Chesebro, Kenneth

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Sidney Powell Seeks Distance From Trump Ahead of Georgia Trial

      by

      Ms. Powell, a lawyer who promoted conspiracy theories about election fraud after Donald J. Trump’s 2020 defeat, now says she never represented him or his campaign.Few defenders of Donald J. Trump promoted election fraud theories after his 2020 defeat as stridently as Sidney K. Powell. In high-profile appearances, often alongside other members of the Trump legal team, she pushed conspiracies involving Venezuela, Cuba and China, as well as George Soros, Hugo Chávez and the Clintons, while baselessly claiming that voting machines had flipped millions of votes.But now Ms. Powell, who next week will be one of the first defendants to go to trial in the Georgia racketeering case against Mr. Trump and 17 of his allies, is claiming through her lawyer that she actually “did not represent President Trump or the Trump campaign” after the election.That claim is undercut by Ms. Powell’s own past words, as well as those of Mr. Trump — and there is ample video evidence of her taking part in news conferences, including one where Rudolph W. Giuliani, then Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, introduced her as one of “the senior lawyers” representing Mr. Trump and his campaign.Most of the Georgia charges against Ms. Powell relate to her role in a data breach at an elections office in rural Coffee County, Ga. There, on the day after the Jan. 6 riots, Trump allies copied sensitive and proprietary software used in voting machines throughout the state in a fruitless hunt for ballot fraud.At a recent court hearing, Ms. Powell’s lawyer, Brian T. Rafferty, said that his client “had nothing to do with Coffee County.”But a number of documents suggest otherwise, including a 392-page file put together by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation that was obtained by The New York Times. The file, a product of the agency’s investigation into the data breach, has been turned over to Georgia’s attorney general, Chris Carr, a Republican.It is not clear that Mr. Carr will take any action, given that Fulton County’s district attorney, Fani T. Willis, has already brought racketeering charges against Ms. Powell, Mr. Trump and 17 others. The Fulton indictment accuses them of participating in a “criminal organization” with the goal of subverting Georgia’s election results.Brian Rafferty, a lawyer representing Ms. Powell, spoke during a hearing this week.Pool photo by Alyssa PointerJury selection in Ms. Powell’s trial and that of Kenneth Chesebro, a legal architect of the plan to deploy fake electors for Mr. Trump in Georgia and other swing states, starts on Monday. Ms. Powell and Mr. Chesebro demanded a speedy trial, their right under Georgia law, while Mr. Trump and most other defendants are likely to be tried much later.Ms. Powell’s vow during a Fox Business Network appearance in 2020 to “release the kraken,” or a trove of phantom evidence proving that Mr. Trump had won, went viral after the election, though the trove never materialized. The next year, after Dominion Voting Systems sued her and a number of others for defamation, Ms. Powell’s lawyers argued that “no reasonable person would conclude” that some of her wilder statements “were truly statements of fact.”That led the office of Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, to crow that “The Kraken Cracks Under Pressure,” and precipitated a spoof of Ms. Powell on Saturday Night Live.Not all are convinced that her conduct veered into criminality.“You have to separate crazy theories from criminal conspiracies,” said Harvey Silverglate, a Boston-area lawyer and civil liberties advocate who has a unique perspective: He is representing John Eastman, another lawyer-defendant in the case, and is a co-author of a 2019 book with Ms. Powell that looked at prosecutorial overreach.“That’s the big dividing line in this whole prosecution — what is criminal and what is wacky, or clearly erroneous or overreaching,” Mr. Silverglate said.Ms. Powell, he added, is “in a tougher position” than his own client, because the accusations against her go beyond the notion that she merely gave legal advice to the Trump campaign as it sought to overturn Mr. Biden’s win. But Mr. Silverglate also said he didn’t think prosecutors would win any convictions in the Georgia case or the three other criminal cases against Mr. Trump in New York, Florida and Washington, given how politicized the trials will be.“I think in any jurisdiction — even Washington, D.C. — you will have at least one holdout,” he said.Ms. Powell is a North Carolina native and a onetime Democrat who spent a decade as a federal prosecutor in Texas and Virginia before establishing her own defense practice. In 2014, she wrote a book, “Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.” She billed it as an exposé of a department riddled with prosecutors who used “strong-arm, illegal, and unethical tactics” in their “narcissistic pursuit of power.”Ms. Powell appeared on Mr. Trump’s radar when she represented his national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who in 2017 pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the United States during the presidential transition. He later tried to withdraw the plea.Ms. Powell, appearing on Fox News, argued that the case should never have been brought and that the F.B.I. and prosecutors “broke all the rules.” Mr. Trump would go on to pardon Mr. Flynn a few weeks after losing the 2020 election.On election night itself, Ms. Powell was at the White House watching the returns come in, according to her testimony to House investigators. When they asked what her relationship with Mr. Trump had been, she declined to answer, she said, because of “attorney-client privilege.”By Nov. 14, Mr. Trump, in a tweet, specifically referred to Ms. Powell as a member of his “truly great team.” Ms. Powell’s lawyer has pointed out that she was not paid by the Trump campaign. But the Trump connection helped her raise millions of dollars for Defending the Republic, her nonprofit group that is dedicated in part to fighting election fraud.Around that time, Ms. Powell, Mr. Flynn and other conspiracy-minded Trump supporters began meeting at a South Carolina plantation owned by L. Lin Wood, a well-known plaintiff’s attorney. According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation file, it was decided there that an Atlanta-based technology firm, SullivanStrickler, “would be used to capture forensic images from voting machines across the nation to support litigation” and that “Powell funded SullivanStrickler’s efforts.”By late November, the Trump team grew exasperated with Ms. Powell’s wild claims and publicly cut ties. But the schism was short-lived; she would make several trips to the White House in the weeks that followed.On Dec. 18, Ms. Powell attended a heated Oval Office meeting with Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani that the Georgia indictment lists as an “overt act” in furtherance of the election interference conspiracy. According to the Georgia indictment, they discussed “seizing voting machines” as well as possibly naming Ms. Powell a special counsel to investigate allegations of voter fraud, though the appointment was never made.Sidney Powell appeared on a screen during a July 2022 hearing of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attacks.Doug Mills/The New York TimesOn Jan. 7, a number of Trump allies, along with SullivanStrickler employees, traveled to Coffee County. “We scanned every freaking ballot,” Scott Hall, a Georgia bail bondsman who made the trip, recalled in a recorded phone conversation at the time. He pleaded guilty to five misdemeanors last month and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.Misty Hampton, a defendant in the racketeering case who was the Coffee County elections administrator, welcomed the Trump-aligned team into the building. But the Georgia Bureau of Investigation file makes clear that the county election board did not officially approve the visit and that local officials lacked authority over the voting equipment. (Ms. Hampton, Ms. Powell and other Fulton County defendants are among the subjects of the state investigation listed in the G.B.I. file, as is Katherine Friess, a lawyer who worked with Mr. Giuliani after the election.)While SullivanStrickler didn’t deal exclusively with Ms. Powell, a number of the firm’s employees have asserted that Ms. Powell was the client for its work copying the Coffee County election data, according to the G.B.I. investigation.“The defense’s stance that Sidney Powell was not aware of the Coffee County breaches is preposterous,” said Marilyn Marks, executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance, a plaintiff in civil litigation over Georgia’s voting security that unearthed much of what happened in Coffee County.According to the racketeering indictment, the data copied that day included “ballot images, voting equipment software and personal voter information.” SullivanStrickler invoiced Ms. Powell more than $26,000 for its work, and her organization, Defending the Republic, paid the bill.Mr. Raffensperger, the secretary of state, subsequently replaced Coffee County’s voting machines and said that “the unauthorized access to the equipment” had violated Georgia law. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Prosecutors Ask if Trump Will Blame His Lawyers as Defense in Election Case

      by

      The special counsel asked a judge to require the former president to disclose whether he would blame poor legal advice for his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss.Federal prosecutors asked a judge on Tuesday to force former President Donald J. Trump to tell them months before he goes to trial on charges of seeking to overturn the 2020 election whether he intends to defend himself by blaming the stable of lawyers around him at the time for giving him poor legal advice.In a motion filed to the judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, the prosecutors sought an order that would compel Mr. Trump to tell them by Dec. 18 if he plans to pursue the blame-the-lawyers strategy — known as an advice of counsel defense — at his federal election interference trial, which is now set to begin in March in Federal District Court in Washington.Both Mr. Trump and his current team of lawyers have “repeatedly and publicly announced” that they were going to use such arguments as “a central component of his defense,” prosecutors told Judge Chutkan in their filing. They said they wanted a formal order forcing Mr. Trump to tell them his plans by mid-December “to prevent disruption of the pretrial schedule and delay of the trial.”The early notification could also give prosecutors a tactical edge in the case. Defendants who pursue advice of counsel arguments waive the shield of attorney-client privilege that would normally protect their dealings with their lawyers. And, as prosecutors reminded Judge Chutkan, if Mr. Trump heads in this direction, he would have to give them not only all of the “communications or evidence” concerning the lawyers he plans to use as part of his defense, but also any “otherwise-privileged communications” that might be used to undermine his claims.Lawyers have been at the heart of the election interference case almost from the moment prosecutors first began issuing grand jury subpoenas to witnesses in the spring of 2022. Many of the subpoenas sought information about lawyers like John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro, who entered Mr. Trump’s orbit around the time of the election and were instrumental in advising him about a scheme to create false slates of electors that declared him the winner of key swing states that had actually been won by his opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr.The subpoenas also sought information about other lawyers, like Jenna Ellis and Rudolph W. Giuliani, who had not only advised Mr. Trump on the false elector plan, but had helped him advance claims that the election had been marred by widespread fraud.Moreover, lawyers from both Mr. Trump’s administration and his presidential campaign proved to be key witnesses in the investigation that began under the Justice Department and then was handed off to prosecutors working for the special counsel, Jack Smith.And when charges were finally filed against Mr. Trump, accusing him of three overlapping conspiracies to remain in power despite the will of the voters, the indictment identified six unnamed co-conspirators — most, if not all, of whom were lawyers as well.In their motion to Judge Chutkan, prosecutors noted that at least 25 witnesses in their sprawling investigation had withheld information based on assertions of attorney-client privilege. Those people, the prosecutors said, included Mr. Trump’s co-conspirators, some of his former campaign employees, some “outside attorneys” and “even a family member of the defendant,” who was not further identified.While prosecutors acknowledged that they were not entirely sure if Mr. Trump intended to raise an advice of counsel defense — or whether he was even legally entitled to do so — they did take note of the public statements that he and his current legal team have made suggesting that such arguments might be used at trial.The prosecutors pointed out that three days after Mr. Trump was arraigned in the case, one of his lawyers, John F. Lauro, made the rounds of the Sunday TV news shows, describing how Mr. Trump had been charged for “following legal advice” from Mr. Eastman, whom he described as “an esteemed scholar.”Weeks later, in an online interview with the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, prosecutors said, Mr. Trump himself made similar claims. In their filing, they wrote that Mr. Trump claimed he had “some lawyers” who had advised him “that a particular course of action described in the indictment was appropriate.”In a separate filing on Tuesday, prosecutors sought to get a jump on what is certain to be the difficult process of picking a jury for the trial.Citing Mr. Trump’s “continued use of social media as a weapon of intimidation” — an issue that has come up in the government’s request for a gag order to be placed on the former president — the prosecutors asked Judge Chutkan to impose restrictions on information about potential jurors and those who are ultimately picked to serve.The prosecutors asked that no one involved in the case be allowed to publicly disclose information about the jurors gleaned during the selection process, in order to protect them “from intimidation and fear.”They also asked Judge Chutkan to consider arranging “for jurors to gain discreet entry into and out of the courthouse” once the trial begins. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Will Loom Over Lawyers’ Trial in Georgia This Fall

      by

      Two lawyers who tried to help overturn the 2020 election results are facing trial this month, an early test of the Georgia case against the former president and 17 others.Within weeks, jury selection in Fulton County, Ga. will be underway. Cameras will be in the courtroom. And prosecutors will present their case alleging a sprawling conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results in the state.But the star defendant — former President Donald J. Trump — won’t be there.Instead, the defendants in the first trial in the racketeering case against Mr. Trump and 18 of his allies, scheduled to begin on Oct. 23, will be two of the lawyers who tried to keep him in power after the election: Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell, who were the only ones to seek speedy trials, as Georgia allows.The former president will loom over the courtroom, though, even if he is not in it. That has much to do with how racketeering cases work.“It is absolutely the trial of Donald Trump,” said Keith Adams, an Atlanta defense lawyer and former prosecutor. “Everyone else — they’re not extras, necessarily, but they’re bit characters.”Mr. Trump and the other defendants are moving more slowly, potentially going to trial in the second half of next year or even later, though Atlanta prosecutors have been seeking plea deals with some of the accused. Scott Hall, a Georgia bail bondsman, accepted a deal last week in which he pleaded guilty to five misdemeanors and was sentenced to five years of probation.A lawyer for another defendant, Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign staffer, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution this week that he rejected a plea offer.The two heading to trial later this month — weeks after the start of a civil fraud trial against Mr. Trump in New York — could not be more different. Ms. Powell is a voluble Texan who spouted conspiracy theories and courted cameras after the 2020 election, promising to “release the kraken,” or a trove of evidence proving that Mr. Trump had won. Mr. Chesebro, a quiet Harvard Law graduate from Wisconsin, worked behind the scenes, devising the legal theory that drove the recruitment of bogus electors in swing states lost by Mr. Trump.Prosecutors will not focus solely on the accusations against the pair; rather, they will lay out what they have described in charging documents as a far-reaching “criminal organization” that committed computer theft and perjury, filed false documents, impersonated public officers and carried out other crimes, with the common goal of changing the election outcome to favor Mr. Trump.Mr. Adams, who is representing the rapper known as Young Thug in another high-profile racketeering case in Atlanta, said that by delving into the alleged misdeeds of Mr. Trump and other co-defendants, prosecutors would be making things harder for Mr. Chesebro and Ms. Powell.In a racketeering case, he said, “every defendant becomes responsible, and is drawn into the conspiracy, based not just on their own actions, but based upon the actions of other individuals who may or not be there in a courtroom with them.”Steven Sadow, a lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump, at the Atlanta airport on the day Mr. Trump was booked at the Fulton County Jail in August.Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesThe first trial may also provide clues as to how the former president will fare when his turn before a jury comes. And Mr. Trump’s Atlanta lawyer, Steven H. Sadow, will be watching closely.Mr. Sadow has been a regular presence at pretrial hearings for other defendants, observing from the back of the courtroom and occasionally cracking wise. During a recent hearing, Mr. Sadow, wearing ostrich-skin cowboy boots, remarked on lapel pins worn by the prosecution team and joked that perhaps the defense could fashion some pins bearing the widely distributed mug shot of the former president.The indictment describes various strands of a broad effort to keep Mr. Trump in power, including appeals the former president made to Georgia’s Republican leaders to help him “find” nearly 12,000 votes, or enough to overturn his defeat in the state. There were also efforts to harass rank-and-file election workers that Mr. Trump and his allies had accused of fraud, and efforts by a Trump ally at the Justice Department to advance false claims about the election.Mr. Chesebro and Ms. Powell each had a major role in other phases of the operation. Ms. Powell coordinated a successful effort by other Trump allies to infiltrate a rural Georgia county’s elections office, where they copied sensitive and proprietary software used in voting machines throughout the state in a fruitless hunt for ballot fraud.As Mr. Hall said in a recorded phone call, the team that visited the office in early January 2021 “scanned all the equipment, imaged all the hard drives and scanned every single ballot.” His plea deal is not good news for Ms. Powell, who has asserted in legal filings that she did nothing wrong because the group was invited into the office by the local elections administrator, Misty Hampton, who is also a defendant. “Nothing was done without authorization,” Ms. Powell’s lawyer, Brian T. Rafferty, wrote in a recent filing.But Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, subsequently replaced the voting machines and has referred to what took place as “the unauthorized access to the equipment that former Coffee County election officials allowed in violation of Georgia law.”Filings from Ms. Powell say that she did not “plan or organize” the data breach. But email traffic between Ms. Powell and SullivanStrickler, the company hired to help carry out the work, shows that she was kept informed of what was taking place. Her nonprofit, Defending the Republic, paid the company.“She is right in the thick of it,” said David D. Cross, a lawyer for a nonprofit group that is suing over perceived security vulnerabilities in Georgia’s voting system, adding, “she’s on emails with the SullivanStrickler firm in real time.”Scott Grubman, left, is representing Kenneth Chesebro in the election interference case.Miguel Martinez/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Chesebro was a key architect of the plan to deploy fake electors in swing states that Mr. Trump had lost. His lawyers have argued that his work was shielded by the First Amendment and that he “acted within his capacity as a lawyer” by offering his legal opinion to his client, the Trump campaign.Prosecutors have taken issue with the fact that the fake electors called themselves “duly elected and qualified” in documents they sent to Washington. By that time, Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia had signed paperwork officially awarding the state’s 16 electoral votes to Joseph R. Biden Jr.Mr. Chesebro’s lawyers have said that in calling themselves “duly elected and qualified,” the Trump electors meant “qualified and elected by the Republican Party.”For Mr. Trump, this is just the beginning. He has also been indicted in a criminal case in Manhattan, on state charges stemming from hush money paid to a pornographic film actress. And he has been indicted in a pair of federal cases — one in Washington, related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election nationally, and one in Florida, over his handling of sensitive government documents after leaving office.But the prosecutions in Atlanta will stand out for targeting not just the former president, but also many of his former advisers. And unlike in the other criminal trials, they will provide a televised window into the historic prosecutions of a former president and his associates.There is still a chance that the trial scheduled to start this month won’t take place — several defendants have sought to move the proceedings to federal court — or that the timing could shift. But the so-called removal efforts were dealt a blow when Judge Steve C. Jones of the Northern District of Georgia rejected an effort by Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s former White House chief of staff, to move his case. Mr. Meadows has appealed the decision.Mr. Adams said that in cases with many defendants and staggered trials, defense lawyers like him have the advantage of getting a preview, in the first trial, of the prosecution’s strategies.“I’m sitting in the back of the courtroom, I can see what’s presented, I can see what the witnesses have said, I can see what their arguments are,” he said. “I get to tailor my defense and my arguments for when we strike up trial No. 2.” More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Won’t Be on Trial in Georgia Case This Fall, but His Presence Will Be Felt

      by

      Two lawyers who tried to help overturn the 2020 election results are facing trial this month, an early test of the state racketeering case against the former president and 17 others.Within weeks, jury selection in Fulton County, Ga. will be underway. Cameras will be in the courtroom. And prosecutors will present their case alleging a sprawling conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results in the state.But the star defendant — former President Donald J. Trump — won’t be there.Instead, the defendants in the first trial in the racketeering case against Mr. Trump and 18 of his allies, scheduled to begin on Oct. 23, will be two of the lawyers who tried to keep him in power after the election: Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell, who were the only ones to seek speedy trials, as Georgia allows.The former president will loom over the courtroom, though, even if he is not in it. That has much to do with how racketeering cases work.“It is absolutely the trial of Donald Trump,” said Keith Adams, an Atlanta defense lawyer and former prosecutor. “Everyone else — they’re not extras, necessarily, but they’re bit characters.”Mr. Trump and the other defendants are moving more slowly, potentially going to trial in the second half of next year or even later, though Atlanta prosecutors have been seeking plea deals with some of the accused. Scott Hall, a Georgia bail bondsman, accepted a deal last week in which he pleaded guilty to five misdemeanors and was sentenced to five years of probation. A lawyer for another defendant, Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign staffer, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution this week that he rejected a plea offer. The two heading to trial later this month — weeks after the start of a civil fraud trial against Mr. Trump in New York — could not be more different. Ms. Powell is a voluble Texan who spouted conspiracy theories and courted cameras after the 2020 election, promising to “release the kraken,” or a trove of evidence proving that Mr. Trump had won. Mr. Chesebro, a quiet Harvard Law graduate from Wisconsin, worked behind the scenes, devising the legal theory that drove the recruitment of bogus electors in swing states lost by Mr. Trump.Prosecutors will not focus solely on the accusations against the pair; rather, they will lay out what they have described in charging documents as a far-reaching “criminal organization” that committed computer theft and perjury, filed false documents, impersonated public officers and carried out other crimes, with the common goal of changing the election outcome to favor Mr. Trump.Mr. Adams, who is representing the rapper known as Young Thug in another high-profile racketeering case in Atlanta, said that by delving into the alleged misdeeds of Mr. Trump and other co-defendants, prosecutors would be making things harder for Mr. Chesebro and Ms. Powell.In a racketeering case, he said, “every defendant becomes responsible, and is drawn into the conspiracy, based not just on their own actions, but based upon the actions of other individuals who may or not be there in a courtroom with them.”Steven Sadow, a lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump, at the Atlanta airport on the day Mr. Trump was booked at the Fulton County Jail in August.Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesThe first trial may also provide clues as to how the former president will fare when his turn before a jury comes. And Mr. Trump’s Atlanta lawyer, Steven H. Sadow, will be watching closely.Mr. Sadow has been a regular presence at pretrial hearings for other defendants, observing from the back of the courtroom and occasionally cracking wise. During a recent hearing, Mr. Sadow, wearing ostrich-skin cowboy boots, remarked on lapel pins worn by the prosecution team and joked that perhaps the defense could fashion some pins bearing the widely distributed mug shot of the former president.The indictment describes various strands of a broad effort to keep Mr. Trump in power, including appeals the former president made to Georgia’s Republican leaders to help him “find” nearly 12,000 votes, or enough to overturn his defeat in the state. There were also efforts to harass rank-and-file election workers that Mr. Trump and his allies had accused of fraud, and efforts by a Trump ally at the Justice Department to advance false claims about the election.Mr. Chesebro and Ms. Powell each had a major role in other phases of the operation. Ms. Powell coordinated a successful effort by other Trump allies to infiltrate a rural Georgia county’s elections office, where they copied sensitive and proprietary software used in voting machines throughout the state in a fruitless hunt for ballot fraud. As Mr. Hall said in a recorded phone call, the team that visited the office in early January 2021 “scanned all the equipment, imaged all the hard drives and scanned every single ballot.” His plea deal is not good news for Ms. Powell, who has asserted in legal filings that she did nothing wrong because the group was invited into the office by the local elections administrator, Misty Hampton, who is also a defendant. “Nothing was done without authorization,” Ms. Powell’s lawyer, Brian T. Rafferty, wrote in a recent filing.But Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, subsequently replaced the voting machines and has referred to what took place as “the unauthorized access to the equipment that former Coffee County election officials allowed in violation of Georgia law.”Filings from Ms. Powell say that she did not “plan or organize” the data breach. But email traffic between Ms. Powell and SullivanStrickler, the company hired to help carry out the work, shows that she was kept informed of what was taking place. Her nonprofit, Defending the Republic, paid the company.“She is right in the thick of it,” said David D. Cross, a lawyer for a nonprofit group that is suing over perceived security vulnerabilities in Georgia’s voting system, adding, “she’s on emails with the SullivanStrickler firm in real time.”Scott Grubman, left, is representing Kenneth Chesebro in the election interference case.Miguel Martinez/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Chesebro was a key architect of the plan to deploy fake electors in swing states that Mr. Trump had lost. His lawyers have argued that his work was shielded by the First Amendment and that he “acted within his capacity as a lawyer” by offering his legal opinion to his client, the Trump campaign.Prosecutors have taken issue with the fact that the fake electors called themselves “duly elected and qualified” in documents they sent to Washington. By that time, Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia had signed paperwork officially awarding the state’s 16 electoral votes to Joseph R. Biden Jr.Mr. Chesebro’s lawyers have said that in calling themselves “duly elected and qualified,” the Trump electors meant “qualified and elected by the Republican Party.”For Mr. Trump, this is just the beginning. He has also been indicted in a criminal case in Manhattan, on state charges stemming from hush money paid to a pornographic film actress. And he has been indicted in a pair of federal cases — one in Washington, related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election nationally, and one in Florida, over his handling of sensitive government documents after leaving office. But the prosecutions in Atlanta will stand out for targeting not just the former president, but also many of his former advisers. And unlike in the other criminal trials, they will provide a televised window into the historic prosecutions of a former president and his associates.There is still a chance that the trial scheduled to start this month won’t take place — several defendants have sought to move the proceedings to federal court — or that the timing could shift. But the so-called removal efforts were dealt a blow when Judge Steve C. Jones of the Northern District of Georgia rejected an effort by Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s former White House chief of staff, to move his case. Mr. Meadows has appealed the decision.Mr. Adams said that in cases with many defendants and staggered trials, defense lawyers like him have the advantage of getting a preview, in the first trial, of the prosecution’s strategies.“I’m sitting in the back of the courtroom, I can see what’s presented, I can see what the witnesses have said, I can see what their arguments are,” he said. “I get to tailor my defense and my arguments for when we strike up trial No. 2.” More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Will Not Seek to Move Georgia Election Case to Federal Court

      by

      His decision comes after Mark Meadows, his former chief of staff, tried unsuccessfully to move his own case from state to federal court.Former President Donald J. Trump will not seek to move the criminal racketeering case against him in Atlanta to federal court, according to a legal filing from his lawyer on Thursday.Mr. Trump was indicted by a grand jury in August, along with 18 of his advisers and allies, after a two-and-a-half year investigation into election interference by the Fulton County district attorney, Fani T. Willis. Keeping the case in state court means that any trial for Mr. Trump would be televised, unlike in federal court.“This decision is based on his well-founded confidence that this honorable court intends to fully and completely protect his constitutional right to a fair trial,” Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Steven H. Sadow, wrote in the filing, referring to Fulton County Superior Court, “and guarantee him due process of law throughout the prosecution of his case.”The move comes a few weeks after a federal judge rejected an effort by Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s former White House chief of staff, to move his own case to federal court. That decision has been appealed, but it dimmed the chances for successful removal efforts by other defendants, including Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official, and three Georgia Republicans who submitted bogus Electoral College votes for the former president in December 2020.Removal is a longstanding practice meant to protect federal officials from state-level prosecution that could impede them from conducting federal business. It is rooted in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which makes federal law “supreme” over contrary state laws.But Judge Steve C. Jones of the Northern District of Georgia decided this month that the actions ascribed to Mr. Meadows in the indictment were not within the scope of his federal duties as White House chief of staff. The evidence, he ruled, “establishes that the actions at the heart of the state’s charges against Meadows were taken on behalf of the Trump campaign with an ultimate goal of affecting state election activities and procedures.”Removal to federal court would have provided some advantages for Mr. Trump, including a jury pool somewhat more favorable to him. But he would have faced the same state felony charges.In the Georgia case, all 19 defendants are facing a racketeering charge for their role in what prosecutors have described as a “criminal organization” that sought to overturn Mr. Trump’s 2020 election loss in the state. Each defendant also faces at least one other charge; Mr. Trump and his former personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, face the most — 13 each.If Mr. Trump ends up going to trial in Fulton County Superior Court, as now seems increasingly likely, the presiding judge will be Scott McAfee, who was recently appointed to the bench.While attending law school at the University of Georgia, Mr. McAfee was a vice president of the school’s chapter of the conservative Federalist Society. He later worked for the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office, where his supervisor was Ms. Willis.Thus far, Judge McAfee has been moving the court proceedings along briskly, but he has not had the opportunity to make many substantive rulings.When Mr. Trump will actually face trial remains uncertain. Two of the lawyers who worked to keep him in power, Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro, are set to go to trial on Oct. 23. The two defendants had requested an early trial date, which is their right under Georgia law, though both have been filing a flurry of motions over the last few weeks to dismiss the case, or parts of it.Another lawyer who faces charges, John Eastman, said in a filing on Thursday that he might still invoke his right to a speedy trial. Those not seeking the option may not face trial until the second half of next year, or even later. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia Judge Orders 2 Separate Trials for Defendants in Trump Election Case

      by

      Two defendants will get a speedy trial starting in October, but the others, including Donald J. Trump, can have more time to prepare, the judge ruled.A judge on Thursday granted former President Donald J. Trump and 16 others a separate trial from two of their co-defendants who will go to trial next month in the Georgia election interference case.The judge, Scott McAfee of Fulton County Superior Court, has laid out an expedited trial schedule for Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell, two lawyers who helped Mr. Trump try to stay in power after losing the 2020 election. The two had invoked their right under Georgia law to seek a speedy trial, in part to avoid the high cost of a more protracted legal fight.Their trial is set to begin with jury selection on Oct. 23. Judge McAfee, in a seven-page order on Thursday, said that he hoped to have a jury seated by Nov. 3 to comply with the speedy trial law.A trial date for Mr. Trump and the other 16 co-defendants has not been set. In his order, Judge McAfee described what was to come as a “mega-trial.” But he also raised the possibility that those 17 might not all be tried together in the end, if some make successful arguments to break off their cases.“Additional divisions of these 17 defendants may well be required,” the judge wrote. “That is a decision for another day once the many anticipated pretrial motions have been resolved and a realistic trial date approaches.”All 19 defendants were charged in August in a wide-ranging state racketeering indictment after an investigation into election interference in Georgia, which Mr. Trump lost in 2020 by fewer than 12,000 votes. In the weeks after Election Day, Mr. Trump made baseless claims that he was the victim of significant electoral fraud. The indictment says that he and the other 18 defendants were part of a “criminal organization” that sought to overturn his loss in Georgia in various ways.Questions about the size, shape and timing of trials for a case of such magnitude have yet to be fully resolved. The Fulton County District Attorney’s office, which is leading the prosecution, had wanted all 19 defendants to be tried together, arguing in a filing on Tuesday that “breaking this case up into multiple lengthy trials would create an enormous strain on the judicial resources.”But in his order on Thursday, Judge McAfee noted that some lawyers would need more time to prepare. He also noted that the Fulton County courthouse “simply contains no courtroom adequately large enough to hold all 19 defendants.”Further complicating matters is the fact that several defendants are seeking to move their cases to federal court. If just one of them succeeds, there is a possibility that the whole group could be forced into the federal system, although experts say the law on this issue is not clear.Regardless, the prospect of a federal judge presiding over a state trial dimmed somewhat last week, when Judge Steve C. Jones, a U.S. district court judge, rejected a removal request from Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff and a defendant.Mr. Meadows has appealed. Judge Jones is scheduled to hold hearings next week on similar requests from Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who sought to intervene after the Georgia election, and three other co-defendants who served as bogus electors on Mr. Trump’s behalf.Mr. Trump’s lawyer in Georgia, Steven H. Sadow, has indicated in court documents that the former president may also soon ask to have his case moved to federal court.On Thursday morning, as Judge McAfee held a hearing on a number of pretrial motions, tensions between the prosecution and defense were palpable. Brian T. Rafferty, a lawyer for Ms. Powell, accused the district attorney’s office of failing to respond to his request for certain documents as part of the discovery process.At another point, Scott Grubman, a lawyer for Mr. Chesebro, angrily accused Daysha D. Young, a Fulton County assistant district attorney, of engaging in a “personal attack” on Mr. Grubman’s co-counsel, Manny Arora, after Ms. Young mentioned a 2010 incident in which a judge barred Mr. Arora from contacting grand jurors in a separate case.Mr. Chesebro was indicted based on his role as an architect of the bogus electors scheme. His lawyers have called for his case to be dismissed, arguing that he was merely “researching and finding precedents in order to form a legal opinion, which was then supplied to his client, the Trump campaign.”Ms. Powell was indicted on charges relating to the copying of sensitive voter system data in rural Coffee County, Ga., by Trump allies seeking evidence of fraud. On Wednesday, her lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that county elections officials had allowed access to the elections system there in January 2021.“This means that no data was stolen, there was no fraud, and nothing was done without authorization,” the motion said. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Moves to Quash Most Charges Against Him in Georgia

      by

      The motion essentially piggybacked off another filed by one of the former president’s co-defendants, which gave a detailed critique of the sprawling indictment.Former President Donald J. Trump asked a judge on Monday to throw out most of the 13 charges against him in the wide-ranging election interference indictment handed up by a grand jury last month in Georgia.The one-page motion from Mr. Trump’s Georgia lawyer, Steven H. Sadow, refers to a more expansive motion also filed on Monday by one of Mr. Trump’s 18 co-defendants in the Georgia case, the lawyer Ray Smith III. That motion gives a detailed critique of the 98-page indictment, arguing that its “defects” are “voluminous,” and that it is legally unsound.Among other things, Mr. Smith’s motion says that the charge of violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO — which all 19 defendants face — seeks to “punish protected First Amendment activity” and fails to “sufficiently allege the existence” of a racketeering enterprise whose goal was to overturn Mr. Trump’s narrow 2020 election loss in the state.The Smith filing argues that the racketeering conspiracy laid out by the prosecution was actually “comprised of millions of people throughout the country” who believed election fraud had taken place and were working toward the same goal as the defendants.To illustrate the point, the motion stated that there were probably thousands of bank robbers in the United States, “but the mere fact that they all rob banks and have the same goal and many of the same methods of operation, does not mean that all American bank robbers constitute one RICO enterprise, despite the fact that they are people who commit the same crime, for the same reason.”Mr. Smith’s legal team includes Donald F. Samuel, a veteran Atlanta defense lawyer.The office of the Fulton County district attorney, Fani T. Willis, who is leading the prosecution, declined to comment on Monday evening ahead of an official response to the motion in court. Mr. Sadow also declined to comment.The filing was the latest legal volley in the case, which Mr. Trump sought to quash even before his indictment in mid-August. It came as little surprise to legal analysts watching the case, who had expected Mr. Trump’s lawyers to mount an aggressive defense long before the start of a trial.The former president’s lawyers have already moved to sever his case from two co-defendants, Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro, who have demanded a speedy trial. Their joint trial is set to start on Oct. 23.Mr. Smith, a lawyer based in Atlanta who helped Mr. Trump’s team challenge his loss in Georgia after the election, faces a dozen charges in the case. He advanced false claims about the election at a legislative hearing, according to the indictment. And, prosecutors charge, he took part in the efforts to get fake Trump electors to cast votes and sign documents that falsely claimed that he had won the election. Mr. Smith has pleaded not guilty.“He never advocated violence; he never cried ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” his lawyers argued in the motion. “If advocacy in court or the legislature is a crime — if it merits being branded a ‘racketeer’ — there are very few people who will have the courage to risk engaging in such advocacy. ”Chris Timmons, a former prosecutor in the Atlanta area, said on Monday that the motion was unlikely to succeed in court, describing the racketeering enterprise defined in the indictment as “pretty tightly drawn.” But he noted that defense lawyers sometimes filed motions directed more at the court of public opinion, with an eye toward influencing a potential jury pool.Notably, the Smith motion does not excuse all the activity that took place.“If, as the Fulton prosecutors claim, somebody threatened physical harm to an election worker, that might (or should) be prosecuted as a crime,” Mr. Smith’s lawyers write. “The same for stealing computers or information from a computer.”Some defendants in the case were charged with conspiracy to commit computer theft in a breach of a rural Georgia county’s voting system, while others were accused of threatening a poll worker.Mr. Trump may soon follow the lead of several other defendants and ask to have his case moved to federal court, where the jury pool would be somewhat more supportive of him. But on Friday, a U.S. District Court judge rejected such a request from Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s former White House chief of staff, dimming the prospects that others would succeed with the strategy. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Georgia Case: Defendants Powell and Chesebro to Get Early Trial Together

      by

      Sidney Powell followed Kenneth Chesebro in demanding a speedy trial, but neither defendant in the election interference case wanted to be tried with the other.Two of Donald J. Trump’s co-defendants in the Georgia election-interference case will go to trial together on Oct. 23, a judge ruled on Wednesday. The defendants, Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro, had asked to be tried separately from one another.The ruling from Judge Scott McAfee of Fulton County Superior Court, however, is contingent on the case remaining in state court — a situation that could change if other defendants succeed at moving the case into a federal courtroom.Fani T. Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, is still holding out hope that all 19 defendants in the racketeering case can be tried together. One of her prosecutors said during a hearing on Wednesday that the state would take approximately four months to present its case, calling roughly 150 witnesses. That estimate does not include the time it would take to pick the jury.But during the hearing, Judge McAfee said he remained “very skeptical” that a single trial for all 19 defendants could work. For one thing, some of the accused, including Ms. Powell and Mr. Chesebro, have invoked their right to a speedy trial while others have not.The questions raised at the hearing underscore the tremendous logistical challenges prosecutors face in the racketeering case charging the former president and his allies with a multipronged effort to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. It is one of four criminal trials looming for Mr. Trump, the leading Republican presidential candidate in the 2024 election.So far, since his indictment in the Georgia case, Mr. Trump’s only request has been to sever his case from those of his co-defendants who are seeking a speedy trial.A federal judge is mulling requests from five defendants to move their cases to federal court. Mr. Chesebro demanded a speedy trial in state court.Ms. Powell made a similar demand soon after, but neither defendant wanted to be tried with the other. Both asked the judge to sever their cases from each other’s.Lawyers for Mr. Chesebro and Ms. Powell noted that even though their clients were charged with participating in a conspiracy to overturn Mr. Trump’s election loss in Georgia, the two were charged with very different roles in it.Prosecutors say that Mr. Chesebro, a lawyer, took part in a sweeping plot to create slates of fake electors pledged to Mr. Trump in several key swing states that he had lost. The charges against Ms. Powell, also a lawyer, stem from her involvement in a data breach by Trump supporters in an elections office in rural Coffee County, Ga.In court filings, Mr. Chesebro’s lawyers argued that the allegations against Mr. Chesebro and Ms. Powell were “akin to oil and water; wholly separate and impossible to mix (into one conspiracy).” One of the lawyers, Scott Grubman, raised the possibility that the same jury hearing his client’s case would be subjected to weeks, if not months, of testimony about the data breach that he was not involved in.Attorney Brian T. Rafferty, who is defending Sidney Powell, argues before Judge McAfee on Wednesday,Pool photo by Jason GetzBrian T. Rafferty, a lawyer for Ms. Powell, sounded a similar theme, arguing that Ms. Powell’s defense was “going to get washed away” by lengthy discussions about the fake electors scheme.But Will Wooten, a deputy district attorney, argued that Mr. Chesebro and Ms. Powell were part of the same overarching racketeering conspiracy. “The conspiracy evolved: One thing didn’t work, so we move on to the next thing,” he said. “That thing didn’t work, so we move on to the next thing.”Judge McAfee, in the end, decided that Mr. Chesebro and Ms. Powell would get a fair trial if tried together. He also noted that it would save time and money to combine them. Still, when or where all 19 defendants will ultimately face trial remains uncertain. The efforts to move the case to federal court have been led by Mark Meadows, a defendant who served as White House chief of staff under Mr. Trump. Such a move would expand the jury pool into suburban counties that are somewhat more supportive of Mr. Trump, and it would increase the likelihood of the United States Supreme Court, a third of whose members were appointed by Mr. Trump, getting involved in potential appeals.Defendants would still be tried under state laws, however, and the case would not be subject to a president’s power to pardon federal crimes.While typically only federal officials can get their cases moved to federal court, it is possible that if even one defendant succeeds at it, the others will come with him or her.Some defendants who were not federal employees at the time the alleged crimes took place are claiming that their role as bogus Trump electors qualifies them for a move to federal court. A lawyer for Shawn Still, a Georgia state senator, argued last month in a legal filing that Mr. Still was acting “in his capacity as a contingent United States presidential elector” and thus “was, or was acting under, an officer of the United States.”Ms. Willis’s office scoffed at that assertion, arguing in a motion filed Tuesday that Mr. Still “and his fellow fraudulent electors conspired in a scheme to impersonate true Georgia presidential electors; their fiction is not entitled to recognition by this Court.”Mr. Trump, like the other defendants, has pleaded not guilty, waiving an arraignment that was supposed to have taken place on Wednesday. He continues to use the Georgia investigation as an opportunity to raise money.“Today was supposed to be my scheduled arraignment in Atlanta,” he wrote to potential donors on Wednesday, adding that, “Instead, I want to make today a massive grassroots fundraising day.” More