More stories

  • in

    US special counsel to wind down criminal cases against Donald Trump

    Special counsel prosecutors will shut down their criminal cases against Donald Trump before he takes office, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter, after his stunning victory against Kamala Harris meant they would not proceed to trial.The move reflects the reality that the cases will not be completed before inauguration day. Once Trump returns to the White House, the special counsel’s office would be prohibited from pursuing further criminal actions under justice department policy.The justice department has long known that if Trump won, the criminal cases – over Trump’s retention of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election – would be finished because Trump’s attorney general would likely drop the charges.But it is also understood to be a preemptive measure to ensure that Trump will not be able to order the dismissal of the special counsel, Jack Smith, as he had vowed to do if he takes office and Smith remained in his role.That possibility had been relished by Trump’s close aides and advisers, who privately imagined Trump ordering Smith’s removal and his team having to vacate their office space in Washington.The justice department is still examining how to wind down the cases, which are in different stages and are complicated. In particular, the department does not want the classified documents case, which was dismissed and currently under appeal, to go unchallenged.Failure to pursue an appeal over the dismissal of the classified documents case on grounds that the special counsel himself was illegally appointed could set a problematic precedent and hamper the department’s ability to use special counsels in the future.Trump launched his presidential campaign in 2022 under the cloud of an impending special counsel investigation. That investigation examined Trump’s retention of national security materials at his Mar-a-Lago club after he lost the 2020 presidential election.He repeatedly told supporters at rallies and in public statements that he was running for his literal freedom, urging voters to return him to the presidency in part because the charges would only disappear if he was re-elected.For months, Trump’s overarching legal strategy was to delay the criminal cases until after Tuesday’s election. His hope was that if he won, he could appoint a loyalist attorney general who would simply drop the prosecutions.He was unsuccessful in delaying his New York criminal case tied to his efforts to influence the outcome of the 2016 election through an unlawful hush-money scheme, which resulted in his conviction on 34 felony counts. But his conviction barely moved the political needle.The special counsel’s move to preemptively shut down the two federal cases comes as the former Trump attorney general William Barr in a statement urged federal and state prosecutors to end their cases against Trump.“The American people have rendered their verdict on President Trump and decisively chosen him to lead the country for the next four years. They chose him to lead us with the full knowledge of the claims against him by prosecutors around the country,” Barr wrote.“The attorney general and all the state prosecutors should do the right thing and help the country move forward by dismissing the cases.”Read more of the Guardian’s 2024 US election coverage

    Trump wins the presidency – how did it happen?

    Full presidential election results and map

    Abortion ballot measure results by state

    Republicans retake control of the Senate

    Senate, House and governor results More

  • in

    ‘He could go to jail’: for Donald Trump, election day is also judgment day

    Losing an election for the highest office is a crushing blow that no candidate forgets. But when the American electorate delivers its verdict next week, the personal stakes for Donald Trump will be uniquely high. His fate will hover between the presidency and the threat of prison.If he claims victory, Trump will be the first convicted criminal to win the White House and gain access to the nuclear codes. If he falls short, the 78-year-old faces more humiliating courtroom trials and potentially even time behind bars. It would be the end of a charmed life in which he has somehow always managed to outrun the law and duck accountability.For Trump, Tuesday is judgment day.“He branded himself as the guy who gets away with it,” said Gwenda Blair, a Trump biographer, adding that, should he lose, “he is facing a lot of moments of reckoning. He could go to jail. He could end up considerably less wealthy than he is. No matter what happens, and no matter whether he wins or loses, there will be a reckoning over his health. Death, ill health, dementia – those are things even he can’t escape.”The property developer and reality TV star has spent his career pushing ethical and legal boundaries to the limit, facing countless investigations, court battles and hefty fines. Worthy of a novel, his has been a life of scandal on a gargantuan scale.In the 1970s Trump and his father were sued by the justice department for racial discrimination after refusing to rent apartments to Black people in predominantly white buildings. His property and casino businesses, including the Taj Mahal and Trump Plaza, filed for bankruptcy several times in the 1990s and early 2000s.Trump University, a business offering property training courses, faced multiple lawsuits for fraud, misleading marketing and false claims about the quality of its programmes. In 2016 Trump settled for $25m without admitting wrongdoing.View image in fullscreenThe Donald J Trump Foundation, a charitable organisation, was investigated and sued for allegedly using charitable funds for personal and business expenses. Trump eventually agreed to dissolve the foundation with remaining funds going to charity.Trump and his company were ordered to pay more than $350m in a New York civil fraud trial for artificially inflating his net worth to secure favourable loan terms. He is also known to have paid little to no federal income taxes in specific years which, although technically legal, was seen by some as bordering on unethical.But Trump became a fixture of the New York tabloids and hosted his own reality TV show, The Apprentice. Blair added: “His early realisation was that if you get famous, if you get large, people will get out of the way. He spent the first part of his career as a real estate developer, making himself seem the embodiment of enormous tycoon-level success even though, in fact, many things he did weren’t successful and his father kept bailing him out.“But he put across that impression and he rode that fame express that he had created for himself over a remarkable number of obstacles all the way to The Apprentice, which set him up permanently as the image of this unstoppable always-on-top tycoon and people are in awe of that. All of which could be described as branding.”Trump’s private life is no more savoury. Trump has reportedly cheated on all three of his wives. More than two dozen women have come forward with accusations of sexual misconduct against him, most recently the former model Stacey Williams, who told the Guardian that Trump groped her in 1993 as Jeffrey Epstein watched in what felt like a “twisted game” between the two men.During the 2016 election campaign, an Access Hollywood tape emerged in which Trump could be heard bragging about grabbing women by their private parts. “When you’re a star, they let you do it,” he said. “Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” Then last year a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing the columnist E Jean Carroll in 1996, awarding her $5m.Trump’s presidency and its aftermath were no less morally compromised. He made more than 30,000 false or misleading claims over four years, according to a count by the Washington Post newspaper, spanning everything from the crowd size at his inauguration to the result of the 2020 election.View image in fullscreenHe became the first president to be impeached twice, first for withholding military aid to pressure Ukraine’s government to investigate his political opponents, then for instigating a coup on 6 January 2021 following his defeat. He also became the subject of not one but four criminal cases, any one of which would have been enough to scuttle the chances of any other White House hopeful.In May Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records relating to a hush-money payment to the adult film performer Stormy Daniels, making him the first former president to be convicted of felony crimes. Sentencing is scheduled for 26 November (the judge delayed it from 18 September after the Republican nominee asked that it wait until after the election).What was billed as the trial of the century has already begun to fade from public consciousness and played a relatively modest role in the election campaign. Jonathan Alter, a presidential biographer who was in court for every day of the trial, recalled: “I’ve covered some big stories over the years but there was nothing like the drama of watching the jury foreperson say, ‘Guilty, guilty, guilty’ 34 times and Donald Trump looking like he was punched in the gut.”Alter, who describes the experience in his new book, American Reckoning, reflects on how Trump has been able to act with impunity for so long. “It’s a combination of luck, galvanised defiance and the credulousness of a large chunk of the American people,” he said. “Demagoguery works. Playing on people’s fears works. It doesn’t work all the time but we can look throughout human history to political figures and how demagoguery and scapegoating ‘the other’ works.”Alter, who covered the trial for Washington Monthly magazine, added: “We’ve had plenty of demagogues, scoundrels and conmen in politics below the level of president. Trump has been lucky to escape accountability but the United States has been lucky that we haven’t had something like this before. The founders were very worried about it. They felt we would face something like this for sure.”The US’s system of checks and balances has been racing to keep up. Trump was charged by the special counsel Jack Smith with conspiring to overturn the results of his election loss to Joe Biden in the run-up to the January 6 riot at the US Capitol. The former president and 18 others were also charged by the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, with taking part in a scheme to overturn his narrow loss in Georgia.Trump was charged again by Smith with illegally retaining classified documents that included nuclear secrets, taken with him from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida after he left office in January 2021, and then obstructing government demands to give them back.With a such a caseload, it was widely assumed that Trump would spend this election shuttling between rallies one day and trials the next. But the courtroom campaign never really happened since, true to past form, he found ways to throw sand in the gears of the legal system and put off his moment of reckoning.View image in fullscreenOr he simply got lucky. In Georgia, it emerged that Willis had a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor Nathan Wade, prompting demands that she be removed. Smith’s federal election case was thrown off track for months by a supreme court ruling that presidents have immunity for official actions taken in office. The classified documents case was thrown out by Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, although Smith is appealing and the charges could be reinstated.Such delays have made it easier to forget just how much of an outlier Trump is. Past presidential brushes with the law consisted of Ulysses S Grant being fined for speeding his horse-drawn carriage in Washington and Harry Truman receiving a ticket for driving his car too slowly on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in 1953. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached over the Watergate scandal and was subsequently pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford.Meanwhile the standard for presidential aspirants has been high. Joe Biden’s first run for the White House fell apart amid allegations that he had plagiarised a speech by Britain’s Labour leader Neil Kinnock. During the 2000 campaign, a last-minute revelation that Republican candidate George W Bush had a drunk driving conviction that he concealed for 24 years generated huge headlines and was seen as a possible gamechanger. Hillary Clinton still blames her 2016 defeat on an FBI investigation into her email server that produced no charges.Trump, by contrast, once memorably boasted that he could shoot someone on New York’s Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes. He has done everything but yet still finds himself within touching distance of a second presidency.Indeed, he has repeatedly flipped the script, citing the cases against him as evidence that he is a martyr of sinister deep state forces. In this version it is Democrats, not Trump, who are the threat to democracy. Claiming solidarity with others who feel a sense a grievance, he often says: “They’re not coming after me, they’re coming after you, and I’m just standing in the way.”The Georgia case produced the indelible image of Trump’s mugshot, with the former president staring defiantly at the camera. Within hours it had been transformed from a badge of shame into a literal badge for sale, along with posters, T-shirts and other merchandise that is still sported by his fans at rallies with slogans such as “Convicted felon” or “Never surrender”.View image in fullscreenJohn Bolton, a former national security adviser to Trump, said: “For reasons that I don’t understand, every time he gets indicted his poll numbers have gone up. The reason is people have very negative attitudes about Biden and they think he has weaponised the justice system – which I don’t think he’s done – but Trump has convinced people he’s a victim.“Every time he gets indicted again, he just uses it as more proof that he’s oppressed. It’s ridiculous but he has turned it. Like a good conman, he’s taken a seemingly impossible argument and made it worth a lot to him.”This judo move, turning the opponent’s weight against them, might explain why Democrats have not emphasised Trump’s criminal record to the degree that might once have been expected.Early on, the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, did shine a light on Trump’s misdemeanours, drawing a contrast with her past as a courtroom prosecutor by stating: “I took on perpetrators of all kinds: predators who abused women, fraudsters who ripped off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain. So hear me when I say I know Donald Trump’s type.”The line drew cheers but was absent from her closing argument in Washington on Tuesday night, which focused instead on likening Trump to a “petty tyrant” who would sow chaos and division. Indeed, some have taken the view that even criminal convictions pale in significance compared with the threat of a would-be fascist.But Moe Vela, a lawyer and a former senior adviser to Biden when he was vice-president, said he wishes that Trump’s criminal past had been given greater emphasis by the Harris campaign. “I am extremely surprised we have not heard about that more,” he said. “He is a convicted felon. I thought it should have been said more often in the litany of grievances about him because I thought it was like low-hanging fruit.”Can Trump’s luck hold one more time? He has waged another White House campaign riven with extremism and racism, divisiveness and violent language, earning comparisons with fascists from the past. If elected, he is expected to use all the levers of power at his disposal to squash the outstanding cases against him; last week he boasted that he would fire his nemesis Smith “within two seconds” of becoming president. But if Trump is defeated by Harris, his legal perils will again gather like a dark cloud.Vela added: “If he loses this election, I pray to God that she does not in any way pardon him. I hope that our judicial system functions effectively and properly in taking all of these cases through to fruition. Some of them may come out where he is not convicted, but if conviction is the result, he should be punished just like anybody else. No one in this country is above the law.”That point was illustrated by the New York case, in which even a former president stood trial and was held to account. The system worked. Alter reflected: “That was very inspiring, the wisdom of the judge and jury, who took their responsibilities very seriously. It gave me a lump in my throat. It made me realise we’re not done.” More

  • in

    Trump says he would fire Jack Smith ‘within two seconds’ of becoming president

    Donald Trump said on Thursday he would order the immediate firing of the special counsel Jack Smith if he were re-elected in the November election in the clearest expression of his intent to shut down the two criminal cases brought against him.The remarks from Trump, who remains in a tight race for the presidency against Kamala Harris with 12 days until the election, came in a conversation with the conservative podcast host Hugh Hewitt, who asked whether Trump would pardon himself or fire the special counsel.“Oh, it’s so easy. It’s so easy … I would fire him within two seconds,” Trump said of Smith, who last year charged the former president in Florida over his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago club, and in Washington over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.Trump also said in the interview that he had been given immunity from the US supreme court, a reference to its ruling earlier this year that found former presidents are immune from prosecution for official actions related to the office of the presidency.The power to fire the special counsel formally rests with the attorney general, but Trump has made no secret of his intention to appoint a loyalist as attorney general who would agree to withdraw the justice department from the two pending criminal cases.Trump has previously tried to fire prosecutors who have investigated him personally. During his first term, he repeatedly tried to fire the special counsel Robert Mueller, who investigated Trump’s ties to Russian interference in the 2020 election.He ultimately backed off after the White House counsel, Don McGahn, disagreed with Trump’s attempts to fire Mueller and threatened to quit if Trump continued to press ahead with his order to shut down the Mueller investigation.Multiple current and former Trump advisers have suggested there would be no such hurdles in a second term. Trump, the advisers said, would simply call his loyalist attorney general to involve himself at the justice department as he wished, without pushback from career officials.Howard Lutnick, co-chair of Trump’s transition team and the Cantor Fitzgerald chief executive, has repeatedly said anyone who wanted to join the second Trump administration – at the justice department or elsewhere – would need to be personally loyal to him.“This concept of doing what you want to do because I don’t think he’s right, throwing banana peels, you get fired in America, you get fired in every company,” Lutnick told Bloomberg TV last week.“Donald Trump loves conversation, he loves to get all sides of the idea. But then you make your choice and you go where the elected president of the United States goes,” Lutnick said. “Anybody who says otherwise – I don’t even know what they’re talking about, this is make-believe politics.”The Harris campaign said that Trump’s latest comments indicate he thinks he is above the law. The campaign also pointed to the former Trump White House chief of staff John Kelly, who said he believed Trump met the definition of a fascist. Harris said she agreed with that statement. More

  • in

    Trump January 6 case: five key points in the latest filing against former president

    In a court filing unsealed on Wednesday, federal prosecutors argue that Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution over the January 6 riots because he acted in a private capacity, and took advice from private advisers.The indictment seeks to make this case – that Trump acted in his private capacity, rather than his official one – because of a US supreme court ruling in July that former presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions taken as president.It also reveals further details about Trump’s alleged mood and actions (or lack of action) on the day, building on evidence that was provided in earlier briefs.In response to the new filing, the Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung called the brief “falsehood-ridden” and “unconstitutional”. On Truth Social, Trump, writing in all-caps, called it “complete and total election interference.”Here are some key points made in the filing:‘Fundamentally a private’ schemeThe new court filing, in which Trump is referred to as “the defendant”, alleges that Trump’s plan that day was “fundamentally a private one”, and therefore not related to his duties as president but instead as a candidate for office.It reads: “The defendant asserts that he is immune from prosecution for his criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election because, he claims, it entailed official conduct. Not so. Although the defendant was the incumbent president during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one.“He extensively used private actors and his campaign infrastructure to attempt to overturn the election results and operated in a private capacity as a candidate for office.”The filing looks back to election day for Trump’s use of private advisers: “As election day turned to November 4, the contest was too close to project a winner, and in discussions about what the defendant should say publicly regarding the election, senior advisors suggested that the defendant should show restraint while counting continued. Two private advisors, however, advocated a different course: [name redacted] and [name redacted] suggested that the defendant just declare victory. And at about 2.20am, the defendant gave televised remarks to a crowd of his campaign supporters in which he falsely claimed, without evidence or specificity, that there had been fraud in the election and that he had won.”On 4 January, the filing says, a White House counsel was excluded from a meeting during which Trump sought to pressure Pence to help overturn the election result. Only a private attorney was present, the filing says: “It is hard to imagine stronger evidence” than this that Trump’s conduct was private.A presidential candidate alone in a dining room with Twitter and Fox NewsTrump’s day on 6 January started at 1am, with a tweet pressuring Pence to obstruct the certification of the results. Seven hours later, at 8.17am, Trump tweeted about it again. Shortly before his speech at the Ellipse, Trump called Pence and again pressured him to “induce him to act unlawfully in the upcoming session”, where Pence would be certifying the election results. Pence refused.At this point, according to the filing, Trump “decided to re-insert into his campaign speech at the Ellipse remarks targeting Pence for his refusal to misuse his role in the certification”.Trump gave his speech, and at 1pm, the certification process began at the Capitol.Trump, meanwhile, “settled in the dining room off of the Oval Office. He spent the afternoon there reviewing Twitter on his phone, while the dining room television played Fox News’ contemporaneous coverage of events at the Capitol.”It was from the dining room that Trump watched a crowd of his supporters march towards the Capitol. He had been there less than an hour when, at “approximately 2.24pm, Fox News reported that a police officer may have been injured and that ‘protestors … have made their way inside the Capitol.’“At 2.24pm, Trump tweeted, writing, ‘Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our constitution, giving states a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!’”The filing reads: “The content of the 2.24pm tweet was not a message sent to address a matter of public concern and ease unrest; it was the message of an angry candidate upon the realization that he would lose power.”A minute later, the Secret Service evacuated Pence to a secure location.Trump, when told Pence had been evacuated, said: ‘So what?’The filing states that Trump said: “So what?” after being told that Pence had subsequently been taken to a secure location.The indictment notes that the government does not intend to use the exchange at trial. It argues, however, that the tweet itself was “unofficial”.The filing states that Pence “tried to encourage” Trump “as a friend” when news networks forecast a Biden win on 7 November. This again goes to the assertion that Trump acted in a private capacity.Pence allegedly told Trump: “You took a dying political party and gave it a new lease on life”.‘Fight like hell’ regardless The filing states Trump was overheard telling family members, amid his efforts to overturn the election results: “It doesn’t matter if you lose … you have to fight like hell.”“At one point long after the defendant had begun spreading false fraud claims, [name redacted] a White House staffer traveling with the defendant, overheard him tell family members: ‘It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell.’”Trump knew his claims were falseThe filing states: “The evidence demonstrates that the defendant knew his fraud claims were false because he continued to make those claims even after his close advisors – acting not in an official capacity but in a private or campaign-related capacity – told them they were not true.”Among these advisers was a person referred to as P9, a White House staffer who had been one of several attorneys who represented Trump in his first impeachment trial in the Senate in 2019 and 2020, according to the filing.In one private conversation, “when P9 reiterated to the defendant that [name redacted] would be unable to prove his false fraud allegations in court, the defendant responded, ‘The details don’t matter.’”P9 at one point after the election told Trump “that the campaign was looking into his fraud claims, and had even hired external experts to do so, but could find no support for them.
    He told the defendant that if the Campaign took these claims to court, they would get slaughtered, because the claims are all ‘bullshit’.” More

  • in

    Special counsel pushes to use Pence against Trump in 2020 election case

    Special counsel prosecutors intend to make Donald Trump’s vice-president Mike Pence and his efforts to recruit fake electors the centerpiece of his criminal prosecution against the former president, according to a sprawling legal brief that was partly unsealed on Wednesday.The redacted brief, made public by the presiding US district judge Tanya Chutkan, shows prosecutors are relying extensively on Trump’s pressure campaign against Pence to support the charge that Trump conspired to obstruct the January 6 certification of the election results.And prosecutors used an equally voluminous portion of the 165-page brief to express their intent to use evidence of Trump trying to get officials in seven key swing states to reverse his defeat to support the charges that he conspired to disenfranchise American voters.The brief’s principal mission was to convince Chutkan to allow the allegations and evidence buttressing the superseding indictment against Trump to proceed to trial, arguing that it complied with the US supreme court’s recent ruling that gave former presidents immunity for official acts.As part of the ruling, the court ordered Chutkan to sort through the indictment and decide which of the allegations against Trump should be tossed because of the immunity rules and which could proceed to trial.The brief was the first round of that process that could take months to resolve and involve hearings to decide what allegations should be kept. Chutkan has the power to decide how much of the indictment can be kept and what evidence can be presented by prosecutors as she makes her decision.According to the redacted brief, prosecutors want to use Trump’s conversations with Pence in the lead-up to the January 6 Capitol attack, interactions between Trump and Pence and other private actors, as well as interactions between White House aides and private actors.The bottom line from prosecutors was that each of the episodes reflected Trump acting not as president but as a candidate for office, which meant the default presumption that conversations between Trump and Pence were official could be rebutted.For instance, prosecutors argued that evidence of Trump using personal lawyers Rudy Giuliani or John Eastman to pressure Pence should be permitted, since using private actors to commit a crime would not be an official act of the presidency or infringe on the functioning of the executive branch.At the White House on 4 January 2021, prosecutors wrote, Trump deliberately excluded his White House counsel from attending a meeting with Pence – meaning the only attorney in the room was Eastman.“It is hard to imagine stronger evidence that the conduct is private than when the president excludes his White House counsel and only wishes to have his private counsel present,” the brief said.View image in fullscreenAnd on a 5 January 2021 phone call, prosecutors wrote, Trump and Eastman were the only ones on the line to make a final effort to pressure Pence to drop his objections and agree not to count slates of electors for Joe Biden when he presided over the congressional certification the next day.“For the defendant’s decision to include private actors in the conversation with Pence about his role at the certification makes even more clear that there is no danger to the executive branch’s functions and authority, because it had no bearing on any executive branch authority,” it said.Prosecutors added that the conversations between Trump and Pence that they wanted to present at trial should be allowed because there was nothing official about them discussing electoral prospects as candidates for office.Referencing previously undisclosed evidence, prosecutors showed that Pence at various points suggested that “the process was over” and that Trump consider running again in 2024 – key evidence that Trump was on notice from his own running mate that he had lost the election.And prosecutors reiterated that charging the most damning evidence that Trump’s lawyers knew they were violating the law – emails where Eastman asked Pence’s counsel Greg Jacob to consider one more “minor violation” of the Electoral Count Act – did not impact the functioning of the executive branch.The expansive brief also included prosecutors asking to take to trial evidence of Trump’s effort to pressure state officials to reverse the results and his effort to then rely on fake slates of electors.The response from Trump’s lawyers is almost certain to be that Trump was calling state officials because he was executing the clause in the US constitution that the president has a duty to ensure the general election was run without interference or fraud.But prosecutors included a pre-emptive rebuttal: “Although countless federal, state, and local races also were on the same ballots … the defendant focused only on his own race, the election for president, and only on allegations favoring him as a candidate in targeted states he had lost.” More

  • in

    Special counsel reveals new details of Trump bid to overturn 2020 election

    Donald Trump “resorted to crimes” in a failed bid to cling to power after losing the 2020 election, federal prosecutors said in a newly unsealed court filing that argues that the former US president is not entitled to immunity from prosecution.The filing was unsealed on Wednesday. It was submitted by special counsel Jack Smith’s team following a supreme court opinion that conferred broad immunity on former presidents and narrowed the scope of the prosecution.Trump’s legal team have employed a delaying strategy in all the numerous legal cases that Trump faces that has mostly been successful.The 165-page filing is probably the last opportunity for prosecutors to detail their case against Trump before the 5 November election given there will not be a trial before Trump faces the Democratic vice-president, Kamala Harris.Prosecutors laid out details including an allegation that a White House staffer heard Trump tell family members that it did not matter if he won or lost the election, “you still have to fight like hell”.The new filing cites previously unknown accounts offered by Trump’s closest aides to paint a portrait of an “increasingly desperate” president who, while losing his grip on the White House, “used deceit to target every stage of the electoral process”.“So what?” the filing quotes Trump as telling an aide after being alerted that his vice-president, Mike Pence, was in potential danger after a crowd of violent supporters stormed the US Capitol on January 6.“The details don’t matter,” Trump said, when told by an adviser that a lawyer who was mounting his legal challenges would not be able to prove the false allegations in court, the filing states.The filing includes details of conversations between Trump and Pence, including a private lunch the two had on 12 November 2020, in which Pence “reiterated a face-saving option” for Trump, telling him: “Don’t concede but recognize the process is over,” according to prosecutors.In another private lunch days later, Pence urged Trump to accept the results of the election and run again in 2024.“I don’t know, 2024 is so far off,” Trump told him, according to the filing.But Trump “disregarded” Pence “in the same way he disregarded dozens of court decisions that unanimously rejected his and his allies’ legal claims, and that he disregarded officials in the targeted states – including those in his own party – who stated publicly that he had lost and that his specific fraud allegations were false,” prosecutors wrote.“Although the defendant was the incumbent President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one,” Smith’s team wrote, adding: “When the defendant lost the 2020 presidential election, he resorted to crimes to try to stay in office.”Trump has pleaded not guilty to four criminal charges accusing him of a conspiracy to obstruct the congressional certification of the election, defraud the US out of accurate results and interfere with Americans’ voting rights.Prosecutors working with Smith divulged their evidence to make the case that the remaining allegations against Trump survive the US supreme court’s ruling that former presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions taken as president.Prosecutors have said the filing will discuss new evidence, including transcripts of witness interviews and grand jury testimony, but much of that material will not be made public until a trial.Senior officials in Trump’s administration including the former vice-president Mike Pence and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows appeared before the grand jury during the investigation.Prosecutors submitted the court filing on Thursday, but US district judge Tanya Chutkan had to approve proposed redactions before it was made public.Trump’s lawyers opposed allowing Smith to issue a sweeping court filing laying out their evidence, arguing it would be inappropriate to do so weeks before the election. They have argued the entire case should be tossed out based on the supreme court’s ruling.Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung called the brief “falsehood-ridden” and “unconstitutional” and repeated oft-stated allegations that Smith and Democrats were “hell-bent on weaponizing the justice department in an attempt to cling to power”.“The release of the falsehood-ridden, Unconstitutional J6 brief immediately following Tim Walz’s disastrous debate performance is another obvious attempt by the Harris-Biden regime to undermine American Democracy and interfere in this election.”The US presidential election is a neck-and-neck contest, with Harris establishing a slight but solid lead over Trump in most national voting surveys. The picture in the all-important swing states is more complex, however, as tight races in these key contests will decide the election.If Trump wins the election, he is likely to direct the justice department to drop the charges.Reuters and the Associated Press contributed reporting More

  • in

    Trump makes last effort to keep hidden January 6 case evidence before election

    Donald Trump’s lawyers made a last-ditch effort on Tuesday to limit the amount of evidence that could become public that special counsel prosecutors collected during their criminal investigation into the former US president’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.The prosecutors last week filed under seal a brief, which may be as long as 180 pages, to presiding US district judge Tanya Chutkan that defends the viability of the charges against Trump even after the US supreme court’s presidential immunity ruling.Simultaneously, the prosecutors asked the judge to allow them to file a public version of the secret brief with quotations and references to grand jury testimony from some of Trump’s closest aides, such as his former chief of staff, and his former vice-president, Mike Pence.To protect the integrity of proceedings and to protect lesser-known witnesses, the prosecutors said they intended in their public filing to redact specific names and use job titles to give context to the information being referenced.The kinds of identifiers being proposed by prosecutors include, according to their filing: “Campaign Manager”, “Arizona’s Governor”, “Senior Campaign Advisor”, “executive assistant”, “the Defendant’s Chief of Staff”, “Georgia Attorney General” and “Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee”.View image in fullscreenOn Tuesday, Trump’s lawyers bitterly complained that the redactions were so specific that it would make public identification of the witnesses easy, accusing prosecutors of trying to damage Trump’s presidential campaign with fewer than five weeks until election day.“In numerous instances, the redactions and pseudonyms proposed by the Special Counsel’s Office fail to meaningfully mitigate the privacy and safety issues the Office references in the Motion and has previously discussed at length,” the Trump lawyers wrote.Trump’s lawyers also claimed that prosecutors were adopting a double standard over redactions: in the case they brought against Trump in Florida over his retention of classified documents, which has since been dismissed, prosecutors pushed for no identifying information whatsoever.“Use of functionally impotent redactions is flatly inconsistent with the Office’s approach to other filings here and in the Southern District of Florida, where they sought to anonymize even ‘Ancillary Names’ based on privacy concerns,” the Trump lawyers wrote.The situation reflects a role reversal for Trump and the special counsel. When it was more expedient for Trump to have witnesses identified in the documents case, so they could complain about the case in public, Trump pushed for looser redactions.But now that it is against Trump’s interests to have the identities of former officials who testified against him become public, Trump has sought for more restrictive redactions that would make public scrutiny of his plot to overturn the 2020 election harder.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe special counsel’s filing and Trump’s objections come in the aftermath of the supreme court conferring broad immunity from criminal prosecutions to former presidents for actions that related to their official duties in office.As part of the decision, the court’s conservative supermajority ordered Chutkan to sort through the indictment and decide which of the allegations against Trump should be tossed because of the immunity rules and which could remain and proceed to trial.The special counsel’s opening brief was the first round of that process that could take months to resolve and involve hearings to decide what allegations should be kept. Much of the evidence Smith uses to make his case come from sensitive sources, such as grand jury testimony, which are secret.Chutkan has the power to decide how much of the indictment should be kept as well as how much of the special counsel’s evidence can be unsealed to make her determination, although much of the evidence became public knowledge during the House January 6 committee’s hearings two years ago. More

  • in

    ‘The US lost its shame muscle’: why sex no longer scandalizes in politics

    Earlier this year, at Donald Trump’s hush-money trial, adult film star Stormy Daniels told jurors how at age 27, she met a 60-year-old Trump, whose wife had only recently given birth to their son, for what she thought was dinner. She arrived to find him in satin pyjamas and, during an encounter that included very “brief” sex, the business magnate told Daniels that she reminded him of his daughter, Ivanka.I’m not dragging all this up again to put you off your dinner. I’m bringing it up to remind you that, while all these sordid details made headlines and generated jokes on late-night talkshows, they didn’t move the needle with Trump’s voters at all. His base, which includes evangelical Christians, simply didn’t care. Nor were they bothered about Trump’s association with Mark Robinson, the disgraced Republican candidate running to be North Carolina’s next governor who was allegedly once active on a porn forum called Nude Africa where he boasted about being a “perv”.The 2024 US elections may have provided a constant stream of revelations ranging from the mildly salacious to the downright disturbing. It’s not just Trump: there’s the recent reports of New York magazine star reporter Olivia Nuzzi having a personal relationship with Robert F Kennedy Jr during his presidential run and sitting representative Matt Gaetz being investigated for human trafficking and paying for sex with minors. Yet despite the many lurid and often unpleasant details, political sex scandals just don’t seem to have much bite anymore.“We have lost our shame muscle in the United States,” says Dr Alison Dagnes, professor of the political science department at Shippensburg University. She argues that because politicians aren’t shamed into retiring from public life, details of these scandals remain mostly rumors and fade from the public memory. “Certain politicians are realizing that if you don’t apologize for something, then nobody can use it against you again. For those who are shameless, that is a very effective way to get through life.”It hasn’t always been like this. Being embroiled in a sex scandal used to swing an election or destroy a candidate. In 1987, Gary Hart was the presumed Democratic presidential candidate – until reports of “womanizing” and being caught in an affair derailed his campaign. In 2008, North Carolina senator John Edwards, a star in the Democratic party, was on a path to the presidency until he was caught covering up an extramarital affair that resulted in a child. His career imploded and he vanished from public life.In 2014, the Washington Post analysed 38 sex scandals going back to 1974 and found that “just 39 percent of officeholders won reelection after coming under scrutiny for sexual harassment, affairs or prostitution, while the rest chose not to run, resigned or lost”. While Bill Clinton may have survived his affair (if you can call the most powerful man in the world preying on an intern an “affair”) with Monica Lewinsky in the 1990s, he seems to have made the US a little less tolerant of impropriety. “The survival rate [for sex scandals] has plummeted since Bill Clinton’s presidency. In 15 scandals since 2000, just three officeholders (or 20 percent) facing personal scandals have won reelection,” the Post noted. It added: “It’s unclear why personal scandals that were once shrugged off … are more consequential today.”Clearly, things have changed again since then. Partly this is due to the fact that America’s trust in media has fallen to historic lows in recent years – a phenomenon that is linked to growing polarization. Jay Van Bavel, a professor of neural science at New York University and an expert in “the partisan brain”, notes that “people don’t trust institutions and media sources that aren’t aligned with them ideologically”. Many of Trump’s supporters simply don’t believe his accusers, and don’t believe the media sources reporting on his actions.Even if people do believe allegations about a politician, says Van Bavel, “they’re willing to excuse bad behaviour and continue voting for a person or party member because they don’t want the other party to take power”. A 2020 study that he worked on, alongside 14 other prominent researchers, looked at survey data since the 1970s and found that, for the first time, contempt for the other political party is greater than affection for one’s own. Voting behaviour is now essentially driven by who you hate the most.Trump, of course, is well aware of this. In 2016, the former president joked that he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and he still wouldn’t lose any voters.But Trump is a unique case. There may have been a loosening of America’s moral compass but there are still lines that most politicians can’t cross.Some of these lines are dictated by a cultural moment. See, for example, Democratic senator Al Franken, who resigned in 2017 because of sexual misconduct allegations. Were it not for the fact that it was the start of #MeToo and Franken was a Democrat, he could probably have weathered the accusations, suggests Jodi Dean, a professor in the political science department at Hobart and William Smith Colleges. But “it seems like a Democratic base want purity”. And “Franken had a sense of shame”, so he stepped down.Mixing sex and taxpayer money also makes a scandal more difficult to weather. “If it is an issue that’s a private matter, the American public is more likely to let it go,” Dagnes notes. “But if there’s some sort of official corruption involved, then they’re less likely to.” Dagnes references the recent case of Republican Anthony D’Esposito who, according to a New York Times investigation, put his fiancee’s daughter and a woman with whom he was having an affair on his payroll.“I would expect D’Esposito to really take a big polling hit,” says Dagnes. “This isn’t just: ‘My fiancee and I were going through a really difficult time’ – it’s a case of: ‘I feel so emboldened that I’m going to put my mistress and my fiancee’s daughter on my payroll,’ which is paid by the American taxpayer. That makes voters feel duped.”Gender also plays a part in how sex scandals are received, with women routinely being held to far higher standards than men. Dagnes notes, for example, that the right has been trying very hard to manufacture a scandal out of the fact that Kamala Harris, who was single at the time, had a relationship with San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, who was also single at the time, in the 1990s. Somehow they think this makes her “a slut”. There is, for example, a lot of merchandise for sale with the phrase “Joe and the Hoe Gotta Go”.This isn’t to say that women, particularly attractive young white women, are always held to higher standards than men. While Nuzzi has been put on leave by New York magazine following news of her previously undisclosed relationship with RFK Jr, she has also been cut a surprising amount of slack for what is clearly professional misconduct. “Reporters have all sorts of compromising relationships with sources,” shrugged Ben Smith from Semafor. “The most compromising of all, and the most common, is a reporter’s fealty to someone who gives them information. That’s the real coin of this realm. Sex barely rates.”That said, Nuzzi is certainly getting dragged through the mud for the affair more than RFK Jr, who is well-known for what he has called “wild impulses” and “lust demons”. Previous reports about Kennedy’s private life suggest he detailed extramarital encounters with 37 women in a 2001 diary. That didn’t stop him from trying to run for president, of course. But neither did allegations he once assaulted a babysitter – to which he responded by stating: “I am not a church boy.” Kennedy also hasn’t let brain worms or dead bears get in the way of his political ambitions.The fact that sex scandals no longer seem to register with voters seems to be linked to a wider acceptance of outrageous political behaviour. “Politicians can now go out and say that they’re in favor of nuking Gaza [as Senator Lindsey Graham and Representative Greg Murphy have hinted towards],” Dean observes. “Politicians are openly bloodthirsty and genocidal. That’s permissible speech right now. Ours is now a time where genocide is not a major scandal, where climate change is not a major scandal. We really might be over the age of where an individual’s act is going to gather the same amount of tension as it once did. We’re seeing a sense of right and wrong totally breaking down.” More