trump’s perceived enemies, including in business? In his announcement on social media, Trump said that Gaetz would “dismantle Criminal Organizations” as part of a mission to bring “desperately needed reform at the Department of Justice.” On X, Elon Musk wrote that “the Hammer of Justice is coming.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump Tries to Move Hush-Money Case to Federal Court Before Sentencing

    The long-shot request, which the former president made Thursday night, is an attempt to avoid sentencing in his criminal case, scheduled for Sept. 18.Former President Donald J. Trump sought to move his Manhattan criminal case into federal court on Thursday, filing the unusual request three months after he was convicted in state court.The long-shot bid marks Mr. Trump’s latest effort to stave off his sentencing in state court in his hush-money trial, in which he was convicted of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal.He is scheduled to receive his punishment on Sept. 18, just seven weeks before Election Day, when he will square off against Vice President Kamala Harris for the presidency.“The ongoing proceedings will continue to cause direct and irreparable harm to President Trump — the leading candidate in the 2024 presidential election — and voters located far beyond Manhattan,” Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, wrote in the filing.Their filing came even as the Trump legal team is awaiting the result of a separate effort to postpone the sentencing; it opened a second front that could complicate the first.On Aug. 15, Mr. Trump asked the state court judge who presided over the trial, Juan M. Merchan, to delay the sentencing until after Election Day. Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that they needed more time to challenge his conviction on the basis of a recent Supreme Court ruling granting presidents broad immunity for official acts.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump’s Hush-Money Case Heads to the Jury: Takeaways From Closing Arguments

    As the criminal trial of Donald J. Trump began its seventh week, the prosecution and the defense made their final pitches to jurors, sending the landmark case into deliberations on Wednesday.A defense lawyer, Todd Blanche, spent three hours Tuesday hammering Michael D. Cohen, the prosecution’s star witness, including accusing him of perjury. He attacked Stormy Daniels, the porn star whose account of a tryst with Mr. Trump in 2006 set in motion the charges the former president faces.The prosecution countered with an even longer, more detailed summation, pushing into the evening. A prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, guided jurors through reams of evidence they had introduced and elicited, including testimony, emails, text messages and recordings.Mr. Trump, 77, is charged with falsifying 34 business records to hide Mr. Cohen’s reimbursement for a $130,000 hush-money payment he made to Ms. Daniels. Mr. Trump has denied the charges and the sexual encounter.Once deliberations begin Wednesday, no one knows how long they will take. If convicted, Mr. Trump — the presumptive Republican presidential nominee — could face prison or probation.Here are five takeaways from closing arguments and Mr. Trump’s 21st day on trial.‘Michael Cohen is a liar’ was a refrain. It may be the defense’s best bet.“The human embodiment of reasonable doubt.”The Links Between Trump and 3 Hush-Money DealsHere’s how key figures involved in making hush-money payoffs on behalf of Donald J. Trump are connected.The Donald Trump Indictment, AnnotatedThe indictment unveiled in April 2023 centers on a hush-money deal with a porn star, but a related document alleges a broader scheme to protect Donald J. Trump’s 2016 campaign.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump’s Trial Could Bring a Rarity: Consequences for His Words

    The former president has spent decades spewing thousands and thousands of words, sometimes contradicting himself. That tendency is now working against him in his Manhattan criminal case.“So that’s not true? That’s not true?”The judge in control of Donald J. Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial had just cut off the former president’s lawyer, Todd Blanche. Mr. Blanche had been in the midst of defending a social media post in which his client wrote that a statement that had been public for years “WAS JUST FOUND!”Mr. Blanche had already acknowledged during the Tuesday hearing that Mr. Trump’s post was false. But the judge, Juan M. Merchan, wasn’t satisfied.“I need to understand,” Justice Merchan said, glaring down at the lawyer from the bench, “what I am dealing with.”The question of what is true — or at least what can be proven — is at the heart of any trial. But this particular defendant, accused by the Manhattan district attorney’s office of falsifying business records to conceal a sex scandal, has spent five decades spewing thousands and thousands of words, sometimes contradicting himself within minutes, sometimes within the same breath, with little concern for the consequences of what he said.Mr. Trump has treated his own words as disposable commodities, intended for single use, and not necessarily indicative of any deeply held beliefs. And his tendency to pile phrases on top of one another has often worked to his benefit, amusing or engaging his supporters — sometimes spurring threats and even violence — while distracting, enraging or just plain disorienting his critics and adversaries.If Mr. Blanche seemed unconcerned at the hearing that he was telling a criminal judge that his client had said something false, it may have been simply because the routine has become so familiar.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Prosecutors Say Trump Keeps Breaking Gag Order, With Four New Violations

    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. The new instances include two separate attacks on his former personal lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, once during a recent television interview and another while speaking to reporters in the hallway outside the Lower Manhattan courtroom. Another violation, prosecutors said, stemmed from a recent interview in which Mr. Trump referred to the jury as “95 percent Democrats.”The fourth example, prosecutors said, took place before the trial began on Thursday, at a campaign stop with construction workers in Manhattan. There, Mr. Trump called David Pecker, the former National Enquirer publisher who took the witness stand for a third time on Thursday, “a nice guy.”Prosecutors accused Mr. Trump of sending a message to Mr. Pecker and other witnesses to be “nice,” or get attacked. They said they would submit the additional violations to the court.Justice Merchan imposed the gag order on Mr. Trump in late March, barring him from making public statements about any witnesses, prosecutors, jurors or court staff, as well as their families. But within a week, Mr. Trump found a loophole in the order and repeatedly attacked the judge’s daughter, a Democratic political consultant.In a hearing earlier this week on the 10 previous violations, lawyers for Mr. Trump argued that the former president had been exercising his right to respond to attacks. Prosecutors noted that the gag order did not include exceptions for Mr. Trump to respond to those who criticize him. More

  • in

    Dismissed Trump Jurors Describe Intense Days in a Glaring Spotlight

    Two prospective jurors who were excused contacted The New York Times to describe their experience in the fraught environment of an unprecedented trial.The two Manhattan residents were led into the courtroom to fulfill a foundational civic duty: to be interviewed as prospective jurors.But in the room when they arrived was a defendant, Donald J. Trump, unlike any in American history.Both would-be jurors, a man and a woman, were eventually excused. But the experience thrust them into the spotlight in a way they never had imagined.One was challenged by Mr. Trump’s lawyers over his past social media posts relating to the former president. The other, the woman, has a medical practice that she could not shut for six weeks while serving on the trial.While they were not chosen to sit on the jury, their experiences illustrate the intensity of the attention focused on Mr. Trump’s trial — and on the first jury to ever weigh the fate of a former United States president in a criminal proceeding.Both contacted The New York Times only after they were excused from serving. Though the court’s rules protecting prospective jurors’ identities end when they are dismissed from serving, The Times is withholding their names and most identifying characteristics about them.Like the other prospective jurors who were considered, both included detailed personal information on the juror questionnaires they filled out, including where they work.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Inside the Manhattan Courtroom Where Trump Is on Trial

    Protesters railed outside, media and security swarmed the area, and inside the courtroom, Donald J. Trump appeared to nod off.It was about 2:30 on Monday afternoon when the first 96 potential jurors filed into a drab courtroom in Lower Manhattan to encounter the world’s most famous defendant: Donald J. Trump.Some craned their necks to catch a glimpse, an indication of the undeniable power of Mr. Trump’s celebrity.But not long after, more than 50 of those same prospective jurors — drawn from one of the nation’s most liberal counties — were dismissed because they said they could not be impartial about the 45th president.The beginning of the first criminal trial of a former American president drew intense security, loud demonstrations and smothering media coverage to a dingy Lower Manhattan courthouse that will be the unlikely center of American politics for the next six weeks.Who Are Key Players in the Trump Manhattan Criminal Trial?The first criminal trial of former President Donald J. Trump began Monday. Take a closer look at central figures related to the case.And if the first day is any indication, the trial may well be a surreal experience, juxtaposing the case’s mundane-sounding criminal charges — falsifying business records — against the potentially seismic effect it could have on the presidential race.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More