New York State Criminal Case Against Trump (71543-23)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      For Trump, a Verdict That’s Harder to Spin

      by

      After an indictment in Manhattan, Donald Trump’s supporters fell in line behind him. A jury’s decision in a sexual abuse and defamation case may yet carry a political price.When Alvin L. Bragg secured the indictment of former President Donald J. Trump, it galvanized Trump supporters. Allies of his Republican rival, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, mark that indictment as the moment that Mr. Trump sped away from his nearest opponent in the polls.Nobody around Mr. Trump is making a prediction publicly or privately that there will be a similar effect after a jury on Tuesday in the lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation.The price that Mr. Trump was ordered by the jury to pay his accuser, Ms. Carroll, was $5 million, in a verdict he has promised to appeal. But whether he pays any political price at all is unclear. Mr. Trump was said to be furious about the verdict, and questioning the various decisions that were made by his team in the defense. Far from letting up on Ms. Carroll, his team plans to aggressively attack her claims and tether her to Democrats.There is no world in which the result of that civil trial was a positive development for the project he is most focused on: the presidential campaign for which he remains the Republican front-runner.Mr. Trump has a decades-long history of crude and misogynistic comments — and he has faced repeated accusations of sexual harassment and assault, so many that they most likely would have sunk any other candidate. But a majority in the Republican Party have largely dismissed the accusations against a celebrity former president as irrelevant to how they cast votes.But comments and even allegations are different from a jury verdict.The first real test of his in-person response will come on Wednesday night on a national stage in front of a live television audience — a town hall hosted by CNN in New Hampshire, in a venue filled with about 400 voters who are Republicans or Republican-leaning independents.“Americans heard with their own ears in 2016 Trump brag on tape about sexual assault and still elected him,” said David Axelrod, a former top adviser to President Barack Obama, referring to the “Access Hollywood” tape. “Will this be different, or will his supporters simply dismiss it as one more example of the politically motivated ‘deep state’ beat-down of which he claims to be the victim?”A handful of allies of Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Trump’s closest rival in the Republican primary race, anticipated that this case could prove different from myriad other scandals Mr. Trump has faced.Senators John Kennedy of Louisiana and John Thune of South Dakota essentially averted their gazes when asked to comment by reporters. Among those who publicly defended him was Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama.Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama defended Mr. Trump on Tuesday after the jury’s verdict.Kenny Holston/The New York Times“It makes me want to vote for him twice,” Mr. Tuberville told The Huffington Post. “People are going to see through the lines,” he added, saying that with “a New York jury, he had no chance.”Few of Mr. Trump’s opponents were willing to condemn him either, at least so far. Only one Republican candidate, Asa Hutchinson, the former governor of Arkansas, issued a statement.“Over the course of my over 25 years of experience in the courtroom, I have seen firsthand how a cavalier and arrogant contempt for the rule of law can backfire,” the statement read. “The jury verdict should be treated with seriousness and is another example of the indefensible behavior of Donald Trump.”Former Vice President Mike Pence told NBC News that it was up to the American public to decide whether Mr. Trump is fit to be president again, but added, “I just don’t think it’s where the American people are focused.”For years, Mr. Trump’s approach to his business and his political life has been to portray himself as inevitable, to give off the impression that challengers or critics shouldn’t even bother trying to best him. He has handled the 2024 Republican primary in much the same manner, encouraged by his polling lead and Mr. DeSantis’s stumbles. Still, some of his critics and even some allies concede that the various legal challenges could risk becoming too much freight for him to carry.Mr. Trump’s advisers have recently conducted extensive polling to explore how deeply the various legal cases are resonating with primary voters, according to people briefed on the efforts.Some of Mr. Trump’s advisers were nervously anticipating the verdict before deliberations began. One was candid in private that while they were relieved Mr. Trump had been found not liable of the specific claim of rape, the rest of the jury’s verdict was “not good.”For Mr. Trump and his allies, describing him as the victim of a “deep state” plot by his government opponents and prosecutors could be much harder to accomplish in this case. A federal jury of six men and three women gave legitimacy to an accusation of sexual abuse made by Ms. Carroll, a writer who was photographed with Mr. Trump in New York yet whom he continues to maintain he does not know.One of the most damaging aspects of the trial for Mr. Trump was his videotaped deposition. People close to him acknowledge the comments were a self-inflicted wound, and are aware Democrats in particular may put them in television ads where independent and suburban voters whom Mr. Trump long ago alienated would see them.In his deposition, he burrowed into his remarks on the “Access Hollywood” tape, when asked by Ms. Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, if it was true as he said on that recording that stars can grab women by the genitals.“Well, if you look over the last million years, I guess that’s been largely true,” Mr. Trump said. “Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately, or fortunately.” More

    • 50 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Trump Inevitability Question

      by

      Listen and follow ‘The Run-Up’Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | Amazon MusicOutside a Manhattan courtroom, on the day of former President Donald Trump’s arraignment, Astead spoke to two camps of spectators. Supporters cast Mr. Trump as the victim of prosecutorial overreach, while opposing voices hoped this was just the beginning of his legal troubles. With an ever-shifting political landscape as America heads toward the 2024 election, what do Mr. Trump’s mounting legal woes mean for his electoral viability? Is success for the former president, despite it all, an inevitability?Astead speaks with Nate Cohn, The New York Times’s chief political analyst, about what the polls do — and do not — tell us.Photo Illustration by The New York Times; Pool photo by Andrew KellyOn today’s episodeNate Cohn, chief political analyst for The New York Times. About ‘The Run-Up’First launched in August 2016, three months before the election of Donald Trump, “The Run-Up” is The New York Times’s flagship political podcast. The host, Astead W. Herndon, grapples with the big ideas already animating the 2024 presidential election. Because it’s always about more than who wins and loses. And the next election has already started.Last season, “The Run-Up” focused on grass-roots voters and shifting attitudes among the bases of both political parties. This season, we go inside the party establishment.New episodes on Thursdays.Credits“The Run-Up” is hosted by More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Moment When Donald Trump Started to Lose May Have Begun

      by

      What’s the right form of justice for the problem of Donald Trump?There’s already been one indictment. There’s expected to be another in Georgia, possibly a sprawling one, about the effort to overturn the 2020 election. Although there’s a literal point to an investigation (find out what went wrong) followed by a prosecution (hold people accountable), investigations and prosecutions can also take on cultural or symbolic meaning.The Fox News settlement last week offered a microcosm of what’s happening now with Mr. Trump: The Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit was about one thing (the claim of defamation against a business), but it took on a broader meaning (the public learned more about how Republican politics really works right now). And, notably, few agree what the settlement means, whether the $787.5 million paid by Fox to Dominion reflects accountability or inconsequence, whether an apology was required or whether a trial was, even as the case risked a ruling with unpredictable repercussions.Different people have different views of what the real problem and the right form of justice look like for Mr. Trump. Maybe the only certainty right now is the answer will be unsatisfying.He, meanwhile, has never let up. Last month, Mr. Trump stood with his hand over his heart in Waco, Texas, as scenes from the Jan. 6 riot played on a big screen and a recording by the J6 Prison Choir blasted through speakers at a rally for his presidential campaign.So what’s the point? Mr. Trump is surrounded by disparate legal actions of varying importance by disconnected individuals. But if we step back and think about the meaning of this period, are we trying to move on from the Trump era, to put it behind us, or to understand what went wrong? “Justice for the problems of the Trump era” or “preventing another Trump presidency”?If you think hard about the Jan. 6 select House committee, its exact point might seem a little opaque. The committee couldn’t arrest anybody; its criminal referrals depended on a different branch of government to pursue them. The point couldn’t be justice, and while people may have mistaken the committee for a legal entity, it was a political one.But the committee served some purpose in American life: Millions of people watched its hearings, millions learned new details about this major event. Maybe the committee’s chief purpose, then, was about the documents and the interview transcripts and video — a truth project.Former Representative Stephanie Murphy, who served on the committee, told me in November this was its meaning: “for history,” to “document what happened.” To her, a former national security specialist at the Pentagon, the riot revealed the Capitol to the world as a “soft target,” and that “if we don’t walk away from perilous moments like that and take a moment to reflect and figure out how to improve, then I think we will have failed.” In an interview this month, Representative Zoe Lofgren isolated the main question — “We were there for the riot and the mob. How did it happen?” — and took it one further: to make the details “accessible to people,” filming depositions (even if only iPhone video or screen capture was available) and releasing the maximum amount of supporting material with the final report.The effect of the committee’s presentation, a kind of effort at building consensus about recent history, was less tangible: to reorient the country’s attention, through the hearings, to how bad Jan. 6 really was. Attention is hard to maintain and focus, especially when, with Mr. Trump, it’s as if we’re always trying to hold water in our hands.And this can have political consequences. In December, Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics wrote on Twitter that he had come to believe the Dobbs abortion ruling had more of a regional effect on the 2022 midterm results, but it was the hearings that shaped the national choice: “By re-centering Trump in the narrative,” the Trump-backed candidates became “less palatable to independents at a time when impressions were formed.”With hindsight, that committee had a pretty contained purpose — a public examination and narrative about a catastrophic event in American life, a kind of truth project.But it’s hard to assign a neat goal like that to every piece of the avalanche of litigation, investigation and prosecution that has converged in the last few months, between prosecutions or investigations for things that are or aren’t the problem with Mr. Trump (the Stormy Daniels payments, the efforts to overturn the election in Georgia, the handling of classified documents); the lawsuits about Mr. Trump’s business dealings in New York; the lawsuits about actors who responded to Mr. Trump’s election claims (like the Fox-Dominion lawsuit). We probably wouldn’t be here if, after the riot, Republicans had actually barred Mr. Trump from holding office, as my colleagues Ezra Klein and David French recently discussed. Impeachment was another political, civic process, rather than a criminal one. But it didn’t work, and now we have this.Without obvious shared goals, arguably all these different prosecutors, officials and individuals are undertaking an inadvertent deterrence project, keeping alive the bad parts of the recent past and applying pressure on the central players. We talk about a “chilling” effect with abortion laws, regulatory action against corporations and certain speech policies; these “work” by exerting pressure, making people skittish and worried about getting caught up in legal trouble.The endless hearings and legal heartburn might be working in a similar manner. As a friend put it to me, post-Jan. 6 prosecutions and the prospect of an indictment in Georgia may be causing people to be less rowdy.In advance of Mr. Trump’s New York indictment, his former adviser Roger Stone reminded people to keep their protests “civil” and “legal.” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene said she would “be pointing at people to be arrested if they’re being violent.” Many (but not all) of the Trump-backed candidates who lost in November conceded their elections within a normal time frame. This was good for the country, but also a bit of a puzzle: Many of these people claimed a major election was stolen, why wouldn’t they do the same for their own? The drag and scrutiny in the aftermath of Jan. 6 might be an answer.Deterrence is an uneasy goal, however — hard to measure, impossible to predict, and at danger of becoming retribution in the wrong hands, or even hardening reactionary and illiberal elements by accident.Deterrence would also suggest an established kind of consensus: that a specific crime was, in fact, committed and the goal moving forward is to keep other crimes like it from being perpetrated. With many entry points to the problem, and without a shared consensus about what the real problem with the Trump era was, satisfaction here might be difficult to achieve. There’s also a kind of dark-night-of-the-soul, “The Godfather Part II” concern, which surfaced in early polling after the New York indictment, that at least some segment of the country likely finds that prosecution to be political, and doesn’t seem to mind. And Mr. Trump is raising a lot of money and consolidating his polling advantage in the wake of the first indictment.Consensus and order are unusual, though. Ms. Lofgren noted that the Jan. 6 committee was different from any experience she’d had, beginning with its unique presentation structure. “You had to have a unified view of what was the mission, and the mission was to find all the facts that we could, and then tell them,” she said. “There wasn’t a political divide on that. But that doesn’t mean we saw everything exactly the same way, exactly at the same time.” The committee, she explained, used closed-door discussions to reach public unity: “There were times when I thought one thing and by the time we’d spent a couple of hours thinking through it, I became convinced of someone else’s point of view. And the same thing happened with other members. That’s also rare.”Reaching one shared idea of what happened and why things went wrong, even within a smaller group behind closed doors, has real appeal, even if it’s not how we would want a country run. Instead, it’s like the best society can do is to keep applying a kind of societal weight to Mr. Trump — attention on the accurate memory of the events, the creation of legal hurdles and public scrutiny, possibly doomed prosecutions of varying quality — adding a little more weight, a little more weight, a little more weight in an effort to contain him. It’s like some mixed-up version of deterrence and truth, with a society trying something, anything, with possibly volatile precedents for the future.Even in all this chaos of information and opaque goals, a story can still stick out as representative of the frustrating parts of this time. In part of the materials released at Christmas by the select committee, in an episode you may have missed, a former White House deputy press secretary, Sarah Matthews, described an argument some of the press staff got into about who would benefit if Mr. Trump called the insurrection off, and whether he should condemn the violence at all.Ms. Matthews wanted him to do that:tell everyone to go home. According to her account of the day from her closed-door testimony, someone suggested that maybe people from the antifa movement were behind the riot; that was, Ms. Matthews said, all the more reason to condemn the violence. According to Ms. Matthews, someone kept arguing that to condemn the riot would allow the media to “win,” because Democrats had not been asked to condemn violence during the protests after George Floyd’s death in 2020.“I pointed at the TV,” Ms. Matthews testified last year, “and said — I guess yelled — ‘Do you think we’re winning right now?’” She became emotional, left the room and, later that day, resigned.This is, on the one hand, sort of a pointless thing to know — a vivid but peripheral episode, from overlooked supporting materials to a report from a committee that no longer exists. On the other hand, it speaks to the lasting change in American politics since 2016: When Ms. Matthews was working for House Republicans and testified publicly last summer, the House Republican Conference called her a “liar” and “pawn” on Twitter, before deleting the post.There’s something emblematic of this frustrating and confused era in a woman hopelessly shouting, “Do you think we’re winning right now?”Katherine Miller is a staff writer and editor in Opinion.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

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Says He’ll Still Run For President If Criminally Convicted

      by

      He made the remarks in an interview with Tucker Carlson, his first time on the program since the release of private text messages showed the Fox News anchor’s repugnance for the former president.Former President Donald J. Trump said Tuesday that he would continue campaigning for the White House even if convicted of a crime.In his first national media interview since pleading not guilty last week to 34 felony charges related to a hush-money scandal during his 2016 White House bid, Mr. Trump complimented the strongmen leaders of several other countries; attacked “sick, radical” Democrats; and indicated that not even a prison sentence would keep him from running for president.“I’d never drop out, it’s not my thing,” Mr. Trump said when asked on Fox News about a potential conviction.In addition to his criminal charges in New York, the former president is facing several other criminal investigations: One is related to his attempts to overturn election results in Georgia, another is into his efforts to hold on to power in Washington after losing re-election and a third is into his handling of classified documents at his home in South Florida.The hourlong interview was also his first with the Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson since private text messages, revealed as part of a $1.6 billion defamation against the cable channel by Dominion Voting Systems, showed Mr. Carlson’s repugnance for the former president.While Mr. Carlson referred to Mr. Trump as “a demonic force, a destroyer,” in one text message in early 2021 and added “I hate him” in another, on Tuesday he traveled to Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in South Florida for what Mr. Carlson described on his show as “a rare venture outside the studio for us.” The interview consumed his program.“For a man caricatured as an extremist,” Mr. Carlson said about Mr. Trump at the start of the show, “we think you’ll find what he has to say moderate, sensible and wise.”During the interview, most of which was spent on foreign policy, Mr. Trump said that Democratic leaders were a bigger threat to the nation than foreign dictators.Mr. Trump referred to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia as “very smart,” said that Saudi Arabia’s leaders were “great people” and called President Xi Jinping of China a “brilliant man.” He also said that “the biggest problem” for the United States wasn’t foreign actors but “these sick, radical people from within” the country.The former president said that he was able to handle Russia and China from the White House, and described an interaction with Mr. Putin in which he told the Russian leader that he couldn’t invade Ukraine. Mr. Trump didn’t mention that he had been impeached for opening a pressure campaign on Ukraine, including an internal push to withhold military aid, to investigate his political rivals.Speaking about his arraignment exactly one week earlier, Mr. Trump said he felt supported by members of the courthouse staff.“It’s a tough, tough place and they were crying,” he said. “They were actually crying. They said, ‘I’m sorry.’” More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      A Week of Youthful Activism Sends Out Political Shockwaves

      by

      After Donald Trump’s indictment on Tuesday, progressives cemented two crucial victories in Wisconsin and Chicago, and, in Nashville, a firestorm erupted after the expulsion of two liberal lawmakers.A surge of youthful activism powered major liberal victories in Wisconsin and Chicago and a boisterous legislative uprising in Tennessee this week, as Republicans absorbed a string of damaging political blows, beginning with the arraignment of their leading presidential contender on criminal charges in Manhattan.The drumbeat of news seemed to batter the G.O.P.’s brand by the hour: Donald J. Trump became the first American president to be led into a courtroom to hear his indictment. Voters in Wisconsin handed Democrats a landslide victory and a one-seat majority on the state’s Supreme Court, with the fate of abortion and Wisconsin’s heavily gerrymandered political map at stake.And liberal activists helped one of their own rise to mayor of Chicago, defeating a more moderate Democrat who had the backing of Republicans in and around the nation’s third-largest city, and overcoming conservative-tinged arguments about crime and policing.A coda, or perhaps an own-goal, came on Thursday in red-state Tennessee, when the overwhelmingly Republican Legislature voted to expel two young, Black male representatives for their roles in leading youthful protests calling for gun control, after a mass shooting at a Christian school in Nashville, but narrowly allowed a white female lawmaker who had stood with them to remain.The three Tennessee state representatives who were subject to expulsion votes on Thursday, Mr. Pearson, Justin Jones and Gloria Johnson. Ms. Johnson was the only one not expelled.Jon Cherry for The New York TimesIn so doing, Tennessee Republicans achieved little besides catapulting the representatives, Justin Jones and Justin J. Pearson, as well as Gloria Johnson, onto the national stage: Both men could be reappointed to their seats by officials in their Nashville and Memphis districts as soon as next week, as they await special elections in which they are favored to win.“If my job, along with other members of the R.N.C., is to protect the brand of the Republican Party, this didn’t help,” said Oscar Brock, a Republican National Committeeman from Tennessee. “You’ve energized young voters against us. Worse than squandering support, you’ve made enemies where we didn’t need them.”To be sure, there were bright spots for Republicans: They won a special election giving them a supermajority in the Wisconsin Senate, which entails broad impeachment powers. And a Democrat’s switch to the G.O.P. in the North Carolina House of Representatives handed Republicans a two-chamber legislative supermajority in the only Southern state where abortion is broadly legal, granting Republicans in Raleigh the ability to override the vetoes of Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat.But in an odd-numbered year and a season when Americans are more taken with daffodils than with politics, the clamor of youthful activism and anger may have left the more lasting impression.“The right wing understands that time is not on their side,” said Representative Maxwell Frost, 26, a Florida Democrat who last year became the first member of Generation Z to be elected to the House. “What we saw in Chicago and Wisconsin, and what we saw in the backlash in Tennessee, is young people rising, and all of this played out in one week.”A “die-in” at the Tennessee State Capitol on Thursday. “It was a shameful day, but it will also wake people up, especially young people,” said Steve Cohen, a Tennessee congressman.Jon Cherry for The New York TimesFew Republicans defended the decision by their compatriots in Tennessee to try to silence elected Democrats by chucking them from the state house. Democrats, for their part, seized the moment.Representative Steve Cohen, the lone Democrat in Tennessee’s congressional delegation after the gerrymandering of district lines before last November’s election, recalled the one and only time he got any attention from the national press as a member of the State Legislature: with a vote against displaying the Ten Commandments. Even so, he said, it amounted to just a quote in Time magazine. Mr. Pearson and Mr. Jones became national celebrities over the course of 24 hours.“It was a shameful day, but it will also wake people up, especially young people,” Mr. Cohen said.Worrywarts in either party looking for ill omens could find plenty.Mr. Trump’s arraignment on felony charges that he falsified business records to hide hush money to a porn star in the final days of the 2016 election set off a bonanza of fund-raising for his campaign and rallied many Republicans around his third run for the presidency. And a spate of new polling pointed to Mr. Trump’s improving competitiveness against President Biden in 2024.Not even his rivals for the Republican nomination dared question the indictment’s underlying allegations that Mr. Trump engaged in extramarital dalliances with a pornographic film actress and a Playboy Playmate.“No matter how tawdry the charges and whether true or false, making a sexual encounter between two consenting adults the focal point of a criminal indictment or an impeachment strikes most Americans as an abuse of power and a distraction,” said Ralph Reed, a veteran political strategist and voice of Christian conservatives.Janet Protasiewicz at her election night party in Wisconsin after an easy victory for a Supreme Court seat.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesOne of the week’s through-lines was the awakening of the young, who are often neglected because, for all their activism, they often fail to vote. Young voters were not only crucial to the easy victory of Janet Protasiewicz, the liberal candidate for Wisconsin’s open Supreme Court seat, they also powered the liberal candidate for mayor of Chicago, Brandon Johnson, to an upset victory over the more moderate law-and-order candidate, Paul Vallas.And in the Tennessee State Capitol in Nashville, the chants of young protesters boomed through the hallways before, during and after the votes to oust the two state representatives, Mr. Jones, 27, and Mr. Pearson, 29.The drama in Nashville on Thursday was incendiary on multiple levels, a political cauldron of young versus old, Black versus white, a marginalized minority against an overwhelming majority — all playing out against the backdrop of gun violence in schools.Then there were the issues: guns and abortion.Addressing her party’s defeat in Wisconsin a day later on Fox News, Ronna McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, conceded, “Where you’re losing by 10 points, there is a messaging issue. Abortion is still an issue, and we can’t allow the Democrats to define Republicans on it.”Her comments, however, elicited a storm of protest from anti-abortion voices in her party, which has showed no letup in its push for abortion curbs. Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida and a potential rival of Mr. Trump’s for the presidential nomination, appears intent on signing a bill in Tallahassee to ban abortions after six weeks. Idaho’s Republican governor, Brad Little, signed legislation this week prohibiting minors from traveling outside the state for an abortion without parental consent.Still, Ms. McDaniel stood by her comments: “We can’t put our heads in the sand going into 2024,” she said on Fox News.Mr. Brock, the national committeeman from Tennessee, similarly warned his party on its response to gun violence after the shooting at the Covenant School in Nashville left six dead, including three children. Republicans, he said, can stay true to the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms and still respectfully listen to the arguments for more gun-safety regulation.“Even in Tennessee, we have swing districts in the State House and Senate,” he said, “and if you’ve angered tens of thousands of students and presumably their parents, you could theoretically expose yourself to a united front.” More

    • 100 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia Trump Investigation Poses Challenges for Federal Prosecutors

      by

      The concurrent investigations create complications for separate teams relying on similar evidence, some of the same criminal targets and a small, shared pool of witnesses.WASHINGTON — The Fulton County district attorney’s investigation into former President Donald J. Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia is nearing a decision point, posing fresh challenges for federal prosecutors considering charging him in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.The long-running investigation by Fani T. Willis in Atlanta substantially overlaps with the broader inquiry into Mr. Trump’s conduct by the special counsel, Jack Smith, in Washington. Both rely on similar documentary evidence, some of the same criminal targets and a small, shared pool of witnesses with knowledge of the former president’s actions and intent.Mr. Trump’s critics believe the concurrent investigations provide assurance that the former president and architects of the scheme to install fake electors in battleground states, including Rudolph W. Giuliani and John C. Eastman, will be held to account.But they also create complications for two aggressive investigative teams pursuing some of the same witnesses, increasing the possibility of discrepancies in testimony that Mr. Trump’s lawyers could exploit. Ms. Willis and her team have a head start, having begun their work in February 2021, and are expected to seek indictments early next month. That raises the pressure on Mr. Smith, who has pledged to work quickly, to move even faster, according to current and former prosecutors.The investigation by the Fulton County district attorney, Fani T. Willis, overlaps with the broader inquiry into Mr. Trump’s conduct by the special counsel, Jack Smith, in Washington.Audra Melton for The New York Times“Normally, the lead federal prosecutor just picks up the phone and tries to work it out with the local prosecutor, but it’s obviously a lot more difficult in a case of this magnitude,” said Channing D. Phillips, who served as acting United States attorney for the District of Columbia from March to November 2021. “The stakes of not working things out are incredibly high.”The investigative efforts are by no means the same. Mr. Smith’s purview extends into other areas, most notably the investigation into whether Mr. Trump mishandled classified documents that were found at his Mar-a-Lago estate after he left office.The federal investigation into Jan. 6 focuses on several charges, according to two law enforcement officials: wire fraud for emails sent between those pushing the false electors scheme; mail fraud for sending the names of electors to the National Archives and Records Administration; and conspiracy, which covers the coordination effort. (A fourth possible charge, obstruction of an official proceeding before Congress, has been used in many cases brought against participants in the Capitol attack.)And some of Ms. Willis’s work has been more parochial in nature, including a review of false statements that Trump allies like Mr. Giuliani made at state legislative hearings in December 2020.Justice Department officials said the indictment of Mr. Trump by the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, over a hush money payment to a porn star will have little effect on their investigations. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan passed on bringing a similar case.But the Georgia investigation is entirely different. The Justice Department has no authority to order local prosecutors to step aside in areas where the investigations do overlap, unless their investigations conflict with federal law. In fact, internal department rules discourage indicting the subjects of prior state prosecutions.Moreover, there is “no formal rule book” for settling jurisdictional questions or for deciding the chronological sequence of prosecutions, and disputes are usually hashed out informally, as they arise, on an ad hoc basis, said Preet Bharara, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.Local and federal prosecutors routinely work together to coordinate charging decisions based on which jurisdiction offers better chances of conviction or a stiffer sentence. But in many high-profile cases, prosecutors view dueling investigations as a nuisance or even a hazard.Witnesses, even forthright ones, sometimes offer different accounts when interviewed by lawyers representing different offices. Differences between state and federal laws can lead to damaging conflicts over strategy and priorities. Then there is what is known as “witness fatigue,” when important players simply grow tired or uncooperative after running gantlets of government inquisitors.Fulton County prosecutors are conducting a wide-ranging investigation that includes calls made by Mr. Trump to exert pressure on state officials and efforts by the former president and his allies to replace legitimate electors in Georgia with pro-Trump alternates. Last year, Ms. Willis’s office sought to interview two key figures who had served in the Justice Department: Richard Donoghue, the acting deputy attorney general in the waning days of the Trump administration, and Jeffrey Clark, an assistant attorney general who led the department’s environmental division.Shortly after Mr. Trump left office, it emerged that Mr. Clark had tried to circumvent the department’s leaders and aid Mr. Trump’s efforts to stay in power. He even drafted a letter that was to have been sent to lawmakers in Georgia falsely claiming that the Justice Department had “identified significant concerns” that would affect the state’s election results and urging lawmakers to convene a special session.Mr. Donoghue was alarmed when he saw the draft, according to testimony he provided to the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack.Aides to Ms. Willis filed what are known as Touhy requests, named after a 1951 Supreme Court case. Under the rule, local prosecutors are required to get authorization from the Justice Department to question its current or former employees. But the requests were ultimately rejected.It is not clear why the department rejected the requests. But both men were at the center of an investigation into Mr. Clark’s conduct by the Justice Department’s inspector general that was subsequently handed off to Mr. Smith’s team.A spokesman for Mr. Smith declined to comment.The possibility of an indictment in the Georgia investigation next month raises the pressure on the special counsel, Jack Smith, to move even faster, according to current and former prosecutors.Peter Dejong/Associated PressFulton County prosecutors also declined to comment. The forewoman of an Atlanta special grand jury that issued an advisory report in January, which has remained largely under seal, appeared to hint in an interview this year that it had recommended that Mr. Trump be indicted.The Atlanta case has put additional pressure on Mr. Smith. Justice Department officials have said they wanted to make charging decisions in the spring or summer, before the 2024 election kicks into high gear — which raises the question of whether Mr. Smith will try to bring charges before Ms. Willis does.“Looking at this as a federal prosecutor, I would just want to go first,” said Joyce Vance, a University of Alabama law professor who served as the U.S. attorney in Birmingham from 2009 to 2017. “I don’t want to have to try my case after it’s already been brought in a state court. You really want to go first to avoid problems with witnesses, and other technical or legal problems.”If Ms. Willis moves first, Mr. Smith’s team would have to obtain department approval to waive an internal rule that precludes “multiple prosecutions and punishments for substantially the same act(s).”Demonstrators rallying for Mr. Trump near his Mar-a-Lago estate this week.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesThat is not considered a high bar, however. Mr. Smith would simply have to show that the state case did not completely cover all the issues addressed in a federal case. It is believed that exemption was recently used to obtain a hate crimes conviction against three men who murdered Ahmaud Arbery, a young Black man who was jogging through their neighborhood.John P. Fishwick Jr., a former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Virginia, said he often requested that local prosecutors step aside when he thought their investigations conflicted with his. He suggested that Mr. Smith could at least consider asking Ms. Willis to do the same.“D.O.J. and state prosecutors do not play well in the same sandbox, but at the end of the day, if it gets into a tug of war, D.O.J. is usually going to win,” he said. “The federal government just has more power as far as compelling witnesses, more power to assign people to a case and more oomph, in general.”While prosecutors should clear up disputes over access to witnesses and documents, it is vital that the two efforts be seen as independent and fact-driven and not a “witch hunt,” as Mr. Trump has described all of the investigations into him, former Justice Department officials say.“I don’t think they would coordinate on things like timing or language of the charges or anything like that — although that wouldn’t be illegal,” said Mary McCord, a former top official in the department’s national security division who is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center.“But the goal here is avoid any appearance that they are coordinating prosecutions for political purposes,” added Ms. McCord.Glenn Thrush More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Bet: Criminal Case Could Help His Campaign, and Vice Versa

      by

      The former president aims to apply political pressure to prosecutors — while revving up support for his campaign by portraying himself as a victim of Democratic persecution.PALM BEACH, Fla. — At one end of the palatial Donald J. Trump Grand Ballroom at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday, the former president made his first public comments about his arrest. At the opposite end of the hall — a space illuminated by 16 crystal chandeliers and bigger than four professional basketball courts — were several cardboard boxes stuffed with white campaign T-shirts.The shirts read “I STAND WITH TRUMP,” and had a date printed on them in bold type: 03-30-2023 — the day Mr. Trump was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury for his role in a hush-money scandal.After Mr. Trump’s indictment, it has become impossible to tell where his legal defense ends and his presidential campaign begins.The blurring of the lines between his White House bid and his mounting court battles is at the center of a high-stakes, norm-shattering bet from Mr. Trump: that he is capable of swaying public opinion to such a degree that he can simultaneously bolster his legal case and gin up enthusiasm — and campaign contributions — from his supporters.His legal calculation, according to aides and allies close to him, is that his pressure campaign against the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, will lead to his acquittal and deter other prosecutors from seeking additional indictments — though some of his lawyers have warned him that’s unlikely.Politically, Mr. Trump’s strategy is to paint himself as a victim of Democratic persecution, generating sympathy and good will to aid his campaign for a third consecutive Republican presidential nomination.Trump supporters outside the Manhattan courthouse where Mr. Trump was arraigned on Tuesday over his role in a hush-money payment.Ahmed Gaber for The New York Times“President Trump isn’t just right to speak this way, he has a duty to use his bully pulpit to expose corrupt and uncontrolled prosecutors,” said Rod R. Blagojevich, a former Democratic governor of Illinois who was imprisoned for corruption until Mr. Trump commuted his sentence in 2020. “I applaud him for it.”Mr. Trump and his allies repeatedly have made baseless accusations of wrongdoing by Mr. Bragg.No one can say for certain whether a recent uptick for Mr. Trump in presidential primary polls has been the result of his braiding of legal and political tactics, or the recent stumbles by his chief potential Republican rival, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, or some combination of the two.But Mr. Trump’s conflation of his political and legal campaigns has been on display for weeks.His public remarks about his arrest on Tuesday were made from the same stage — surrounded by the same “Make America Great Again” banners and American flags — where he announced his 2024 White House bid nearly five months earlier. One of the lawyers seated near Mr. Trump during his arraignment in the New York courthouse was Boris Epshteyn, who has provided both political and legal advice to the former president and other Republican candidates.At Mr. Trump’s first major rally of the race last month in Texas, his campaign distributed “Witch Hunt” signs for the crowd to wave. The campaign has sent more than three dozen fund-raising appeals to supporters this week — each one referring to Mr. Trump’s legal battles. On Tuesday, one email solicited campaign contributions in return for T-shirts printed with a fake mug shot of the former president and the words “not guilty.” (The authorities in New York opted not to take an actual mug shot.)“Donald Trump has been masterful at blurring the line between his own potential legal and political peril,” said Rob Godfrey, a longtime Republican strategist based in South Carolina. “But now that he faces actual legal peril, it will be fascinating to see how loyal his supporters are, whether they have the same tolerance for chaos he continues to and whether any of his opponents figure out a way to peel anyone away from him.”Mr. Trump has long viewed public opinion as the solution to an increasingly lengthy list of personal dramas, political scandals and legal crises. He used similar tactics as president during the 22-month investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, and his approval rating was virtually unchanged. Mr. Trump’s legal advisers had urged him to create a team outside the White House structure to respond publicly to the Mueller inquiry, but he declined.One of Mr. Trump’s political high-water marks — in terms of re-election polling and fund-raising — came in February 2020, after a Republican-controlled Senate acquitted him in his first impeachment trial.More recently, he has spent months seeking to make state and federal prosecutors investigating his behavior appear indistinguishable from the Democratic and Republican opponents actively trying to stunt his political career.Mr. Trump has proved his skills at using investigations, impeachments and indictments to inflate his campaign coffers (and using a portion of those contributions to pay legal fees). His campaign has claimed to have raised more than $12 million from online contributions during the past week since he was indicted by the grand jury.But his strategy in the hush-money case to mingle his legal troubles with his 2024 presidential campaign carries significant risks and masks, at least for now, potential problems.While the Trump team has celebrated the recent influx of campaign cash, there have been questions about how many more new donors he can tap and whether he can maintain his fund-raising prowess without an immediate crisis to leverage. His only public campaign finance report so far showed a less-than-stellar haul for such a prominent political figure.The bigger question for the former president is how attacks on the court system and law enforcement — on Wednesday he called on his party to defund the F.B.I. and Justice Department in response to his criminal indictment — will help him win back moderate Republicans and independent voters who have abandoned him, and his preferred candidates and causes, for three consecutive election cycles.At Mr. Trump’s first big campaign rally of the 2024 race, in Waco, Texas.Christopher Lee for The New York TimesMr. Trump has used his standing as a former president — and as the front-runner for the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nomination — to repeatedly describe the felony charges in New York (and open criminal investigations in Georgia and Washington) as a politically motivated attack aimed at undermining his White House bid.But that message ignores a series of electoral disappointments for Republicans since Mr. Trump’s 2016 victory made him the face of the party. Those defeats — in 2018, 2020 and 2022 — have been largely the result of a Democratic base motivated to vote against him and a significant defection of moderate Republicans turned off by his antics.Additionally, every major investigation focusing on Mr. Trump started well before he announced his third presidential campaign. By the time he opened his White House bid in November, Mr. Trump had spent months pushing for an unusually early campaign introduction, a move intended in part to shield him from a stream of damaging revelations emerging from the investigation into his attempts to cling to power after losing the 2020 election.Similarly, Mr. Trump has been using his legal battle to energize his enthusiastic backers and coalesce support in a divided Republican Party. While public opinion polls show Mr. Trump has a wide lead over most other primary contenders and potential rivals, about half of the party remains opposed to his candidacy.In the Mar-a-Lago ballroom on Tuesday, Mr. Trump’s campaign set up the room with a center aisle for the former president and his V.I.P.s to walk to their seats.The aisle resembled something a wedding party might use to make an entrance. But it also appeared to embody the very line that Mr. Trump has sought to blur: Mr. Epshteyn, one of Mr. Trump’s legal counselors, smiled and waved as the crowd cheered his arrival along with several campaign aides and family members.“The only crime that I have committed,” Mr. Trump said a few minutes later from center stage, “is to fearlessly defend our nation from those who seek to destroy it.” More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Así fue la audiencia en la que se formularon los cargos contra Trump

      by

      Estos son algunos de los momentos más importantes de la comparecencia del expresidente ante la corte.NUEVA YORK — El expresidente Donald Trump se sentó en silencio en la sala del juzgado de Manhattan, el martes, mientras los fiscales formulaban las acusaciones en su contra. El procedimiento fue su primera experiencia como acusado penal.Una transcripción de 32 páginas de la audiencia solo ofrece un indicio de las consecuencias dramáticas de la comparecencia y el largo proceso legal que se avecina. Es uno de los procesos judiciales más esperados del mundo. Y, sin embargo, solo lo vieron de primera mano las pocas decenas de personas que estuvieron presentes en la sala donde se dieron a conocer los delitos que se le imputan a Trump.A continuación, presentamos algunos de los momentos más importantes de la audiencia:La audiencia comienza y Trump hace su declaraciónEL TRIBUNAL: Vamos a instruir al señor Trump.EL SECRETARIO DEL JUZGADO: Donald J. Trump, el Gran Jurado del condado de Nueva York ha presentado la acusación formal 71543 del año 2023 en la que se le imputan los delitos de 34 cargos de falsificación de registros empresariales en primer grado. ¿Cómo se declara ante esta acusación formal: culpable o no culpable?TRUMP: No culpable.En la sala del tribunal, las persianas estaban cerradas cuando Trump entró cerca de las 02:30 p. m., con un traje azul marino, corbata roja y un semblante inexpresivo. Estuvo flanqueado por agentes judiciales armados, mientras caminaba por el pasillo hacia el frente. Se autorizó a los fotógrafos para que entraran al palco del jurado para tomarle una foto, y él giró la cabeza y miró fijamente a las cámaras hasta que los fotógrafos tuvieron que marcharse.La comparecencia de Trump no comenzó de inmediato. Se vio obligado a esperar unos 10 minutos, sentado en silencio en la mesa de la defensa, mientras un abogado que representaba a organizaciones de medios de comunicación pedía que se concediera a los periodistas más acceso al procedimiento. El exmandatario hizo una mueca de burla cuando ese abogado afirmó que se podía confiar en los periodistas profesionales.Cuando el abogado terminó de hablar, el juez Juan Merchan, quien en la transcripción es identificado como “El tribunal”, pidió que Trump compareciera. Al expresidente se le leyeron los cargos que se le imputaban: 34 delitos graves de falsificación de registros empresariales. En la silenciosa sala, Trump se inclinó hacia delante y, hablando por el micrófono de la mesa de la defensa, dijo que era no culpable.Un fiscal presenta el casoSR. CONROY: El acusado, Donald J. Trump, falsificó registros empresariales de Nueva York con el fin de ocultar una asociación delictiva para socavar la integridad de las elecciones presidenciales de 2016 y otras violaciones a las leyes electorales.Chris Conroy, fiscal de la oficina del fiscal del distrito de Manhattan, se levantó y comenzó a detallar los cargos. Se derivan del pago de una suma de dinero para silenciar a una actriz porno, Stormy Daniels, que Michael Cohen, quien era un colaborador de Trump, pagó en el periodo previo a las elecciones de 2016. Trump reembolsó el dinero a Cohen después de ser elegido. Los fiscales acusan al exmandatario de orquestar la creación de registros empresariales falsos relacionados con los reembolsos.La falsificación de registros empresariales solo es un delito grave en el estado de Nueva York cuando se comete con la intención de “cometer u ocultar” otro delito. Al decir que Trump había falsificado registros “para ocultar una asociación delictiva”, Conroy ofreció un posible avance del caso más amplio de la fiscalía contra Trump.Los miembros del equipo de la defensa recibieron copias de la acusación. Trump le entregó una copia a uno de sus abogados, Joseph Tacopina. El exmandatario fue la única persona en la mesa de la defensa que no aceptó una copia.Las recientes publicaciones de Trump en las redes sociales se incorporan al expedienteUn momento extraordinario sucedió cuando Conroy comenzó a referirse a las publicaciones recientes que Trump ha hecho en las redes sociales. El expresidente prometió que en caso de que lo acusaran habría “muerte y destrucción” y publicó lenguaje racista e imágenes amenazantes dirigidas contra el fiscal de distrito Alvin Bragg.SR. CONROY: Nos preocupa mucho el peligro potencial que este tipo de retórica supone para nuestra ciudad, para los posibles jurados y testigos, así como para el proceso judicial.A continuación, Conroy repartió copias impresas de los mensajes de Trump al juez y al equipo de la defensa. El expresidente le dio su copia a Tacopina, pero un minuto después se la pidió de vuelta, haciéndole señas con la mano derecha. Otro de sus abogados, Todd Blanche, se opuso enérgicamente a los comentarios de Conroy sobre las publicaciones en las redes sociales.SR. BLANCHE: Es cierto que el expresidente Trump ha respondido y que lo ha hecho con contundencia. Es cierto que, como parte de esa respuesta, está absolutamente frustrado, molesto y cree que su presencia en esta sala del tribunal es una grave injusticia.Blanche afirmó que Trump “tiene derechos y se le permite pronunciarse públicamente”.Eso pareció incitar a Merchan, quien habló con calma y seriedad, cuando respondió que no tenía la intención inmediata de imponerle una “orden de mordaza” a Trump, en contra de las preocupaciones expresadas recientemente por el equipo jurídico del expresidente. Los fiscales no han solicitado una orden de mordaza.EL TRIBUNAL: Ciertamente, el tribunal no impondría una orden de mordaza en este momento aunque se solicitara. Esas restricciones son las más serias y menos intolerables sobre los derechos de la Primera Enmienda. Eso aplica por partida doble al señor Trump, porque es candidato a la presidencia de Estados Unidos. Así que es evidente que esos derechos de la Primera Enmienda tienen una importancia crítica.Pero Merchan, quien es juez de la Corte Suprema estatal desde 2009, le advirtió a la defensa que hablara con Trump “y cualquier otra persona con la que sea necesario y les recuerden que, por favor, se abstengan de hacer declaraciones que puedan incitar a la violencia o a los disturbios civiles”.La fiscalía detalla las posibles restricciones a TrumpSRA. MCCAW: El acusado no puede proporcionar los materiales que recibe a través del proceso de presentación de pruebas a terceros, lo que incluye a la prensa, y no puede publicarlos en las redes sociales.Mientras Trump seguía sentado en silencio, Catherine McCaw, otra fiscal, le dijo al juez que su equipo estaba trabajando con los abogados de Trump para redactar una orden de protección, un documento que le pondría ciertas restricciones al exmandatario.La fiscal explicó que una de esas restricciones le prohibiría al expresidente publicar material específico del caso en las redes sociales o compartirlo con los reporteros. Si Trump viola alguna de las restricciones establecidas, Merchan decidiría si lo sanciona y cómo hacerlo.Trump vuelve a hablarA medida que se desarrollaba su audiencia de instrucción, Trump se mostraba cada vez más inquieto. Entrelazaba y desentrelazaba los dedos una y otra vez. Cruzaba y descruzaba los brazos. Golpeó la mesa con los nudillos. En una ocasión, infló las mejillas en un suspiro impaciente.Por último, más de media hora después de que hizo su declaración de inocencia, habló de nuevo —tras la indicación de sus abogados—, pero solo para responderle al juez cuando informó sobre su derecho a estar presente en el proceso y de las formas en que podía perder ese derecho.EL TRIBUNAL: Si perturba hasta tal punto que afecte a mi capacidad para presidir este caso y mi capacidad para garantizar que el caso se juzgue de la manera que debe juzgarse para ambas partes, tengo la autoridad para sacarlo de la sala y continuar en su ausencia, ¿comprende?ACUSADO SR. TRUMP: Sí, comprendo.El juez solicita la presencia de TrumpEL TRIBUNAL: Espero que todos los demás acusados comparezcan ante el tribunal, incluso los acusados de alto perfil.Teniendo en cuenta que Trump estaba acusado de delitos no violentos, los fiscales tenían prohibido siquiera solicitar su encarcelamiento. Mientras Merchan se preparaba para dejar ir al expresidente, Blanche insinuó que Trump podría no comparecer a su próxima cita con el tribunal, prevista para el 4 de diciembre. Cuando se le preguntó por su razonamiento, Blanche citó “el increíble gasto y esfuerzo y los problemas de seguridad” que conllevó la comparecencia.El juez reconoció que había sido una empresa enorme para todos los implicados. Pero señaló que faltaba “bastante para diciembre”. Por último, señaló que “en aras de la transparencia y para garantizar la imparcialidad de las normas jurídicas”, iba a discrepar de Blanche. La implicación: en la medida de lo posible, el juez pretende tratar a Trump como a cualquier otro acusado.Cuando se levantó la sesión alrededor de las 03:25 p. m., Trump fue la persona de la mesa de la defensa que se levantó con más lentitud. Se alisó las solapas de la chaqueta de su traje azul, ordenó un montón de papeles que había frente a él y salió de la sala.Embed Only More