More stories

  • in

    How Trump’s Win Helps Him Fight Off His Legal Charges

    By triumphing at the ballot box, Donald Trump can dispense with federal charges against him while postponing or derailing other pending cases that have dogged him.For all that former President Donald J. Trump’s election to a second term was a remarkable political comeback, it was also the culmination of an audacious and stunningly successful legal strategy that could allow him to evade accountability for the array of charges against him.The string of accusations lodged during the two years of Mr. Trump’s candidacy, seemingly enough to end the career of almost any politician, became in his hands a fund-raising bonanza and a rallying cry, a deep pool of fuel for his rage and a call to demand retribution. The intensity of his campaign fed off the recognition that his personal freedom could be on the line.He was indicted not just once but twice for plotting to overturn the last election. He was accused of mishandling national security secrets and obstruction. He was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, and for inflating his net worth. And he was found guilty of criminal charges stemming from a hush money payment to a porn star.Throughout it all, however, starting with his first indictment in the hush money case, legal proceedings that were meant to hold him to account only seemed to strengthen his support. His political standing strengthened, he was relentless in fighting off some charges, delaying a trial on others and banking on the election itself to settle what he could not win in the courtroom.The Justice Department has taken the position under administrations of both parties that prosecutors cannot pursue criminal charges against a sitting president to avoid interfering with his performance of his constitutional duties. That is a legal principle that the Trump administration Justice Department and his defense lawyers will surely press state courts and local prosecutors to adhere to as well.The result is that the decision by voters this week to return Mr. Trump to the White House could lead all or many of the proceedings against him to be postponed or derailed altogether.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

    Will Trump Get Jail Time? We Looked at Similar Cases to Find Out.

    Donald J. Trump faces sentencing on Nov. 26. The election three weeks earlier may determine not only if he returns to the presidency, but if he ends up behind bars.In November, after voters decide whether to return Donald J. Trump to the White House, the judge who oversaw his criminal trial could send him to jail.And despite Mr. Trump’s political status, the judge has ample grounds to do so, a New York Times examination of dozens of similar cases shows.The former president’s unruly behavior at the trial, held in New York in April and May, makes him a candidate for jail time, as does his felony crime of falsifying business records: Over the past decade in Manhattan, more than a third of these convictions resulted in defendants spending time behind bars, The Times’s examination found. Across New York State, the proportion is even higher — about 42 percent of those convictions led to jail or prison time. More

  • in

    Prosecutors in Trump Hush-Money Trial Leave Decision on Sentencing to Judge

    Lawyers for Donald J. Trump had asked to move the sentencing in his Manhattan criminal case to after the election. In a letter, prosecutors disputed many of their arguments.Manhattan prosecutors took no clear position on Donald J. Trump’s latest request to delay his sentencing in his criminal hush-money case, deferring to a judge alone to decide whether to postpone until after Election Day.In a letter to the judge overseeing the case, Justice Juan M. Merchan, prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney’s office declined to endorse either the existing schedule or a delay — but also disputed many of Mr. Trump’s arguments for needing additional time. The former president had asked to postpone the sentencing until after the election partly so he had more time to challenge his conviction.The sentencing is currently set for Sept. 18, just seven weeks before Election Day, when Mr. Trump, now a felon, will square off against Vice President Kamala Harris for the presidency. The prosecutors, the letter said, are “prepared to appear for sentencing” at any date the judge chooses.“The people defer to the court on the appropriate post-trial schedule that allows for adequate time” for Mr. Trump to challenge his conviction, “while also pronouncing sentence without unreasonable delay,” the prosecutors wrote in the letter, dated Aug. 16 and released on Monday.The district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, appeared to strike a middle ground in hopes of navigating around a partisan backlash so close to Election Day.If Mr. Bragg had opposed a postponement, Mr. Trump would have accused him of meddling in the election. But explicitly consenting to Mr. Trump’s delay tactics might have alienated Mr. Bragg’s liberal Manhattan base as it demands accountability for the former president, who was convicted in May of falsifying business records to conceal a sex scandal.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

    Heirs of Jews Who Fled the Nazis Return Art to Heirs Whose Family Could Not

    An Egon Schiele drawing was returned on Friday at the Manhattan district attorney’s office. The heirs said in a statement that relinquishing the work was “the right thing to do.”“Seated Nude Woman,” a drawing by the Austrian Expressionist Egon Schiele, was returned on Friday to the heirs of Fritz Grünbaum, a Jewish art collector and Viennese cabaret performer who was killed by the Nazis during the Holocaust.The drawing had been held by the heirs of a Jewish couple who fled the Nazis just before World War II and later unknowingly bought the work, which investigators for the Manhattan district attorney’s office say were among dozens looted from Grünbaum by the Third Reich.The return took place at the district attorney’s office in Manhattan. The grandchildren of the couple, Ernst and Helene Papanek, said in a statement that relinquishing the work was “the right thing to do” in the face of evidence it had been looted.Since September, five museums and four private owners have handed back 11 works once owned by Grünbaum in what has become the largest Holocaust art restitution case in the United States.One museum, the Art Institute of Chicago, has challenged an order from investigators to turn over a 12th Schiele, “Russian War Prisoner,” that was once owned by Grünbaum, who died in a concentration camp in 1941. The museum has contested the evidence cited by investigators and a legal battle over the work is proceeding in New York State Supreme Court.A Grünbaum descendant, Timothy Reif, responded to Friday’s return in a statement that said the recovery of the work sends a message “that crime does not pay and that the law enforcement community in New York has not forgotten the dark lessons of World War II.”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

    Why Bragg Dropped Charges Against Most Columbia Student Protesters

    The Manhattan district attorney’s office cited a lack of evidence in deciding not to prosecute 31 of the 46 people charged in the takeover of Hamilton Hall.Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, last week dropped most of the 46 cases against pro-Palestinian demonstrators charged in the April 30 siege of Hamilton Hall at Columbia University because prosecutors had little proof that the cases would stand up at trial.There was limited video footage of what took place inside the campus building, Doug Cohen, a spokesman for the district attorney, said in a statement. The protesters wore masks and covered security cameras, preventing prosecutors from identifying those who had barricaded the doors and smashed chairs, desks and windows during the 17-hour occupation.The district attorney announced the decision to drop 31 of the 46 cases during a court hearing on Thursday. Apart from trespassing, a misdemeanor, proving any other criminal charges would be “extremely difficult,” Mr. Cohen said. For similar reasons, prosecutors also dismissed charges against nine of the 22 students and staff members at City College who were arrested inside a campus building and charged with burglary during a protest that took place on the same night as the arrests at Hamilton Hall. Six other people who were arrested outside the building still face criminal charges: Five were charged with second-degree assault, a felony, and another was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, a misdemeanor. The protests on April 30 grew out of a weekslong encampment on Columbia’s South Lawn that ignited similar demonstrations at college campuses across the country and resulted in hundreds of arrests. As the academic year drew to a close, protesters called on Columbia to divest from Israel, among other demands, sometimes clashing with counterprotesters or with the police.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

    Bragg Asks Judge to Extend Trump’s Gag Order, Citing Deluge of Threats

    Donald J. Trump claims the order has unfairly restricted his free speech rights ahead of his sentencing on 34 felony counts. He has nonetheless attacked the judge, prosecutor and justice system.Prosecutors in Manhattan said on Friday that a judge should keep in place major elements of a gag order that was imposed on Donald J. Trump, citing dozens of threats that have been made against officials connected to the case.The order, issued before Mr. Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial began in mid-April, bars him from attacking witnesses, jurors, court staff and relatives of the judge who presided over the trial, Juan M. Merchan.Mr. Trump’s lawyers have sought to have the order lifted since Mr. Trump’s conviction in late May. But in a 19-page filing on Friday, prosecutors argued that while Justice Merchan no longer needed to enforce the portion of the gag order relating to trial witnesses, he should keep in place the provisions protecting jurors, prosecutors, court staff and their families.The New York Police Department has logged 56 “actionable threats” since the beginning of April directed against Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who brought the case, and against his family and employees, according to an affidavit provided with the filing.Such threats, evidently made by supporters of Mr. Trump, included a post disclosing the home address of an employee at the district attorney’s office, and bomb threats made on the first day of the trial directed at two people involved in the case.The 56 threats that were logged, prosecutors said, did not include the hundreds of “threatening emails and phone calls” that were received by Mr. Bragg’s office in recent months, which the police are “not tracking as threat cases.”Mr. Trump was convicted on May 30 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payoff made to the porn star Stormy Daniels. The money was meant to cover up a sexual tryst she says she had with Mr. Trump in 2006, a decade before he was elected president. (Mr. Trump, 78, has continued to deny ever having had sex with Ms. Daniels.)Mr. Trump is scheduled to be sentenced on July 11. He faces up to four years in prison, or lesser punishments like probation or home confinement.The first American president to face — and be convicted of — criminal charges, Mr. Trump has worn the guilty verdict as a badge of honor, using it to raise money and presenting himself as a “political prisoner.”He has also continued to voice the false theory that his prosecution was the work of a nefarious conspiracy among Democrats, including President Biden and Mr. Bragg.This is a developing story and will be updated. More

  • in

    Holy Cow, 34 for 45!

    WASHINGTON — At Nativity grade school, we grew up steeped in the lore — and gore — of martyrs. For their brave deeds and words, these men and women were stoned, crucified, beheaded, stripped of all their skin, shot with arrows and cooked alive on a red-hot griddle.So I’m a little surprised my siblings would somehow put Donald Trump in those martyrs’ sainted company.My sister and brother, disturbed by Trump’s constant chaos and slashing insults, saw their hopes for Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley evaporate.I called my Republican sibs Friday to see if hearing the word “guilty” ring out 34 times in a New York courtroom had finally severed them from Trump; they are, after all, children of a police detective.My sister, Peggy, said she couldn’t sleep all night.“You decided you can’t vote for a felon?” I asked.“I wasn’t going to vote for Trump,” she said. “But now I am because I thought this whole thing was a sham.”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 and Allies Assail Conviction With Faulty Claims

    After former President Donald J. Trump was found guilty, he and a number of conservative figures in the news media and lawmakers on the right have spread false and misleading claims about the Manhattan case.After former President Donald J. Trump was found guilty of all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, he instantly rejected the verdict and assailed the judge and criminal justice system.His loyalists in the conservative news media and Congress quickly followed suit, echoing his baseless assertions that he had fallen victim to a politically motivated sham trial.The display of unity reflected the extent of Mr. Trump’s hold over his base.The former president and his supporters have singled out the judge who presided over the case, denigrated the judicial system and distorted the circumstances of the charges against him and his subsequent conviction.Here’s a fact check of some of their claims.What Was Said“We had a conflicted judge, highly conflicted. There’s never been a more conflicted judge.”— Mr. Trump in a news conference on Friday at Trump Tower in ManhattanThis is exaggerated. For over a year, Mr. Trump and his allies have said Justice Juan M. Merchan should not preside over the case because of his daughter’s line of work. Loren Merchan, the daughter, served as the president of a digital campaign strategy agency that has done work for many prominent Democrats, including Mr. Biden’s 2020 campaign.Experts in judicial ethics have said Ms. Merchan’s work is not sufficient grounds for recusal. When Mr. Trump’s legal team sought his recusal because of his daughter, Justice Merchan sought counsel from the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, which said it did not see any conflict of interest.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