Subterms
A president’scabinet is full of great character witnesses. The president chose them.They said yes. They worked togetherclosely. A president’s cabinet is fullof great character witnesses.The president chose them. They said yes. They worked together closely. These cabinet-level appointeessaw Donald Trump up close. And theydecided they couldn’t stand by him. These cabinet-level appointees saw Donald Trump […] More
The inquiry by the Capitol Police and the F.B.I. came after a website released a recording that it said captured Roger J. Stone Jr. in 2020 expressing a desire for the deaths of two Trump critics.The Capitol Police and the F.B.I. are investigating remarks reported to have been made by Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime Republican operative and informal adviser to former President Donald J. Trump, in which he expressed a desire for the deaths of two Democratic lawmakers in the weeks before the 2020 election, a government official familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.The investigation into Mr. Stone was opened shortly after the website Mediaite released an audio recording in which someone sounding like him can be heard discussing Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York and Representative Eric Swalwell of California, who are among Mr. Trump’s most vocal congressional critics.“It’s time to do it,” the speaker can be heard saying. “Let’s go find Swalwell. It’s time to do it. Then we’ll see how brave the rest of them are. It’s time to do it. It’s either Swalwell or Nadler has to die before the election. They need to get the message.”An article by Mediaite accompanying the recording claimed that Mr. Stone made the remarks to an associate, Salvatore Greco, a former New York City policeman, at a restaurant in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. But the recording itself does not make clear whom the speaker was addressing.Mr. Stone has denied making the comments, calling the recording “a deep fake.” He repeated that denial on Tuesday, claiming that “forensic examinations” had shown the recording to be fake. He did not respond to a question about the F.B.I. and Capitol Police investigation.Both agencies declined to comment on the inquiry.Mr. Greco, who was dismissed from the Police Department in 2022 after an internal inquiry into his relationship with Mr. Stone, responded to the initial release of the recording on Friday by calling it “political fodder.” Neither he nor his lawyer responded on Tuesday to a message seeking comment about the investigation.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? More
At a historic Black church, Fani T. Willis pushed back against an accusation that Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she brought on, was unqualified for the job. Fani T. Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, Ga., pushed back on Sunday against the criticism and questions about her judgment that have followed a court filing accusing her of being romantically involved with an outside lawyer she hired to lead the racketeering case against former President Donald J. Trump. Ms. Willis emerged from almost a week of silence to address the congregation at one of the oldest Black churches in Atlanta, which had invited her to be the keynote speaker for a service dedicated to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. She did not address the allegation that she was in a relationship with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she hired in 2021, who has earned more than $650,000 in the job to date. Instead, what Ms. Willis detailed were the frustrations and struggles that she said she has faced not only as a prosecutor, but also as a Black woman taking on the most powerful figure in the Republican Party. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? More
Did Donald Trump just say that he’s hoping for an economic crash? Not exactly. But what he did say was arguably even worse, especially once you put it in context.And Trump’s evident panic over recent good economic news deepens what is, for me, the biggest conundrum of American politics: Why have so many people joined — and stayed in — a personality cult built around a man who poses an existential threat to our nation’s democracy and is also personally a complete blowhard?So what did Trump actually say on Monday? Strictly speaking, he didn’t call for a crash, he predicted one, positing that the economy is running on “fumes” — and that he hopes the inevitable crash will happen this year, “because I don’t want to be Herbert Hoover.”If you think about it, this isn’t at all what a man who believes himself to be a brilliant economic manager and supposedly cares about the nation’s welfare should say. What he should have said instead is something like this: My opponent’s policies have set us on the path to disaster, but I hope the disaster doesn’t come until I’m in office — because I don’t want the American people to suffer unnecessarily, and, because I’m a very stable genius, I alone can fix it.But no, Trump says he wants the disaster to happen on someone else’s watch, specifically and openly so that he won’t have to bear the responsibility.Speaking of which, when did Trump start predicting economic disaster under President Biden? The answer is before the 2020 election. In October 2020, for example, he asserted that a Biden win would “unleash an economic disaster of epic proportions.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? More
Nathan Wade has stayed silent since a legal filing said he was chosen for the job because he was romantically involved with the Fulton County district attorney.Before he became the special prosecutor leading the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald J. Trump, Nathan Wade was working as a private defense lawyer and a judge for a municipal court in the Atlanta suburbs.Now, Mr. Wade is accused of being romantically involved with the district attorney who hired him in 2021, Fani T. Willis. A court filing this week suggested their relationship was the reason she chose Mr. Wade for the high-paying job.The filing, from a lawyer for one of Mr. Trump’s co-defendants, said that Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade had then used some of his earnings, which so far total more than $650,000, to vacation together in places including Napa Valley and the Caribbean.Mr. Wade was largely unknown when Ms. Willis selected him to lead one of the highest-profile prosecutions in American history.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? More
The judges seem likely to reject a key element of Trump’s defense in the election case.It looks like Donald Trump ran into a wall today while pushing his position that he cannot be charged criminally for his efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election. It came in the form of three federal appeals court judges.With Trump looking on from beside his lawyers in the courtroom in Washington, the judges poked holes in the legal reasoning behind his claims that presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions they take in office. By the time they were done, there was not much doubt they were leaning toward rejecting this central element of Trump’s defense in the election subversion case.“I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal laws,” said Judge Karen Henderson, the lone Republican appointee on the three-judge panel hearing the arguments.The court seemed especially dismissive of an assertion by Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, that the only way to hold a president accountable for crimes was to first secure a conviction in an impeachment proceeding.“I’m asking a yes or no question: Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution,” asked Judge Florence Pan.“If he were impeached and convicted first,” Sauer replied — a response that amounted to an audacious “no.”How expansively the judges might rule on the issue of presidential immunity remains to be seen.The matter is almost certain to land in the lap of the Supreme Court, which is already scheduled to take up a separate case next month on whether Trump can be disqualified from state ballots for his role in encouraging the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.No cameras, no showTrump’s motorcade arriving at the courthouse today.Jason Andrew for The New York TimesThe day did not go terribly well either for Trump’s attempt to turn the appeals proceeding into a bit of political theater, counter-programming to the more traditional campaigning underway in Iowa, where the caucuses will get the 2024 voting underway in less than a week.He did not have to attend the hearing — indeed, it is unusual for any defendant, much less a former president, to be present for appeals court arguments. But Trump chose to do so as part of his accelerating effort to cast all of the legal cases against him as politically motivated, a recurring theme that he has used to rally support as the Republican primary season gets underway.In this case, though, the protocols of a federal courthouse worked against him — no cameras were allowed, for starters — and his brief post-hearing appearance took place with little notice to journalists at the downtown hotel that he owned during his presidency but then sold after leaving office.Instead, it was the appeals court judges who got the headlines, especially Judge Pan, whose probing of Trump’s immunity claim led to the hypothetical situation that even non-lawyers could grasp onto: What if a president ordered Navy commandos to carry out the killing of a rival politician?Sauer, the former president’s lawyer, responded that a president who did such a thing would surely be impeached and convicted. And yet, remarkably, he insisted that the courts would have no jurisdiction to take matters into their own hands and oversee a murder trial unless there was a guilty verdict during the impeachment case.To rule otherwise, he said, would open the door to the routine prosecutions of former presidents whenever the White House changes partisan hands. (He did not mention that Trump, calling on the campaign trail for “retribution” against his opponents, has already repeatedly hinted that he would do just that if he takes power again.)A ‘frightening future’Trump supporters outside the courthouse in Washington.Valerie Plesch for The New York TimesJames Pearce, a lawyer for the special counsel Jack Smith, seemed horrified by Sauer’s argument, pointing out that, under his theory, presidents could literally get away with murder if they simply resigned before impeachment charges were brought. Advocating for that sort of unbounded version of presidential immunity wasn’t just wrong, Pearce said, but also a vision for “an extraordinarily frightening future.”Pearce further rejected the idea that allowing the case to go forward would be a “sea change” that would open the door to “vindictive tit-for-tat prosecutions in the future.” Instead, he reminded everyone in court, Trump was the first former president in American history ever to be charged with crimes, underlining the “fundamentally unprecedented nature” of the Trump prosecutions.“Never before has there been allegations that a sitting president has, with private individuals and using the levers of power, sought to fundamentally subvert the democratic republic and the electoral system,” he said.“Frankly if that kind of fact pattern arises again,” Pearce went on, “I think it would be awfully scary if there weren’t some sort of mechanism by which to reach that criminally.”While the appeals court rushed through the holiday season to be ready for today’s hearing, it’s not clear when the panel will hand down its ruling. Depending on its outcome, either Trump or prosecutors could appeal it. The case could be challenged in front of the full court of appeals — all 11 active judges — or directly to the Supreme Court.Either one of those courts could decide whether to take up the matter or decline to get involved and leave the ruling by the panel in place.How quickly all of this plays out could be nearly as important as the ultimate result. After all, the trial judge, Tanya Chutkan, has frozen the underlying case until the immunity issue is resolved. For now, the case is set to go in front of a jury in early March, but protracted litigation could push it back — perhaps even beyond the November election.If that were to happen and Trump were to win the election, he could try to pardon himself or otherwise use his control of the Justice Department to end the case against him.Your questionsWe’re asking readers what they’d like to know about the Trump cases: the charges, the procedure, the important players or anything else. You can send us your question by filling out this form.What impact does the Supreme Court cases have on the Georgia trial? — Matt Brightwell, York, South Carolina.Alan: The Supreme Court’s ultimate decision on Trump’s claims of immunity in the federal case accusing him of seeking to overturn the 2020 election could affect the similar state criminal charges in Georgia. This week, in fact, his Georgia lawyer raised an immunity defense against that indictment that was very close to the one his lawyers in Washington are trying. If the Supreme Court ends up considering the immunity defense, it could have a direct effect on the defense in Georgia. But there’s one caveat: the defense the Supreme Court is likely to review is specifically geared toward shielding Trump from federal charges.Where does each criminal case stand?Trump is at the center of at least four separate criminal investigations, at both the state and federal levels, into matters related to his business and political careers. Here is where each case currently stands.The New York TimesWhat to watch next weekA trial to determine how much money Trump will have to pay the writer E. Jean Carroll after being found liable for defaming and sexually abusing her begins on Tuesday, one day after the Iowa caucuses.On the same day, Trump’s lawyers are scheduled to file court papers asking for additional discovery in the Florida classified documents case. The papers will give a sense of how he intends to defend himself against charges that he illegally held on to dozens of highly sensitive national security records and then obstructed the government’s efforts to get them back.More Trump coverageA woman praying during a Trump rally in Iowa.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesWhite evangelical Christian voters have lined up behind Republican candidates for decades, but no Republican has had a closer relationship with evangelicals than Trump.In a speech in Iowa on the third anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack, Trump said those who stormed the Capitol had acted “peacefully and patriotically.”Trump’s escalating attacks on Nikki Haley captured the turbulent dynamics ahead of the first votes of the 2024 Republican presidential primary.Trump pressured state and federal officials to overturn results of the 2020 election in more than 30 phone calls or meetings, according to a Times analysis. See a timeline of events.Thanks for reading the Trump on Trial newsletter. See you next time. — Alan and MaggieRead past editions of the newsletter here.If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. More
A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington heard arguments on Tuesday in a momentous case over former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that he is immune from criminal charges for the efforts he took to overturn the 2020 election.A ruling by the court — and when it issues that decision — could be a major factor in determining when, or even whether, Mr. Trump will go to trial in the federal election case.Here are some takeaways:All three judges signaled skepticism with Trump’s position.The judges on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appeared unlikely to dismiss the charges against Mr. Trump on grounds of presidential immunity, as he has asked them to do. The two Democratic appointees on the court, Judge J. Michelle Childs and Judge Florence Y. Pan, peppered John Sauer, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, with difficult questions.Judge Karen L. Henderson, the panel’s sole Republican appointee, seemed to reject a central part of Mr. Trump’s argument: that his efforts to overturn his loss to President Biden cannot be subject to prosecution because presidents have a constitutional duty to ensure that election laws are upheld.“I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate the criminal law,” Judge Henderson said.U.S. District Court via Associated PressStill, Judge Henderson also expressed worry that allowing the case to proceed could “open the floodgates” of prosecutions of former presidents. She raised the possibility of sending the case back to the Federal District Court judge overseeing pretrial proceedings, Tanya S. Chutkan, for greater scrutiny of how to consider Mr. Trump’s actions.A lawyer for Trump took a sweeping position on a hypothetical assassination.Judge Pan asked Mr. Sauer to address a series of hypotheticals intended to test the limits of his position that presidents are absolutely immune from criminal prosecution over their official acts, unless they have first been impeached and convicted by the Senate over the same matter.Among them, she asked, what if a president ordered SEAL Team 6, the Navy commando unit, to assassinate a president’s political rival? Mr. Sauer said such a president would surely be impeached and convicted, but he insisted that courts would not have jurisdiction to oversee a murder trial unless that first happened.To rule otherwise, Mr. Sauer said, would open the door to the routine prosecutions of former presidents whenever the White House changes partisan hands.U.S. District Court via Associated PressA prosecutor argued that absolute immunity would be ‘frightening.’Picking up on the hypothetical of a president who uses SEAL Team 6 to kill a rival and then escapes criminal liability by simply resigning before he could be impeached or by avoiding a conviction in the Senate, James I. Pearce, a lawyer for the special counsel Jack Smith, denounced Mr. Sauer’s argument. Such a rationale, he added, put forth an understanding of presidential immunity that was not just wrong but also a vision for “an extraordinarily frightening future.”He also rejected the idea that allowing the case to go forward would be a “sea change” that opened the door to “vindictive tit-for-tat prosecutions in the future.” Instead, he said, the fact that Mr. Trump is the first former president ever to be charged with crimes underlined the “fundamentally unprecedented nature” of the criminal charges. He continued: “Never before has there been allegations that a sitting president has, with private individuals and using the levers of power, sought to fundamentally subvert the democratic republic and the electoral system.”Mr. Pearce added, “Frankly if that kind of fact pattern arises again, I think it would be awfully scary if there weren’t some sort of mechanism by which to reach that criminally.”U.S. District Court via Associated PressTrump tried to engage in political theater.In an unusual move, Mr. Trump showed up in person at the appeals court hearing, even though he was not obliged to be there. But if he was hoping to turn the appearance to his political advantage, the effort fell a little flat.He was ushered into the federal courthouse through a heavily guarded back entrance and did not address the dozens of reporters covering the proceedings. And during the hearing itself, he was silent, doing little more than exchanging notes with his lawyers and staring at the judges who will decide his fate.Afterward, Mr. Trump was driven a few blocks away to the Waldorf Astoria Hotel, which once operated under his name, and denounced his prosecution on the election interference charges. He also repeated his false claims that there had been widespread fraud in the 2020 election.“We had a very momentous day in terms of what was learned,” he told reporters. “I think it’s very unfair when a political opponent is prosecuted.”What’s next: The judges will rule, but the timing is not clear.It is not clear when the appellate panel will hand down its ruling. Depending on its outcome, either Mr. Trump or prosecutors could appeal it. The case could be appealed to the full court of appeals — all 11 active judges — or directly to the Supreme Court.Either one of those courts could decide whether to take up the matter or decline to get involved and leave the ruling by the panel in place.How quickly all of this plays out could be nearly as important as the ultimate result. After all, the trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, has frozen the underlying case until the immunity issue is resolved. For now, the case is set to go in front of a jury in early March, but protracted litigation could push it back — perhaps even beyond the November election.If that were to happen and Mr. Trump were to win the election, he could try to pardon himself or otherwise use his control of the Justice Department to end the case against him.Christina Kelso More
A case before an appeals court in Washington could influence how the former president’s trials will play out this year. Donald Trump’s four criminal trials can seem dizzying, including both federal and state cases, across Florida, Georgia, New York and Washington. But it’s worth remembering that the cases have different timetables. And any case that might produce a verdict before Election Day is probably more important than the others.The cases that don’t reach a verdict before November may become moot if Trump wins the 2024 presidential election. As president, he could try to end the two federal cases, while many legal scholars believe that the Constitution prevents state prosecutors from pursuing charges against a sitting president.This reality explains why Trump’s defense strategy revolves around delaying the cases. Any case he can push into 2025 may be irrelevant, at least for another four years.Today in Washington, an appeals court will hear an argument that will shape the timing of the case that seems to be furthest along: the federal trial involving Trump’s efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election. Trump claims he is immune from prosecution because the charges stem from actions that he took while he was president. Adding to the drama, he has said that he will attend today’s argument in person.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? More
