Law (US)

Federal prosecutors requested a hearing to inform Donald Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta, about his lead lawyer’s potential conflicts of interest stemming from his defense work for at least three witnesses that could testify against Nauta and the former president in the classified documents case.The prosecutors made the request to US district court judge Aileen Cannon on Wednesday, explaining that Nauta’s lead lawyer, Stanley Woodward, represents two key Trump employees and formerly advised the Mar-a-Lago IT director, Yuscil Taveras, who is cooperating in the case.“All three of these witnesses may be witnesses for the government at trial, raising the possibility that Mr Woodward might be in the position of cross-examining past or current clients,” prosecutors wrote in the 11-page court filing. “These potential conflicts warrant a Garcia hearing.”At issue is Woodward’s prior representation of Taveras during the grand jury investigation earlier this year, when prosecutors concluded that Taveras had evidence that incriminated Nauta and had enough of his own legal exposure to warrant sending him a target letter.After Trump and Nauta were indicted in the classified documents case on 8 June, Taveras changed lawyers and swapped out Woodward, whose legal bills were being paid by Trump’s political action committee Save America, and retained a new lawyer on 5 July.In the weeks that followed, Taveras decided to share more evidence with prosecutors about how Nauta and Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos De Oliveira had asked him to delete surveillance footage – details that resulted last week in a superseding indictment against Trump, Nauta and De Oliveira.Trump and Nauta were charged last month in a sprawling indictment that outlined how Trump retained national security documents and obstructed the government’s efforts to retrieve them with the help of Nauta, who was seen moving boxes of documents on surveillance tapes, and lied to the FBI.The superseding indictment, filed in federal district court in Miami, added a new section titled “The Attempt to Delete Security Camera Footage” that described a scheme to wipe a server containing surveillance footage that showed boxes of classified documents being removed from the Mar-a-Lago storage room.The court filing said that Taveras told prosecutors he was unopposed to Woodward continuing to represent Nauta, but did not consent to Woodward using or disclosing his confidential deliberations in the course of defending Nauta.That would mean Woodward could face some limits in how vigorously he could defend Nauta at trial, since he might be obligated to stand down certain arguments he might have otherwise used to attack Taveras’s testimony during cross-examination.“An attorney’s cross-examination of a former or current client raises two principal dangers. First, the conflict may result in the attorney’s improper use or disclosure of the client’s confidences during the cross-examination. Second, the conflict may cause the attorney to pull his punches,” the filing said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWoodward could not immediately be reached for comment, but he has previously indicated he would file a motion in response.In their court filing, prosecutors added there could be additional conflicts for Woodward because out of the eight total witnesses who were ensnared by the grand jury investigation, the government intended to use at least two of them against Trump and Nauta at trial.The first witness “worked in the White House during Trump’s presidency and then subsequently worked for Trump’s post-presidential office in Florida” and the second “worked for Trump’s reelection campaign and worked for Trump’s political action committee after Trump’s presidency ended”.That raised the possibility of Woodward having multiple clients testifying against each other, and ultimately against Trump, with whom Nauta is said to be in an informal joint-defense agreement, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter. More

Donald Trump’s most recent indictment marked the first time the former president has faced criminal consequence for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. A historic moment on its own, the indictment was all the more extraordinary because it came as Trump is running to return to the White House and is the frontrunner to win the Republican nomination.Here’s a look at what the most recent charges could mean for Trump.Do the charges mean Trump can’t run for president? If convicted, can he be blocked from holding office?No. The US constitution does not bar those convicted of a crime from running for president.There could be a pathway to blocking him, however, through the constitution’s 14th amendment. That provision says that someone cannot hold office if they have taken an oath to the United States, as Trump did when he was inaugurated, and engage in “insurrection or rebellion” against the country. There’s likely to be a flurry of separate civil lawsuits in state courts seeking to disqualify Trump on that basis. Some activists have already begun a push to disqualify Trump in Georgia, Colorado, Oregon, Nevada and California.“The new charges against Trump, and especially a conviction on those charges, would bolster the case that Trump should be disqualified under the 14th amendment. But much is uncertain here, and I expect attempts to disqualify Trump to go forward regardless of what happens with the new charges,” Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in an email.Last year, a judge in New Mexico used the 14th amendment to remove a county commissioner from his post after the commissioner was found guilty on federal charges related to January 6. It was the first time since the civil war that an official had been removed from their post for engaging in an insurrection.Noah Bookbinder, the president of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), which filed the New Mexico case, said his organization had already been planning to file civil cases to disqualify Trump under the 14th amendment. He noted that the 14th amendment doesn’t require a criminal conviction to mount a challenge and that litigation is likely to be ongoing while Trump’s criminal charges are pending.“Obviously an indictment and particularly a conviction would strengthen the case under the 14th amendment,” he said.What do Trump’s most recent charges mean for his re-election campaign?Legally, the charges do not block Trump from continuing to run for president. After his initial court appearance in Washington, he is likely to continue his campaign as usual.Politically, just as he has done after his other two indictments, Trump is likely to seize on the charges and try to spin them to his advantage. “They’re not indicting me, they’re indicting you. I just happen to be standing in the way,” he said in Pennsylvania last weekend. “Every time the radical left Democrats, Marxists, communists and fascists indict me, I consider it actually a great badge of honor … Because I’m being indicted for you.”With few exceptions, Trump’s Republican rivals in the presidential race have hesitated to use the criminal charges to attack the former president.Financially, the charges are likely to add to an already enormous bill for legal fees. Trump’s political action committee has already spent $40m on legal fees this year alone, as his campaign continues to burn through cash.If convicted before election day, Trump would probably be unable to vote in the 2024 race. He is a registered voter in Florida, which bars anyone convicted of a felony from voting while they are serving a criminal sentence. In order to vote, those convicted must complete their sentence, including any parole and probation, and repay any costs associated with their case.What happens if Trump goes on trial during the presidential primaries?A trial in the middle of the presidential primary would be a blockbuster moment in American politics. It would offer an unvarnished look at all of the ways Trump knowingly tried to subvert the results of the 2020 election, with key aides and allies forced to testify under oath. The trial would not be televised, since federal courts do not allow cameras in the courtroom.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“A trial is the best chance to educate the American public, as the January 6 House committee hearings did to some extent, about the actions Trump allegedly took to undermine American democracy and the rule of law,” Hasen wrote in the online newsmagazine Slate. “Constant publicity from the trial would give the American people in the middle of the election season a close look at the actions Trump took for his own personal benefit while putting lives and the country at risk.”Practically, it’s unclear what impact a trial would have on Trump’s campaigning. While it could pull him off the campaign trail, Trump favors large rallies that are typically held in the evening or on weekends.Trump’s legal schedule for next year remains unclear. He already has criminal trials scheduled in Manhattan in March over hush-money payments and another in May over his handling of classified documents. It’s not yet clear when the trial related to his efforts to overturn the election will be. Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting the case, has sought a speedy trial.What happens if Trump is found guilty after winning the GOP nomination?A conviction after Trump wins the GOP nomination is unlikely to have any real practical effect. If convicted, he will almost certainly appeal the case all the way to the US supreme court, where there is a conservative supermajority. The conviction would also only further efforts to get him disqualified from the ballot under the 14th amendment.What happens if Trump wins the election next November?If Trump takes office while the charges are still pending against him, he’s likely to move to quickly get rid of the charges. He would almost certainly appoint an attorney general who would fire Smith. If he has already been convicted, Trump could theoretically pardon himself, an untested legal idea.A Trump win would also throw the justice department into uncharted legal territory. While the department has long held that a sitting president can’t be prosecuted, it’s unclear how that would affect a prosecution of a former president that began when he was out of office.“It would be very chaotic. It would put a lot of stress on our democratic system,” Bookbinder said. “You certainly don’t want a situation where Donald Trump would try to use the presidency to get himself out of criminal liability.” More