Legal Profession

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Los planes de Trump y sus aliados para ejercer el poder en 2025

      by

      Utilizar el Departamento de Justicia para vengarse de sus adversarios y aumentar la represión a los inmigrantes serían algunas de las prioridades de Trump si regresa a la Casa Blanca.En el primer mitin de su campaña presidencial de 2024, el expresidente Donald Trump declaró: “Yo soy su castigo”. Más tarde, prometió utilizar el Departamento de Justicia para perseguir a sus adversarios políticos, empezando por el presidente Joe Biden y su familia.Detrás de estas amenazas públicas hay una serie de planes de Trump y sus aliados que pondrían en jaque elementos fundamentales de la gobernanza, la democracia, la política exterior y el Estado de derecho de Estados Unidos si regresa a la Casa Blanca.Algunos de estos temas se remontan al último periodo del mandato de Trump. Para entonces, sus asesores clave habían aprendido a ejercer el poder con mayor eficacia y Trump había despedido a funcionarios que se resistían a algunos de sus impulsos y los había sustituido por partidarios leales. Entonces, perdió las elecciones de 2020 y tuvo que abandonar el poder.Desde que dejó el cargo, los asesores y aliados de Trump en una red de grupos bien financiados han perfeccionado políticas, creado listas de posibles funcionarios y comenzado a dar forma a un nuevo andamiaje jurídico, con lo que han sentado las bases para una segunda presidencia de Trump que esperan que comience el 20 de enero de 2025.En una declaración poco clara, dos de los funcionarios más importantes de la campaña de Trump buscaron distanciar a su equipo de campaña de algunos de los planes que desarrollan los aliados externos del expresidente, grupos liderados por antiguos altos mandos de su gobierno que siguen en contacto directo con él. La declaración calificó los informes de noticias sobre el personal y las intenciones políticas de la campaña como “puramente especulativos y teóricos”.Los planes descritos aquí se derivan de lo que Trump ha pregonado en la campaña, lo que ha aparecido en su sitio web de campaña y de entrevistas con asesores de Trump, incluido uno que habló con The New York Times a petición de la campaña.Trump quiere usar al Departamento de Justicia para vengarse de sus adversarios políticosSi vuelve a ganar la presidencia, Trump ha declarado que usaría el Departamento de Justicia para iniciar investigaciones en contra de sus adversarios y acusarlos de cometer delitos, incluso dijo en junio que nombraría a “un fiscal especial de verdad para ir tras” Biden y su familia. Más tarde declaró en una entrevista con Univisión que, si alguien lo desafiaba por motivos políticos, podría hacer que esa persona fuera acusada formalmente.Los aliados de Trump también han estado desarrollando un proyecto intelectual para desechar la norma posterior al Watergate sobre la independencia investigadora del Departamento de Justicia respecto a la dirección política de la Casa Blanca.Anticipándose a eso, Trump ya había violado las normas en su campaña de 2016, cuando prometió “encarcelar” a su oponente, Hillary Clinton, por usar un servidor de correo electrónico privado. Durante su presidencia, dijo en varias ocasiones a sus asesores que quería que el Departamento de Justicia presentara cargos contra sus enemigos políticos, incluidos funcionarios a quienes había despedido como James Comey, exdirector del FBI. El Departamento de Justicia abrió varias investigaciones de este tipo, pero no presentó cargos, lo cual enfureció a Trump y provocó una ruptura en 2020 con Bill Barr, su fiscal general.Se propone llevar a cabo una represión extrema de la migraciónTrump planea un ataque a la migración a una escala nunca antes vista en la historia moderna de Estados Unidos. A millones de migrantes que entraron ilegalmente en Estados Unidos se les prohibiría estar en el país o se les deportaría años o incluso décadas después de haberse establecido aquí.Reforzados por agentes reasignados de otros organismos federales de procuración de justicia, la policía estatal y la Guardia Nacional, los funcionarios del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas llevarían a cabo redadas masivas destinadas a deportar a millones de personas cada año. Se emplearían fondos militares con el propósito de construir campamentos para albergar a los detenidos. Se invocaría una ley de emergencia de salud pública para suspender las solicitudes de asilo de las personas que llegan a la frontera. Y el gobierno trataría de poner fin a la ciudadanía por derecho de nacimiento para los bebés nacidos en suelo estadounidense de padres sin estatus legal.Trump tiene planes para usar la fuerza militar estadounidense más cerca de casaMientras estaba en el cargo, Trump pensó en usar el Ejército para atacar a los cárteles de drogas en México, una idea que violaría el derecho internacional a menos que México consintiera. Desde entonces, esa idea ha recibido un respaldo republicano más amplio y Trump pretende hacerla realidad si vuelve al Despacho Oval.Aunque la Ley Posse Comitatus prohíbe en general el uso de soldados federales con fines policiales, otra ley, la Ley de Insurrección, establece una excepción. Trump quería invocar la Ley de Insurrección a fin de utilizar al Ejército para reprimir a los manifestantes después de la muerte de George Floyd a manos de la policía en 2020, pero no lo logró y la idea sigue siendo importante entre sus asistentes. Entre otras cosas, su principal asesor de migración ha dicho que invocarían la Ley de Insurrección en la frontera sur para usar soldados con la finalidad de interceptar y detener a los migrantes que ingresan a Estados Unidos de manera ilegal.Trump y sus aliados quieren un mayor control sobre la burocracia federal y la fuerza laboralTrump y sus partidarios quieren aumentar el poder que tiene el presidente sobre las agencias federales, lo cual implicaría concentrar en la Casa Blanca un mayor control sobre toda la maquinaria del gobierno.Para ello han adoptado una versión maximalista de la llamada teoría del ejecutivo unitario, según la cual el presidente tiene autoridad directa sobre toda la burocracia federal y es inconstitucional que el Congreso cree reductos de autoridad independiente en la toma de decisiones.Como parte de ese plan, Trump también pretende revivir una iniciativa del final de su presidencia para alterar las normas de servicio civil que protegen a los profesionales de carrera del gobierno, lo que le permitiría despedir a decenas de miles de trabajadores federales y remplazarlos por partidarios. Después de que el Congreso fracasó en su intento de promulgar una ley para impedir que ese cambio sucediera, el gobierno de Biden decidió redactar un reglamento para blindar a los empleados federales contra Trump. Sin embargo, dado que se trata solo de una acción ejecutiva, el próximo presidente republicano podría dejarla sin efecto de la misma manera.Los aliados de Trump quieren abogados que no lo limitenLos abogados con designación política frustraron en ocasiones los deseos de Trump al plantear objeciones legales a sus ideas y a las de sus principales asesores. Esta dinámica ha provocado una división silenciosa en la derecha, ya que los partidarios leales a Trump han llegado a ver con desdén al típico abogado de la Sociedad Federalista, en esencia, un conservador republicano de la corriente dominante.En un posible nuevo mandato, los aliados de Trump están planeando instalar de forma sistemática guardianes legales más agresivos y alineados ideológicamente, que serán más propensos a aprobar acciones contenciosas. En un sondeo de The New York Times sobre candidatos presidenciales para 2024, Trump y su equipo de campaña se negaron a responder a una serie de preguntas detalladas sobre qué límites, de haberlos, reconocería a sus poderes en una serie de asuntos bélicos, de confidencialidad y de aplicación de la ley, muchos de ellos planteados en su primer mandato.Jonathan Swan es periodista de política especializado en campañas y el Congreso estadounidense. Como reportero de Axios, ganó un Emmy por su entrevista de 2020 al entonces presidente Donald Trump, así como el Premio Aldo Beckman de la Asociación de Corresponsales de la Casa Blanca por “excelencia en general en la cobertura de la Casa Blanca” en 2022. Más de Jonathan SwanMaggie Haberman es corresponsal política sénior y autora de Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America. Formó parte del equipo que ganó un premio Pulitzer en 2018 por informar sobre los asesores del presidente Trump y sus conexiones con Rusia. Más de Maggie HabermanCharlie Savage escribe sobre seguridad nacional y política legal. Es periodista desde hace más de dos décadas. Más de Charlie Savage More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Allies Want a New Breed of Lawyer if He Returns to Power

      by

      Close allies of Donald J. Trump are preparing to populate a new administration with a more aggressive breed of right-wing lawyer, dispensing with traditional conservatives who they believe stymied his agenda in his first term.The allies have been drawing up lists of lawyers they view as ideologically and temperamentally suited to serve in a second Trump administration. Their aim is to reduce the chances that politically appointed lawyers would frustrate a more radical White House agenda — as they sometimes did when Mr. Trump was in office, by raising objections to his desires for certain harsher immigration policies or for greater personal control over the Justice Department, among others.Now, as Trump allies grow more confident in an election victory next fall, several outside groups, staffed by former Trump officials who are expected to serve in senior roles if he wins, have begun parallel personnel efforts. At the start of Mr. Trump’s term, his administration relied on the influential Federalist Society, the conservative legal network whose members filled key executive branch legal roles and whose leader helped select his judicial nominations. But in a striking shift, Trump allies are building new recruiting pipelines separate from the Federalist Society.These back-room discussions were described by seven people with knowledge of the planning, most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. In addition, The New York Times interviewed former senior lawyers in the Trump administration and other allies who have remained close to the president and are likely to serve in a second term.The interviews reveal a significant break within the conservative movement. Top Trump allies have come to view their party’s legal elites — even leaders with seemingly impeccable conservative credentials — as out of step with their movement.“The Federalist Society doesn’t know what time it is,” said Russell T. Vought, a former senior Trump administration official who runs a think tank with close ties to the former president. He argued that many elite conservative lawyers had proved to be too timid when, in his view, the survival of the nation is at stake.Such comments may surprise those who view the Federalist Society as hard-line conservatives. But the move away from the group reflects the continuing evolution of the Republican Party in the Trump era and an effort among those now in his inner circle to prepare to take control of the government in a way unseen in modern presidential history.Two of the allies leading the push are Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s former senior adviser, and John McEntee, another trusted aide whom the then-president had empowered in 2020 to rid his administration of political appointees perceived as disloyal or obstructive.The nonprofit groups they are involved in are barred by law from supporting a candidate, and none of the work they are doing is explicitly tied to Mr. Trump. But Mr. Miller and Mr. McEntee remain close to the former president and are expected to have his ear in any second term.Mr. Trump himself, focused for now on multiple criminal and civil cases against him, appears disengaged from these efforts. But he made clear throughout his term in office that he was infuriated by many of the lawyers who worked for him, ranting about how they were “weak” and “stupid.”By the end of his term, lawyers he appointed early in his administration had angered the White House by raising legal concerns about various policy proposals. But Mr. Trump reserved his deepest rage for the White House and Justice Department legal officials who largely rejected his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, according to people who spoke with him. Casting about for alternative lawyers who would tell him what he wanted to hear, Mr. Trump turned for that effort to a group of outside lawyers, many of whom have since been indicted in Georgia.People close to the former president say they are seeking out a different type of lawyer committed to his “America First” ideology and willing to endure the personal and professional risks of association with Mr. Trump. They want lawyers in federal agencies and in the White House who are willing to use theories that more establishment lawyers would reject to advance his cause. This new mind-set matches Mr. Trump’s declaration that he is waging a “final battle” against demonic “enemies” populating a “deep state” within the government that is bent on destroying America.Several of Mr. Trump’s key allies — including Stephen Miller, his former senior adviser — are drawing up lists of lawyers they plan to hire if the former president returns to the White House in 2025.Cooper Neill for The New York TimesThere were a few lawyers like that in Mr. Trump’s administration, but they were largely outnumbered, outranked and often blocked by more traditional legal conservatives. For those who went to work for Mr. Trump but grew disillusioned, the push to systematically install Trump loyalists who may see the law as malleable across a second Trump administration has been a cause for alarm.John Mitnick was appointed by Mr. Trump as general counsel of the Homeland Security Department in 2018. But he was fired in 2019 as part of a broad purge of the agency’s leaders — whom Mr. Trump had installed — and was replaced by one of Mr. Miller’s allies.Mr. Mitnick predicted that “no qualified attorneys with integrity will have any desire to serve as political appointees” in a second Trump term, and that instead it would be “predominantly staffed by opportunists who will rubber-stamp whatever Trump and his senior White House staff want to do.”In many ways, the Federalist Society has become synonymous with the Republican establishment, and its members’ most common interests — including pushing an originalist interpretation of the Constitution and federal statutes — can be distinct from the whims and grievances of Mr. Trump himself. Its membership dues are low, and politically ambitious Republican lawyers of various stripes routinely join it or attend its events. Many of the more aggressive lawyers the Trump allies are eyeing have their own links to it.But after both the legal policy fights inside the Trump administration and the refusal by the group’s most respected luminaries to join Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the phrase “Federalist Society” became a slur for some on the Trump-aligned right, a shorthand for a kind of lawyerly weakness.Hard-right allies of Mr. Trump increasingly speak of typical Federalist Society members as “squishes” too worried about maintaining their standing in polite society and their employment prospects at big law firms to advance their movement’s most contentious tactics and goals.“Trump and his administration learned the hard way in their first term that the Democrats are playing for keeps,” said Mike Davis, a former congressional aide who helped shepherd judicial nominees during the Trump administration and has become a close ally of the 45th president. “And in the Trump 47 administration, they need much stronger attorneys who do not care about elite opinion who will fight these key cultural battles.”The chilling of the relationship between Mr. Trump and Leonard Leo, a leader of the Federalist Society, embodies a broader rift between Mr. Trump and conservative legal elites.T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesA Fraught UnionWhen Mr. Trump wrested the 2016 Republican presidential nomination from the party’s old guard, it was unclear whether social conservatives would turn out in the general election to vote for a thrice-married New Yorker who had cultivated a playboy reputation and once described himself as “very pro-choice.” But Mr. Trump won their support by essentially striking a deal with legal conservatives: He agreed to fill Supreme Court vacancies from a list of prospects compiled by a small number of movement stalwarts.This group helping to shape the judiciary included Leonard A. Leo — arguably the most powerful figure in the conservative legal movement and a leader of the Federalist Society — and Donald F. McGahn II, Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign general counsel and first White House counsel. With a seat already open after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the move worked: Exit polls showed that court-focused voters helped secure Mr. Trump’s narrow victory.Along with the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Mr. Leo and Mr. McGahn — and later Pat A. Cipollone, Mr. Trump’s second White House counsel — created an assembly line for turning Federalist Society-style lawyers into appeals court judges and Supreme Court justices.But the union between Mr. Trump and the conservative legal establishment could be more fraught than it sometimes appeared. As his presidency wore on, Mr. Trump attacked and sidelined many of the lawyers around him. That included Mr. Leo.One episode, described by a person familiar with the incident, illustrates the larger chill.In January 2020, Mr. Leo was having dinner at Mar-a-Lago when Mr. Trump strode up to his table. The president stunned Mr. Leo, publicly berating him and accusing him of recommending the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, who appointed a special counsel to investigate ties between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.Taken aback, Mr. Leo protested that he had actually suggested someone else for the position — Mr. Cipollone. Mr. Trump walked away without apologizing.Nearly a year later, when Mr. Trump was trying to enlist legal assistance for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, he reached out three times to Mr. Leo. But Mr. Leo declined to take or return Mr. Trump’s calls, and has since only dealt with him through others.A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to repeated requests for comment.In a statement, Mr. Leo said, “I have nothing to say regarding his current efforts, but I’m just grateful that President Trump transformed the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary in his first term.”Mr. Mitnick’s experience underscores the style of lawyering that Trump allies saw as too cautious. His role as the top lawyer at the Department of Homeland Security put him in the path of increasingly aggressive policy proposals from a top White House adviser to Mr. Trump, Mr. Miller.Mr. Miller, who is not a lawyer, is known for his vehement opposition to immigration. Mr. Mitnick and Mr. Miller are said to have clashed, directly and indirectly, over legal risks raised by regulatory and policy actions emanating from the White House, including separating migrant children from their parents and transporting migrants to so-called sanctuary cities.In 2019, the White House purged the leadership ranks of the Homeland Security Department, firing Mr. Mitnick. Mr. Trump ultimately installed as his replacement Chad Mizelle, who had been out of law school just seven years but was a close Miller ally.Like numerous other positions filled later in Mr. Trump’s term, Mr. Mizelle was appointed as “acting” general counsel, sidestepping a Senate vetting and confirmation process that would most likely have closely scrutinized whether he was qualified for the job.With Mr. Mizelle acting as the department’s top lawyer when the Covid-19 pandemic arose, the Trump administration seamlessly invoked emergency powers to flatly refuse to consider the petition of any asylum seeker arriving at the southern border.Seeking ‘America First’ LawyersMr. Miller has stayed close to Mr. Trump and is expected to play an even more important role in shaping policy if Mr. Trump returns to power.While out of office, Mr. Miller has been running a foundation focused on suing the Biden administration and recruiting a new generation of “America First” lawyers, with some from attorney general and solicitor general offices in Texas and other Republican-controlled states. “America First” Republicans are often opposed to both legal and illegal immigration, protectionist on trade and skeptical of international alliances and military intervention overseas.One first-term Trump lawyer who would most likely serve in a second term is Mark Paoletta, who served as general counsel at the Office of Management and Budget and worked closely with Mr. Vought, the agency’s director. The O.M.B. team saw itself as an island of facilitators within an executive branch they believed was too quick to tell Mr. Trump that his ideas were unachievable or illegal.“The Federalist Society doesn’t know what time it is,” said Russell Vought, a former senior Trump administration official.Doug Mills/The New York TimesTogether, Mr. Vought and Mr. Paoletta came up with the idea of having Mr. Trump declare a national emergency and invoke special powers to spend more taxpayer money on a border wall than Congress was willing to appropriate.Mr. Paoletta also believed that Mr. Trump could have exerted greater personal control over the Justice Department, although Mr. Paoletta said in an interview that he did not advocate using the presidency’s command over federal law enforcement for partisan and personal score-settling. He and other advisers likely to follow Mr. Trump back into power view White House authority to direct the Justice Department as proper under the so-called unitary executive theory. It holds that presidents can directly command the entire federal bureaucracy and that pockets of independent decision-making authority are unconstitutional.“I believe a president doesn’t need to be so hands-off with the D.O.J.,” Mr. Paoletta said, adding: “It’s not an independent agency, and he is the head of the executive branch. A president has every right to direct D.O.J. to look at items that are his policy priorities and other matters of national importance.”Mr. Trump is not known for pondering legal philosophy. But he has found common cause with lawyers who have a sweeping view of presidential power.In his 2024 campaign, Mr. Trump has promised to “appoint a real special prosecutor to go after” President Biden and his family — shattering the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence. More than any legal policy statement on his campaign website, retribution may be the closest thing to a governing philosophy for Mr. Trump as he seeks a second term.‘Legal Creativity’Mr. Trump has rarely looked closely at a lawyer’s area of specialty. Instead, he has often looked at whether a particular lawyer can help him gain something he wants. He spent much of his first term railing against the lawyers who worked for him and wondering aloud why none of them could live up to the memory of his notoriously ruthless mentor, Roy Cohn, who represented Mr. Trump in his early business career in New York.When he sought to overturn the 2020 election, Mr. Trump was unsatisfied with his government lawyers, including his second White House counsel, Mr. Cipollone, who largely rejected his efforts to subvert the results. Mr. Trump turned to a different set of outside lawyers.Those lawyers included Rudolph W. Giuliani, John C. Eastman, Kenneth Chesebro, Jenna Ellis and Sidney K. Powell, all of whom have since been indicted in Georgia in a racketeering case that charged the former president and 18 of his allies with conspiring to overturn his election loss there in 2020. Ms. Powell, Mr. Chesebro and Ms. Ellis have pleaded guilty.Mr. Trump was also infuriated that the justices he had put on the Supreme Court declined to repay his patronage by intervening in the 2020 election. As Mr. Trump criticized the court, Mr. Leo with the Federalist Society is said to have told associates he was disappointed that the former president’s rhetoric made his judicial appointment record look “transactional,” aimed at advancing Mr. Trump’s personal interests rather than a broader philosophical mission.Jeffrey Clark, a former high-ranking Justice Department official, was criminally charged in Georgia in connection with efforts to overturn Mr. Trump’s 2020 election loss in that state.Pool photo by Susan WalshIn the same way, Mr. Trump had a falling-out with his attorney general, William P. Barr, who refused to falsely say that the Justice Department had evidence of widespread voter fraud. After Mr. Barr resigned, his deputy and successor, Jeffrey A. Rosen, also refused to throw the department’s weight behind Mr. Trump’s claims. Mr. Trump then explored the idea of installing Jeffrey Clark — an official who was willing to raise concerns about purported election fraud — as acting attorney general.Mr. Clark has also been indicted in the Georgia case, but remains in favor with Mr. Trump and has met with the former president at his private clubs. Over the summer, at Mr. Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, N.J., Mr. Clark attended a fund-raiser for the people who have been imprisoned for rioting at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.Mr. Clark will most likely be in contention for a senior Justice Department position in any second Trump administration, depending on the outcome of his legal travails. He has written a constitutional analysis, titled “The U.S. Justice Department Is Not Independent,” that amounts to an intellectual blueprint for direct presidential control of federal law enforcement.He declined to comment. On a conservative podcast last year, Mr. Clark said that “extraordinary times call for extraordinary, responsive legal creativity.” More

    • 75 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Lawyers Should Have Known Better

      by

      At a pivotal moment during one of the Watergate hearings in 1973, President Richard Nixon’s counsel, John Dean, asked a question that still resonates: “How in God’s name could so many lawyers get involved in something like this?”In the aftermath of Nixon’s resignation, the issue posed by Mr. Dean’s bracing question triggered a revolution in the legal profession. With so many lawyers involved in the Watergate criminal scheme, the American Bar Association started requiring law schools to provide ethics instruction or risk losing their accreditation. Exams began testing law students’ knowledge of intricate ethical rules.It wasn’t enough, if the past few weeks are any guide. In Fulton County, Ga., three of former President Donald Trump’s lawyers — Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis — have now pleaded guilty to crimes in service of Mr. Trump’s scheme to overturn the 2020 election and stay in the White House. All three have agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in the sprawling state RICO case against Mr. Trump. Two other Trump lawyers, Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, still face criminal charges in the Georgia case. They, along with Mr. Chesebro and Ms. Powell, have also been identified as unindicted co-conspirators in the related federal prosecution of Mr. Trump, which will probably benefit from the guilty pleas in Georgia.The charges in the plea agreements vary, but the underlying story is the same: Fifty years after Watergate, the nation is once again confronted with a president who grossly abused the powers of his office, leading to criminal prosecutions. And once again, that abuse relied heavily on the involvement of lawyers. If Mr. Trump’s 2020 racket was “a coup in search of a legal theory,” as one federal judge put it, these lawyers provided the theory, and the phony facts to back it up. In doing so, they severely tarnished their profession.How in God’s name? The question is no less urgent now than in 1973. Lawyers hold immense power within the American system of government, which depends on their expertise, and their integrity, to function. Those who abuse this power pose an even greater threat to the country than some random Capitol rioter, because we count on them not only to draft and execute the laws but to follow them — to lead by example. Everyone should behave ethically, of course, but despite the “Better-Call-Saul” reputation of so many lawyers, there’s nothing wrong with holding the profession to a higher standard.One can view the guilty pleas by the Trump lawyers as evidence that the system is working as it should. They broke the law, they violated their ethical obligations, and now they are facing the music — not only in the courts, but from their chosen profession. Mr. Giuliani’s New York law license was suspended for his “demonstrably false and misleading statements” on Mr. Trump’s behalf; the District of Columbia’s bar association has recommended he lose his license there for good. Ms. Ellis was censured by Colorado state bar officials for violating the rule against “reckless, knowing, or intentional misrepresentations by attorneys,” and may face more severe consequences in light of her guilty plea.Mr. Eastman, a former law-school dean and one of the key legal architects of Mr. Trump’s bonkers plot to stay in office, is in the final days of his California disbarment trial for ethical violations. Officials there have argued that his conduct was “fundamentally dishonest and intended to obstruct the lawful certification” of President Biden’s victory.All of this is to the good. Careers are rightly ruined over such behavior. It is also the exception to the rule. In the real world, lawyers rarely face any consequences for their legal or ethical transgressions.“It’s a club,” said Stephen Gillers, a legal-ethics expert at New York University School of Law who has studied the profession’s opaque and feckless disciplinary system. “The judges who make the decisions are lawyers in robes. They tend to be sympathetic to the other lawyer.”And it’s hard to gloss over the fact that a disturbing number of experienced attorneys, some of whom once held prestigious posts in government and academia, were willing and eager to tell transparent lies and concoct laughable legal arguments to help a con man stay in the White House against the will of the American people.“Part of the reason Trump had to resort to attorneys to attempt the overthrow of the election was because the military was not available to him,” Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told me. Recalling the notorious Dec. 18, 2020, Oval Office meeting, during which the former president openly contemplated ordering the armed forces to seize voting machines, Mr. Eisen said, “It’s a testament to our military leaders, to our military culture, that that door was closed.”The same cannot be said, alas, for America’s legal culture. It’s easy enough to understand why Mr. Trump, who was mentored by the ruthless mob lawyer Roy Cohn, would seek out lawyers who were willing to do whatever he asked, legality and ethics be damned. The more troubling question is how he was able to find so many takers.The obvious answer is the eternal seduction of money and power. Laurence Tribe, one of the nation’s foremost constitutional scholars, fell back on that explanation for the choices made by Mr. Chesebro, his former student, referring to him as a “moral chameleon” who was engaged in deeply dishonest lawyering.Related to this is the intense pressure to satisfy the demands of powerful clients, even if it means bringing lawsuits so frivolous that they can result in legal sanctions, as many of Mr. Trump’s lawyers have learned the hard way.There is an important caveat here: Many government and private lawyers in 2020, faced with Mr. Trump’s illegal and unconstitutional demands, resisted the temptation and behaved honorably. From the White House counsel’s office to the Justice Department to top law firms, some key attorneys held the line.“What was one of the determinative factors in Trump’s coup failing?” asked Ian Bassin, executive director of the advocacy group Protect Democracy. “Responsible lawyers refused to participate.”That explains why many of the lawyers caught up in Mr. Trump’s outrageous plot were not what you might call the cream of the crop. They were grifters, shysters, hair-dye-leakers, tapped primarily because Mr. Trump had trouble finding more serious people to make his case. And yet there were still those with more respectable backgrounds, like Mr. Chesebro, who chose to sell their honor to a man devoid of it, and who they should have known wasn’t going to pay them anyway. In the end, they were all smeared with the humiliation of having filed meritless, fact-free cases. With one minor exception, federal and state courts rejected every lawsuit brought on behalf of Mr. Trump.To a degree many people didn’t fully realize until the past few years, the functioning of American government depends on honor. “There are no guarantees in a democracy,” Mr. Eisen said. “Our rule of law is a central part of what defines our democratic system. Ultimately it comes down to whether the majority of people will do the right thing.”When it comes to lawyers, the choices of just a few can make all the difference.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Lawyers Are Going Down. Is He?

      by

      On Tuesday morning, Jenna Ellis became the third Donald Trump-allied lawyer to plead guilty in Fulton County, Ga., to state criminal charges related to Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. She joins Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro in similar pleas, with each of them receiving probation and paying a small fine, and each of them cooperating with the prosecution in its remaining cases against Trump and his numerous co-defendants.The Ellis, Powell and Chesebro guilty pleas represent an advance for both the state election prosecution in Georgia and the federal election prosecution in Washington. While their guilty pleas came in the Georgia case (they’re not charged in the federal prosecution, though Powell and Chesebro have been identified as unindicted co-conspirators in that case), the information they disclose could be highly relevant to Jack Smith, the special counsel investigating Trump.Perhaps as important, or even more important, the three attorneys’ admissions may prove culturally and politically helpful to those of us who are attempting to break the fever of conspiracy theories that surround the 2020 election and continue to empower Trump today. At the same time, however, it’s far too soon to tell whether the prosecution has made real progress on Trump himself. The ultimate importance of the plea deals depends on the nature of the testimony from the lawyers, and we don’t yet know what they have said — or will say.To understand the potential significance of these plea agreements, it’s necessary to understand the importance of Trump’s legal team to Trump’s criminal defense. As I’ve explained in various pieces, and as the former federal prosecutor Ken White explained to me when I guest-hosted Ezra Klein’s podcast, proof of criminal intent is indispensable to the criminal cases against Trump, both in Georgia and in the federal election case. While the specific intent varies depending on the charge, each key claim requires proof of conscious wrongdoing — such as an intent to lie or the “intent to have false votes cast.”One potential element of Trump’s intent defense in the federal case is that he was merely following the advice of lawyers. In other words, how could he possess criminal intent when he simply did what his lawyers told him to do? He’s not the one who is expected to know election laws. They are.According to court precedent that governs the federal case, a defendant can use advice of counsel as a defense against claims of criminal intent if he can show that he “made full disclosure of all material facts to his attorney” before he received the advice, and that “he relied in good faith on the counsel’s advice that his course of conduct was legal.”There is a price, though, for presenting an advice-of-counsel defense. The defendant waives attorney-client privilege, opening up both his oral and written communications with his lawyers to scrutiny by a judge and a jury. There is no question that a swarm of MAGA lawyers surrounded Trump at each step of the process, much like a cloud of dirt surrounds the character Pigpen in the “Peanuts” cartoons, but if the lawyers themselves have admitted to engaging in criminal conduct, then that weakens his legal defense. This was no normal legal team, and their conduct was far outside the bounds of normal legal representation.Apart from the implications of the advice-of-counsel defense, their criminal pleas, combined with their agreements to cooperate, may grant us greater visibility into Trump’s state of mind during the effort to overturn the election. The crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege prevents a criminal defendant from shielding his communications with his lawyers when those communications were in furtherance of a criminal scheme. If Ellis, Powell or Chesebro can testify that the lawyers were operating at Trump’s direction — as opposed to Trump following their advice — then that testimony could help rebut Trump’s intent defense.At the same time, I use words like “potential,” “if,” “may” and “could” intentionally. We do not yet know the full story that any of these attorneys will tell. We only have hints. Ellis said in court on Tuesday, for example, that she “relied on others, including lawyers with many more years of experience than I, to provide me with true and reliable information.” Indeed, Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, has indicted two other attorneys with “many more years of experience” — Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman. If Ellis’s court statement is any indication, it’s an ominous indicator for both men.If you think it’s crystal clear that the guilty pleas are terrible news for Trump — or represent that elusive “we have him now” moment that many Trump opponents have looked for since his moral corruption became clear — then it’s important to know that there’s a contrary view. National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, a respected former federal prosecutor, argued that Powell’s guilty plea, for example, was evidence that Willis’s case was “faltering” and that her RICO indictment “is a dud.”“When prosecutors cut plea deals with cooperators early in the proceedings,” McCarthy writes, “they generally want the pleading defendants to admit guilt to the major charges in the indictment.” Powell pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges. Ellis and Chesebro both pleaded to a single felony charge, but they received punishment similar to Powell’s. McCarthy argues that Willis allowed Powell to plead guilty to a minor infraction “because minor infractions are all she’s got.” And in a piece published Tuesday afternoon, McCarthy argued that the Ellis guilty plea is more of a sign of the “absurdity” of Willis’s RICO charge than a sign that Willis is closing in on Trump, a notion he called “wishful thinking.”There’s also another theory regarding the light sentences for the three lawyers. When Powell and Chesebro sought speedy trials, they put the prosecution under pressure. As Andrew Fleischman, a Georgia defense attorney, wrote on X, the site formerly known as Twitter, it was “extremely smart” to seek a quick trial. “They got the best deal,” Fleischman said, “because their lawyers picked the best strategy.”As a general rule, when evaluating complex litigation, it is best not to think in terms of legal breakthroughs (though breakthroughs can certainly occur) but rather in terms of legal trench warfare. Think of seizing ground from your opponent yard by yard rather than mile by mile, and the question at each stage isn’t so much who won and who lost but rather who advanced and who retreated. Willis has advanced, but it’s too soon to tell how far.The guilty pleas have a potential legal effect, certainly, but they can have a cultural and political effect as well. When MAGA lawyers admit to their misdeeds, it should send a message to the Republican rank and file that the entire effort to steal the election was built on a mountain of lies. In August, a CNN poll found that a majority of Republicans still question Joe Biden’s election victory, and their doubts about 2020 are a cornerstone of Trump’s continued political viability.Again, we can’t expect any single thing to break through to Republican voters, but just as prosecutors advance one yard at a time, opposing candidates and concerned citizens advance their cultural and political cases the same way. It’s a slow, painful process of trying to wean Republicans from conspiracy theories, and these guilty pleas are an important element in service of that indispensable cause. They represent a series of confessions from the inner circle and not a heated external critique.Amid this cloud of uncertainty, there is one thing we do know: With each guilty plea, we receive further legal confirmation of a reality that should have been plainly obvious to each of us, even in the days and weeks immediately following the election. Trump’s effort to overturn the election wasn’t empowered by conventional counsel providing sound legal advice. It was a corrupt scheme empowered by an admitted criminal cabal.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Lawyers Now Turning on Trump

      by

      Clare Toeniskoetter and Marion Lozano and Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicOver the past few days, two of the lawyers who tried to help former President Donald J. Trump stay in power after losing the 2020 election pleaded guilty in a Georgia racketeering case and have agreed to cooperate with prosecutors against him.Richard Faussett, who writes about politics in the American South for The Times, explains why two of Mr. Trump’s former allies have now turned against him.On today’s episodeRichard Fausset, a correspondent for The New York Times covering the American South.The two lawyers pleading guilty in the Georgia case are Sidney Powell, left, and Kenneth Chesebro.Photos: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters; Pool photo by Alyssa PointerBackground readingSidney Powell, a member of the Trump legal team in 2020, pleaded guilty and will cooperate with prosecutors seeking to convict the former president in an election interference case in Georgia.Kenneth Chesebro, a Trump-aligned lawyer, also pleaded guilty in Georgia.There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.Richard Fausset More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Let’s Plant Wildflowers in the National Mall

      by

      More from our inbox:Indicted LawyersSununu’s ‘Wishful Thinking’End the Ukraine WarDeSantis and the IviesPain Patients Deserve Answers Evan CohenTo the Editor:Re “Fill the National Mall With Wildflowers,” by Alexander Nazaryan (Opinion guest essay, Aug. 11):What a timely and terrific idea Mr. Nazaryan proposes. Let’s replace the clipped, monotonous lawns of our National Mall with gardens of wildflowers, he writes. Create meadows! Variety and color! These fields would provide habitat for the bees, butterflies and other essential insects that are losing their homes to development and chemically maintained landscaping.And, incidentally, these 18 acres of gardens and meadows will pull tons of carbon from the atmosphere and bury it in the soil.What an opportunity to show visitors our national heritage of wildflowers. And what a chance to show young tourists how plants create a livable atmosphere for us.We can model our future on the National Mall. If millions of suburban gardeners and thousands of farmers follow suit in restoring lawns and fields to meadows of wildflowers and multi-crop fields, free of chemicals, we could be on our way to regenerate the earth and save ourselves a place in the future!Deborah Lake FortsonBrookline, Mass.The writer is a member of Brookline Pollinator Pathways.To the Editor:Alexander Nazaryan’s piece on wildflower lawns is wonderful to consider. A few photoshopped pictures of the National Mall full of wildflowers would have made it perfect.I am delighted with my wildflower lawn in Longmont, Colo., on a small residential lot. In 2022, my water bill was reduced by 25,000 gallons after I stopped watering my lawn, even though I maintained extensive flower and vegetable gardens. Mother Nature also helped kill the lawn by withholding any significant rain and snow for the first six months of 2022.This all followed a severe drought in late 2021, which contributed to a massive grassland fire in Boulder County that burned over 1,000 homes in December. I’d had enough of my lawn.Now I enjoy more colors, heights of vegetation and varied shades of green in our yard than I have ever had. The ground always seems damp, even with bright sun and low humidity, which is typical for our local climate. Birds and bees are all over it.We owe it to the planet for working its magic. Our monotonous and high maintenance green carpet was a poor substitute.David BishtonLongmont, Colo.To the Editor:I’m an ecologist in Washington, D.C., and I love low-water landscaping and wilding lawns — but the National Mall is land used for large events like concerts, Fourth of July fireworks, rallies, marches, protests, gatherings, sun bathing, soccer games, chasing kids around, kite festivals and more. And it’s used by hundreds of thousands of people for some of these events.It cannot be full of wildflowers and, no, wildflowers are not easy to maintain in this sort of scenario.There is a section by the Tidal Basin south of the Washington Monument where flowers are planted that the author may enjoy, though it’s a small lot. Wildflowers on the Mall, though, would remove space for us to play. And we do play!Yes, its maintenance is expensive — but the National Mall is not an ecological disaster. It’s an event space.K. SpainWashingtonIndicted LawyersClockwise from top left, attorneys, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Jeffrey Clark and Sidney Powell.Photographs by Jae C. Hong/Associated Press, Eduardo Munoz/Reuters, Michael A. McCoy/Getty Images and Jonathan Ernst/ReutersTo the Editor:Re “Why Are So Many of Trump’s Alleged Co-Conspirators Lawyers?,” by Deborah Pearlstein (Opinion guest essay, Aug. 15):Reading Ms. Pearlstein’s excellent essay, I was reminded of Anne Applebaum’s observation in her book “Twilight of Democracy”: “Authoritarians need the people who will promote the riot or launch the coup. But they also need the people who can use sophisticated legal language, people who can argue that breaking the constitution or twisting the law is the right thing to do.”Stronger ethics rules and laws, bolstered by the prosecutions and bar expulsions we are witnessing, will help, but ultimately, the problem is more fundamental.What Ms. Pearlstein refers to as a root cause — increased polarization of the legal profession — may be better described as a lack of commitment to democratic principles and, in some cases, a simple lack of character.Michael CurryAustin, TexasTo the Editor:Deborah Pearlstein’s guest essay on the politicization of the legal profession is spot on and reflects the larger problem with the legal profession today: an erosion of ethics.An old joke claims that “legal ethics” is an oxymoron; it is not a joke today. I believe that this is the reason a decreasing number of lawyers are members of the American Bar Association; the ethics code of the A.B.A., and associated state bar associations, is not compatible with their practice of law.Thomas CoxRichmond, Va.Sununu’s ‘Wishful Thinking’Eric Thayer for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “If Republicans Narrow the Field, We Will Beat Trump,” by Gov. Christopher T. Sununu (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Aug. 21):Yes, narrowing the field would help Republicans beat Donald Trump for the nomination, but Mr. Sununu is engaging in wishful thinking when he says that at this week’s debate, the other leading candidates should “break free of Mr. Trump’s drama, step out of his shadow.”That’s not possible for these debate participants, every one of whom will have signed a pledge to support the nominee — even if it’s Mr. Trump and even if he’s a convicted felon by November 2024.Moreover, even candidates like Chris Christie and Mike Pence, who now criticize Mr. Trump’s actions regarding the last presidential election, supported him all through the prior four years of his disastrous presidency.Mr. Sununu says the Republican Party needs to refocus “on a nominee dedicated to saving America.” In fact, it’s the Republican Party that needs saving from its current crop of leaders and candidates.Jeff BurgerRidgewood, N.J.End the Ukraine War Shuran Huang for The New York TimesTo the Editor:“Peace Activists Decide Ukraine Is an Exception” (front page, Aug. 15) correctly reports on how many progressive voices have been quiet on the war. But religious leaders, up to and including Pope Francis, as well as several faith groups like my own (Quakers), have been actively pressing to end the war and support the arduous work of peacemaking.Earlier this year, Pope Francis met with President Volodymyr Zelensky at the Vatican and called for a cease-fire and negotiations. Hundreds of religious leaders have now signed a letter in support of his call and are advocating an end to the war once and for all.You don’t have to be a pope or a pacifist to recognize the perils inherent in continued military escalation — for Ukrainians, Russians and the world. President Biden and Congress must invest much more in seeking a diplomatic path out of the conflict rather than relying on endless military aid. Peacemaking won’t be easy. It never is.But war is not the answer.Bridget MoixWashingtonThe writer is the general secretary of the Friends Committee on National Legislation.DeSantis and the IviesHaiyun Jiang for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “The Elites He Now Targets Gave DeSantis a Leg Up” (front page, Aug. 22):Ron DeSantis was so embittered by his exposure to elite liberalism at Yale that when he graduated, he went to Harvard Law School. You cannot make that up!Stephen T. SchreiberPrinceton, N.J.Pain Patients Deserve AnswersTo the Editor:Re “They Live in Constant Pain, but Their Doctors Won’t Help Them,” by Vishakha Darbha, Lucy King and Adam Westbrook (Opinion Video, Aug. 17):I’ve seen too many patients suffering from chronic pain who’ve been told it is in their heads or that nothing can be done. Believing that it’s acceptable to live with pain is unacceptable. If someone has pain, something is wrong. Ongoing pain after a previous trauma or surgical procedure may signal that a nerve is injured, which is an overlooked cause of chronic pain because it is hard to detect through imaging.Neuropathic pain, sometimes called the “invisible illness,” is the most common type of chronic pain, affecting one in 10 people. Yet many health care providers and patients don’t understand nerve injuries, how common they are, and the correlation to ongoing pain. It’s not unusual for people to see more than 20 providers before seeing a surgeon who specializes in nerves. This is not OK.People deserve to know that nerve injuries can often be surgically repaired. It’s time they get the answers and care they deserve.Adam B. StrohlPhiladelphiaThe writer is a surgeon at the Philadelphia Hand to Shoulder Center. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump Uses Supporters’ Donations to Pay His Legal Bills

      by

      Facing a wide array of criminal charges, the former president is using money from small donors to defend himself legally — a practice that raises ethical questions.Former President Donald J. Trump faces a mountain of legal bills as he defends himself against a wide array of federal and state charges, with the latest coming this week in Georgia.To pay lawyers, he has often turned to money from supporters: Over the past two years, he has drawn tens of millions of dollars from a political action committee he controls called Save America PAC. Originally set up in 2020 as he galvanized supporters around his baseless claims of election fraud, the group — technically known as a leadership PAC — has been sustained in large part by contributions from small donors.Experts say the practice is most likely legal but that it raises ethical questions about how Mr. Trump treats his donors.Why is he doing this?Because Mr. Trump, who is famously tightfisted with his personal fortune, has mounting legal bills, a ready source of cash to cover them and not much standing in his way.Even before he entered the 2024 race, Save America was paying his legal bills as he faced federal and state investigations into his business practices, his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and his handling of classified documents after he left the White House.As charges have arrived, the legal bills have ballooned. Mr. Trump will have to pay lawyers in Florida, Georgia, New York, and Washington, D.C., as well as costs for things like databases for managing discovery.According to its public filings, Save America has also paid lawyers who are representing witnesses in the Trump investigations, including the congressional inquiry into the Capitol riot, raising questions about possible efforts to influence testimony.Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, has said that the PAC is paying legal bills for witnesses to protect them from “financial ruin.” Mr. Cheung did not respond to requests for comment on Wednesday.In 2021 and 2022, Save America spent $16 million on legal bills, The New York Times has reported. In the first six months of this year, almost a third of the money raised by his committees and the super PAC backing him has gone toward legal costs — more than $27 million, according to a Times analysis of federal records.The legal payments could have tax implications, some experts said, if the underlying legal matter were deemed by the Internal Revenue Service to be related to Mr. Trump personally, rather than to his official role. The payments could, in theory, count as taxable income for Mr. Trump.But other experts said that the broad discretion of campaign finance laws would most likely shield him from any tax liability.Is it legal?Most likely, yes, although the rules governing what PACs and campaign committees can pay for are byzantine and not firmly settled.A campaign committee cannot pay for things that benefit a candidate personally, including legal bills that are unrelated to government matters.There is no such restriction on leadership PACs. While these organizations, which are controlled by the candidate, cannot spend money directly on the campaign, they can pay for legal fees.“Under prevailing F.E.C. interpretation, this whole discussion is moot,” said Saurav Ghosh, a former lawyer at the Federal Election Commission who is now the director of federal campaign finance reform for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit group. “He can pay all the lawyers, for all the matters, and according to the F.E.C., these rules don’t even matter.”The more important question, Mr. Ghosh said, is: “Is that an abuse of donors?” Mr. Trump is raising money for one stated reason — his run for office — and apparently using some of it for another, his legal troubles, Mr. Ghosh said. “I think it sets a very bad precedent.”Save America’s fund-raising efforts have been a focus of one of the investigations by the special counsel Jack Smith, who has brought indictments against Mr. Trump in Washington and Florida. Mr. Smith’s team has asked why Save America is paying some witnesses’ lawyers.Mr. Trump’s team is also setting up a legal-defense fund to help cover some of his allies’ legal fees, The Times reported last month. The fund is not expected to cover Mr. Trump’s own bills, but it could alleviate pressure on Save America.Do Trump’s donors and supporters care?Neither the indictments nor the reports about how he is paying for his legal expenses have dented his popularity in polls. Mr. Trump’s die-hard followers seem to have embraced his legal cause as their own, and he has used each indictment as an opportunity to solicit financial contributions.Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, a onetime Trump ally turned fierce critic who is now running for the Republican presidential nomination, has called attention to Mr. Trump’s use of donor money to cover his legal bills.Speaking this month on CNBC, Mr. Christie said: “And the fact is, when you look at just his campaign filings yesterday, almost most of the money that middle-class Americans have given to him, he spent on his own legal fees.”Mr. Christie continued, “I mean, this guy’s a billionaire.” How, exactly, does it work?Since Mr. Trump set up Save America after the 2020 election, it has been a war chest to sustain his political operation. It has brought in more than $100 million, but has also spent quickly, including on legal bills.In February 2022, the PAC said it had $122 million in cash on hand. By the beginning of this year, that number was down to $18 million, filings show. More than $16 million of the money spent went to legal bills — some for witnesses in the investigations, but mostly to firms representing Mr. Trump.A further $60 million was transferred in late 2022 to MAGA Inc., a super PAC supporting Mr. Trump.This year, Save America asked the super PAC for the money back, a sign of the committee’s growing need for cash.Most of the money that has gone to legal fees came from cash that Save America stockpiled between 2020 and 2022. But Save America is also receiving 10 percent of every dollar currently being donated to Mr. Trump.Here’s how it works: Mr. Trump now raises money primarily through the Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee, a type of group that allows candidates to divide contributions between their campaign and another committee.In November, when Mr. Trump began his campaign, 99 cents of every dollar raised into the committee went to his campaign committee, and 1 cent went to Save America. But as The Times reported in June, sometime this year the split changed: 90 percent of the money went to the campaign, while 10 percent went to Save America — 10 cents on every dollar raised went to the PAC that Mr. Trump has used to pay his legal bills. More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      All of Trump’s Lawyers and How Much They’re Paid in Legal Fees

      by

      Donald Trump’s PACs have spent millions of dollars on a small army of lawyers to defend him in four separate federal and state criminal cases.Former President Donald J. Trump has become entangled in a web of federal and state prosecution, and now faces 91 criminal charges in four separate state and federal cases.Political action committees supporting him have spent more than $27 million on legal costs in the first six months of 2023, and he has recruited a small army of lawyers to defend him. Here are a dozen of the prominent figures and their bills paid by Mr. Trump’s Save America PAC.Lawyers Involved in Multiple CasesTodd Blanche, 49, founder of Blanche Law in New York CityFees: $353,000 paid to his firm from April to June 2023Todd Blanche was hired as one of former President Donald Trump’s many lawyers in April.Doug Mills/The New York TimesTodd Blanche, a former federal prosecutor with wide experience in white-collar cases, has a reputation as an aggressive but measured advocate. He represented Paul J. Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former 2016 campaign chairman, in a Manhattan case involving charges of mortgage fraud and other state felonies, as well as Igor Fruman, a Soviet-born former associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani who pleaded guilty to soliciting foreign campaign contributions in 2021.Mr. Trump hired Mr. Blanche in April. His firm has been paid $353,000 for legal work by Save America, according to federal filings. Mr. Blanche is representing Mr. Trump in the Stormy Daniels hush money case, the federal classified documents case and the federal election interference case.Boris Epshteyn, 41Fees: $195,000 paid in 2022Boris Epshteyn is thought to be one of six unnamed co-conspirators in the federal election interference case and has been enmeshed in other Trump investigations.Andrew Harnik/Associated PressBoris Epshteyn, a top adviser and longtime ally of Mr. Trump, serves as something of an in-house counsel, helping to coordinate the former president’s many lawyers. He was paid $195,000 by Mr. Trump’s PAC in 2022, though not specifically for legal consulting, and at least $30,000 by his 2024 campaign. He is thought to be one of six unnamed co-conspirators in the federal election interference case and has been enmeshed in other Trump investigations as a witness. He has been represented by Mr. Blanche, and had recommended adding Mr. Blanche to Mr. Trump’s legal team.Christopher M. Kise, 58, founder of Chris Kise & Associates in Tallahassee, Fla.Fees: $5.8 million in 2022 and the first six months of 2023Christopher M. Kise was hired to represent Mr. Trump in the federal documents case in the aftermath of the F.B.I. search at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago resort last year.Marco Bello/ReutersChristopher M. Kise is a former Florida solicitor general who has won four cases before the United States Supreme Court and who worked as a transition adviser for Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida. He was hired to represent Mr. Trump in the federal documents case in the aftermath of the F.B.I. search at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago resort, and he was paid an upfront retainer fee of $3 million, a figure that CNN reported had was much noticed by Mr. Trump’s other lawyers, as the former president has a long history of not paying his legal fees.Mr. Trump’s PAC paid Mr. Kise’s firm an additional $2.8 million since he was hired last year, and paid nearly $2.9 million in 2022 and 2023 to Continental, a law firm at which Mr. Kise is of counsel, according to federal filings. M. Evan Corcoran, 59, partner at Silverman Thompson in BaltimoreFees: $3.4 million in 2022 and the first half of 2023M. Evan Corcoran has become a key figure in the documents case. Jose Luis Magana/Associated PressM. Evan Corcoran quickly became a central figure in the documents case after he began representing Mr. Trump. A federal appeals court ordered Mr. Corcoran to hand over documents related to his legal work, records that eventually became crucial evidence for prosecutors in the case. Mr. Corcoran accompanied Mr. Trump for his arraignment this month in the election interference case. Mr. Corcoran’s firm has been paid a total of $3.4 million by Mr. Trump’s PAC in 2022 and the first six months of 2023.Stormy Daniels Hush Money Case in New YorkJoe Tacopina, 57, founder of Tacopina Seigel & DeOreo in New York CityFees: $1.7 million in the first half of 2023Joe Tacopina was a central figure in the civil case against Mr. Trump by E. Jean Carroll.Brittainy Newman for The New York TimesOnce described as “to the defense bar what Donald Trump is to real estate,” Joe Tacopina’s custom of defending his clients vociferously and in public has helped him earn and maintain a seat of prominence on Mr. Trump’s legal team. He was a central figure in the civil case against Mr. Trump by E. Jean Carroll and aggressively questioned Ms. Carroll in an attempt to cast doubt on her allegations of sexual assault. Mr. Trump’s PAC paid Mr. Tacopina’s firm $1.7 million in the first half of 2023.Susan Necheles, 64, partner at NechelesLaw in New York CityFees: $465,000 in the first half of 2023Susan Necheles has been defending Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization in a variety of investigations since 2021.Amr Alfiky/ReutersSusan R. Necheles was counsel to Venero Mangano, the late Genovese crime family underboss known as “Benny Eggs,” and recently represented Jeremy Reichberg, a former fundraiser for Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York, in a federal bribery case. She has been defending Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization in a variety of investigations since 2021. Mr. Trump’s PAC paid her firm $465,000 in the first six months of 2023.Federal Classified Documents CaseStephen Weiss, 35, counsel at Blanche Law in New York CityStephen Weiss worked as an associate at the law firm Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft for six years before joining Mr. Blanche in June at his firm. Mr. Weiss was present at a pretrial hearing for Mr. Trump in the documents case last month.Lindsey Halligan, 34Fees: $212,000 in 2022 and the first half of 2023Lindsey Halligan was part of an effort by Mr. Trump’s legal team to have a special master appointed to review documents.Marco Bello/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesLindsey Halligan was part of an aggressive effort by Mr. Trump’s legal team last year to have a special master appointed to review documents the F.B.I. had seized in the raid on Mar-a-Lago. She was also part of a team of lawyers who met with Justice Department officials in June in a final effort to stave off charges in the documents case. Mr. Trump’s PAC paid her $212,000 from June 2022 to June 2023.Federal Election Interference CaseJohn Lauro, 65, principal of Lauro & Singer in New York City and Tampa, Fla.Fees: $288,000 in 2022 and the first half of 2023John Lauro formally joined Mr. Trump’s legal team in the election interference case earlier this month, although he had earlier advised the former president on legal matters. He was paid $288,000 for his legal work in 2022 and the first six months of 2023 by Mr. Trump’s PAC. He accompanied the former president to his arraignment in the federal election interference case earlier this month.Mr. Lauro gained notoriety for representing Tim Donaghy, a former N.B.A. referee who pleaded guilty to betting on games and taking payoffs from gamblers. He also previously worked as a federal prosecutor in Brooklyn.Election Interference Case in GeorgiaDrew Findling, 63, founder of Findling Law Firm in AtlantaFees: $816,000 in 2022 and the first half of 2023Drew Findling has represented an array of famous rap stars, including Cardi B, Gucci Mane and Migos.Alyssa Pointer/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, via Associated PressDrew Findling, a prolific figure in the world of Atlanta rap known as the #BillionDollarLawyer, joined Mr. Trump’s legal team a year ago. Mr. Findling has represented an array of famous rap stars — including Cardi B, Gucci Mane and Migos — and is well regarded for his defense work, with decades of trial experience ranging from high-profile murder cases to local political corruption scandals in Georgia. Mr. Trump’s PAC paid his firm $816,000 from July 2022 to May 2023.Marissa Goldberg, 40, partner at Findling Law Firm in AtlantaMarissa Goldberg, a partner at Mr. Findling’s law firm, has worked alongside Mr. Findling and Ms. Little in an effort to quash the entire Georgia election case and to disqualify Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney leading the case.Jennifer Little, 44, founder of Jennifer Little Law in AtlantaFees: $100,000Jennifer Little began her career as a prosecutor in DeKalb County, Ga., before becoming a partner at the firm Fried Bonder White. She later started her own firm, Jennifer Little Law. Like Mr. Corcoran, Ms. Little was compelled to testify about her legal work representing Mr. Trump in the federal documents case. She was paid $100,000 by Mr. Trump’s PAC in April 2022.Kitty Bennett More