Trump Organization

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Trial Starts Monday. It Will Spotlight What He’s Really Worth.

      by

      The judge in the civil case has already decided Donald J. Trump inflated his financial statements. Now, he will make rulings that will affect Mr. Trump’s future as a businessman.Follow our live coverage of Trump’s civil fraud trial.From his earliest days as a real estate developer to his renegade run for the White House, Donald J. Trump honed a very particular skill: the art of the boast.“I look better if I’m worth $10 billion than if I’m worth $4 billion,” he once said, disputing his ranking on the Forbes billionaires list.After decades of exaggerating with impunity, Mr. Trump will go on trial Monday, facing a lawsuit brought by New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, that accuses him of inflating his riches by billions of dollars and crossing the line into fraud. It will be the first of several government trials he will face in the coming year, a procession of high-stakes courtroom battles that coincide with his third White House run.And it will be an avidly scrutinized spectacle that will lift the curtain on Mr. Trump’s reputation as a businessman, a core piece of his identity.Ms. James’s civil case, separate from Mr. Trump’s four criminal indictments, accuses the former president, his adult sons and their family business of inflating the value of Mr. Trump’s assets to secure favorable loan terms from banks. Mr. Trump, who has denied wrongdoing, is expected to attend the opening day of the trial and eventually will be called to testify.Before the trial even begins, Mr. Trump is losing. The New York State Supreme Court judge overseeing the case ruled last week that Mr. Trump had persistently committed fraud, deciding that no trial was needed to determine the veracity of the claims at the core of Ms. James’s lawsuit. The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, also imposed a heavy punishment, stripping the Trumps of control over their signature New York properties — a move that could crush much of the business known as the Trump Organization.Ms. James is now asking for more from Justice Engoron, who will determine the outcome of the trial himself; there will be no jury. She wants Mr. Trump to be fined as much as $250 million and to be permanently barred from running a business in New York. If she succeeds, the former president would be unceremoniously evicted from the world of New York real estate that made him famous.The New York attorney general, Letitia James, brought the case under a state law that gives her sweeping power.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesWhile there is no doubt that the former president is worth a lot of money, the trial will determine how much he and his adult sons exaggerated that wealth and what the ultimate consequences will be.Howard M. Erichson​, a professor at Fordham Law School who specializes in civil procedure, emphasized that Justice Engoron’s earlier decision had already resolved the question of fraud at the heart of the case. What remained were details, he said.“But those details are important,” he said, “Because those details determine what Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization will be prohibited from doing, as well as the size of any civil penalty.”Until last week, it appeared as if the trial might not start on time, or have much impact on the former president. Mr. Trump had sued Justice Engoron and Ms. James, claiming that they had ignored an appeals court decision in June that raised the prospect that some of the accusations were too old to proceed to trial. The appeals court granted a brief pause while it considered his case.On Thursday, the appeals court rejected that last-ditch effort, clearing the way for the trial to begin.Mr. Trump has accused Ms. James and Justice Engoron, who are both Democrats, of carrying out a political crusade against him. He has called the judge “deranged” and Ms. James, who is Black, a racist.The former president and his sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, who took the reins of the family business when their father ascended to the White House, are all expected to be called to the witness stand. Ms. James has already questioned Mr. Trump twice under oath, though at one session he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. A lawyer for Ms. James indicated last week that Mr. Trump will be one of the last witnesses called.Harlan Levy, who served as chief deputy New York state attorney general under one of Ms. James’s predecessors and is now a partner at Foley Hoag, called the former president’s testimony “a wild card.”Whether or not Mr. Trump ultimately takes the stand, Ms. James’s trial kicks off what is shaping up to be one of the most painful periods in his long public life.In March, he will stand trial on federal criminal charges for his effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. In May, the federal case accusing him of mishandling classified documents and obstructing the government’s efforts to wrest them back is scheduled to go to trial. And after that, he will face two criminal trials from local prosecutors: one in Manhattan, where he was charged related to hush-money payments to a porn star, and the other in Georgia, where he is accused of racketeering for trying to alter the outcome of the state’s vote in the election.The criminal consequences in those cases are starker than the punishments Ms. James is seeking in her civil proceeding; in some of the proceedings, Mr. Trump could face years behind bars.All the legal peril, however, has only helped him politically. Mr. Trump is running far ahead of the rest of the Republican field — his polling went up after he was first indicted this spring — and is a heavy favorite for the 2024 nomination.Yet even as he thrives in the race, Mr. Trump faces a threat to the heart of his identity: Ms. James’s case rips away the facade of unlimited wealth that he is most proud of and that provided the platform for his political rise.The trial will begin at 10 a.m. at the New York State Supreme Court Building on Foley Square in Lower Manhattan, which is emblazoned with the slogan “the true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government.”The witness lists suggest that the trial could last months — and will involve a who’s who of Mr. Trump’s universe. More than 50 people are on Ms. James’s list — including Allen H. Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s former financial gatekeeper who testified in the company’s criminal tax fraud trial last year and who is also a defendant in this case. The list may shrink, and although the trial was scheduled to last nearly until Christmas, it is likely to be shorter.Presiding over it all will be Justice Engoron, a charismatic and eccentric judge who has been a thorn in the side of Mr. Trump and his lawyers for more than a year.Justice Engoron maintains a light atmosphere in the courtroom, often ribbing the lawyers, particularly Christopher M. Kise, who represents Mr. Trump. But he has been harsh at times: Even before he removed Mr. Trump’s control of his New York companies last week, he fined the former president $110,000 for failing to comply with a subpoena. And he fined Mr. Trump’s lawyers $7,500 each for repeating arguments that he had previously rejected.Donald Trump Jr., far left, and Eric Trump took the reins of the family business when their father ascended to the presidency. Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesThose defense arguments essentially amounted to no harm, no foul. Mr. Trump, his lawyers argued, is accused of misleading banks that actually made money from their dealings with him. He never missed a loan payment, and the banks did not rely on the financial statements that Ms. James believes are a work of fiction.But Justice Engoron noted in his ruling last week that a powerful state law allows Ms. James to pursue “persistent fraud” without having to show that a defendant actually intended to defraud anyone, or that their actions resulted in financial loss — a lower bar than most fraud cases. It also affords drastic remedies, empowering her to seek steep financial punishments and the cancellation of Mr. Trump’s certificates to operate a business in New York.Justice Engoron’s decision last week went property by property — from Trump Tower on Fifth Ave to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and a golf course in Scotland — concluding that Mr. Trump had in fact engaged in fraud as Ms. James said. (The accusations concern some of Mr. Trump’s properties outside New York, but any consequences would apply to his assets within the state.)Take, for example, Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment in Trump Tower. Ms. James accused Mr. Trump of overestimating its size, saying it was 30,000 square feet, when it was actually about 11,000. Justice Engoron noted that Mr. Trump’s lawyers had “absurdly” suggested that the calculation of square footage was subjective.“A discrepancy of this order of magnitude, by a real estate developer sizing up his own living space of decades, can only be considered fraud,” he wrote. The matters still to be hashed out at trial will require Ms. James to show that Mr. Trump intended to commit fraud and may require her to convince Justice Engoron that the inflated financial statements were taken seriously by the banks and insurance companies that received them.If Mr. Trump testifies, he will have to do a better job of defending himself than he did in his sworn deposition earlier this year. Justice Engoron was not impressed, as he made clear in his order last week.“The defenses Donald Trump attempts to articulate in his sworn deposition are wholly without basis in law or fact,” the judge wrote. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Criminal Case Likely to Remain in N.Y. State Court, Judge Says

      by

      The judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein, said he was not inclined to move the Manhattan district attorney’s case against the former president to federal court.A judge on Tuesday indicated that he was likely to deny a request from lawyers for Donald J. Trump to move a New York State criminal case against the former president to federal court.The federal judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein, said that he would issue a written ruling within two weeks, but was inclined not to transfer the case brought by the Manhattan district attorney’s office which stems from a hush-money payment before the 2016 presidential election.“There is no reason to believe that an equal measure of justice couldn’t be rendered by the state court,” Judge Hellerstein said, after calling a central argument made by one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers “far-fetched.”After the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, unveiled the 34 felony charges against Mr. Trump in March, lawyers for the former president argued that the proper venue was federal court, in part because the conduct had occurred while Mr. Trump was in office.The payment to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, was made on Mr. Trump’s behalf by his former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, to buy her silence about a tryst she said she had with Mr. Trump. Once Mr. Trump was elected, he reimbursed Mr. Cohen. Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors have accused Mr. Trump of falsifying business records to disguise the purpose of the reimbursements.Mr. Trump’s lawyers would have had to convince Judge Hellerstein, who sits in Manhattan, that the accusations were related in some way to Mr. Trump’s official duties as president.Todd Blanche, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, argued that any work that Mr. Cohen did would have been related to Mr. Trump’s presidency: He said that Mr. Trump hired Mr. Cohen — who had been his longtime fixer — as a personal lawyer to ensure that he was fulfilling his constitutional duties.Matthew Colangelo, a prosecutor for the district attorney’s office, argued that Mr. Cohen’s hiring demonstrated the opposite. “These are personal payments to a personal lawyer handling his personal affairs.”Judge Hellerstein appeared to agree, saying that it was “very clear” that the act for which Mr. Trump had been indicted did not relate to the presidency. At one point, in a phrase that echoed Mr. Colangelo, the judge said of Mr. Cohen that “he was hired as a private matter to take care of private matters.”The judge said that his closing remarks from the bench were not binding, but that they would “presage” his ruling. If he rules as he suggested he would, the case would proceed as expected in state court, where a trial has been scheduled for March 25.A preview of how that trial might play out came during the hearing when Mr. Blanche unexpectedly called a witness to testify about Mr. Cohen’s role when he worked as a personal lawyer to Mr. Trump. He was trying to show how that role related to the official duties of the presidency.The witness, Alan Garten, the chief legal officer of the Trump Organization, was then cross-examined by Susan Hoffinger, the head of investigations at the district attorney’s office.Ms. Hoffinger tried to show that the arrangement with Mr. Cohen — without a retainer and with payments whose purpose was recorded without any description of the work involved in Mr. Trump’s ledger — was atypical. Mr. Garten acknowledged that it was irregular, but said that such arrangements did happen “from time to time.” More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Real Estate Deal in Oman Underscores Ethics Concerns

      by

      On a remote site at the edge of the Gulf of Oman, thousands of migrant laborers from Bangladesh, India and Pakistan are at work in 103-degree heat, toiling in shifts from dawn until nightfall to build a new city, a multibillion-dollar project backed by Oman’s oil-rich government that has an unusual partner: former President Donald J. Trump.Mr. Trump’s name is plastered on signs at the entrance of the project and in the lobby of the InterContinental Hotel in Muscat, the nearby capital of Oman, where a team of sales agents is invoking Mr. Trump’s name to help sell luxury villas at prices of up to $13 million, mostly targeting superrich buyers from around the world, including from Russia, Iran and India.Mr. Trump has been selling his name to global real estate developers for more than a decade. But the Oman deal has taken his financial stake in one of the world’s most strategically important and volatile regions to a new level, underscoring how his business and his politics intersect as he runs for president again amid intensifying legal and ethical troubles.Interviews and an examination by The New York Times of hundreds of pages of financial documents associated with the Oman project show that this partnership is unlike any other international deal Mr. Trump and his family have signed.The venture puts Mr. Trump in business with the government of Oman, an ally of the United States with which Mr. Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, cultivated ties while in office and which plays a vital diplomatic role in a volatile region. The Omani government is providing the land for the development, is investing heavily in the infrastructure to support it and will get a cut of the profits in the long run.Mr. Trump was brought into the deal by a Saudi real estate firm, Dar Al Arkan, which is closely intertwined with the Saudi government. While in office, Mr. Trump developed a tight relationship with Saudi leaders. Since leaving office, he has worked with Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund to host the LIV golf tour and Mr. Kushner received a $2 billion infusion from the Saudi fund for his investment venture.Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, has already brought in at least $5 million from the Oman deal. Under its terms, Trump Organization will not put up any money for the development, but will help design a Trump-branded hotel, golf course and golf club and will be paid to manage them for up to 30 years, among other revenue.The project could also draw scrutiny in the West for its treatment of its migrant workers, who during the first phase of construction are living in compounds of cramped trailers in a desertlike setting and are being paid as little as $340 a month, according to one of the engineers supervising the work.Former President Donald J. Trump’s name is plastered on giant signs at the entrance of the project and in the lobby of the InterContinental Hotel in Muscat, the capital.Andrea DiCenzo for The New York TimesA saleswoman at the Oman showroom of the $4 billion Aida project, which will include a Trump hotel, villas and golf course.Andrea DiCenzo for The New York TimesLuxury villas at the golf course are priced at up to $13 million.Andrea DiCenzo for The New York TimesMr. Trump’s business ties in the Middle East have already been under intense scrutiny. Federal prosecutors who brought criminal charges against him in the case stemming from his mishandling of classified documents issued subpoenas for information about his foreign deals and the agreements with the Saudi-backed LIV Golf tour.During his presidency, Mr. Trump’s family business profited directly from money spent at his Washington hotel by foreign governments including Saudi Arabia, just one example of what ethics experts cited as real or perceived conflicts of interest during his administration. His stake in the project in Oman as he runs for president again only focuses more attention on whether and how his own financial interests could influence foreign policy were he to return to the White House.“This is as blatant as it comes,” said Virginia Canter, the chief ethics counsel to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit group that has investigated Mr. Trump’s foreign deals. “How and when is he going to sell out U.S. interests? That is the question this creates. It is the kind of corruption our founding fathers most worried about.”Not ‘the Hamptons of the Middle East’In February, Eric Trump, the former president’s son who is overseeing the project for Trump Organization while also playing a role in his father’s re-election campaign, traveled to Oman to visit the cliff-side site where the golf course will soon be built. He met with executives from Dar Al Arkan, the Saudi firm, as well as top government officials from Oman who control the land.“It’s like the Hamptons of the Middle East,” Eric Trump said in an interview, declining to address other questions about the project.Oman is ruled by a sultan, who plays a sensitive role in the Middle East, as Oman maintains close ties with Saudi Arabia and its allies, but also with Iran.Andrea DiCenzo for The New York TimesPortraits of the current and former sultan of Oman in the lobby of a hotel in Muscat.Andrea DiCenzo for The New York TimesTaxi drivers wait for passengers in Muscat. Oman is pursuing rapid development under a national strategy to bolster growth and diversify away from oil and gas.Andrea DiCenzo for The New York TimesOman, in fact, is nothing like the Hamptons. It is a Muslim nation and absolute monarchy, ruled by a sultan, who plays a sensitive role in the Middle East: Oman maintains close ties with Saudi Arabia and its allies, but also with Iran, with which it has considerable trade.As a result, Oman has often served as an interlocutor for the West with Iran, including in the lead-up to the 2015 agreement the Obama administration and other Western governments negotiated with Iran to slow its move to build nuclear weapons, a deal Mr. Trump later abandoned. In recent months, Oman has hosted indirect talks to try to ease tensions between Iran and the United States.Oman is also a buyer of weapons from the United States, including Lockheed Martin’s F-16 fighter jets and a Raytheon-manufactured missile system that it agreed to purchase last year. Mr. Trump, while at the White House, had sent Mr. Kushner to Oman in 2019 to meet with Sultan Qaboos bin Said, then the nation’s monarch, to discuss the Arab-Israeli dispute. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Acusación a Donald Trump: cronología de los sucesos clave

      by

      El exmandatario se convertirá en el primer presidente o expresidente de Estados Unidos en enfrentar cargos penales.La investigación de la fiscalía de distrito de Manhattan sobre pagos efectuados por Donald Trump a una estrella porno a cambio de su silencio, que derivó en la acusación formal del expresidente, tardó casi cinco años.A continuación, describimos algunos momentos clave:21 de agosto de 2018Michael Cohen afirma que realizó pagos por órdenes del presidente para comprar el silencio de una actriz y comienza la investigaciónCohen, quien fuera abogado personal y solucionador de problemas de Trump, se declaró culpable de delitos federales y admitió ante un tribunal que Trump le había ordenado pagar a dos mujeres por su silencio. Los pagos se realizaron durante la campaña de 2016 para evitar que las mujeres hicieran declaraciones públicas sobre relaciones que ellas afirman que tuvieron con Trump.Poco después de la admisión de Cohen, la fiscalía de distrito de Manhattan abrió una investigación con el propósito de evaluar si esos pagos se habían efectuado en contravención de las leyes del estado de Nueva York. La fiscalía pronto suspendió las investigaciones a solicitud de algunos fiscales federales que todavía realizaban indagaciones sobre la misma conducta.Agosto de 2019La fiscalía de distrito ordena la comparecencia de la Organización TrumpDespués de que los fiscales federales anunciaron que habían llegado a la “conclusión efectiva” de su investigación, Cyrus Vance Jr., quien era fiscal de distrito de Manhattan en ese momento, retomó sus actividades indagatorias. A finales del mes, algunos fiscales de su oficina emitieron citaciones para ordenar la comparecencia de la Organización Trump y la firma contable de Trump, además de exigir las declaraciones de impuestos personales y empresariales de Trump correspondientes a los últimos ocho años.19 de septiembre de 2019Los abogados de Trump presentan una demanda para proteger sus declaraciones de impuestosLa demanda, interpuesta ante el Tribunal de Distrito de Estados Unidos en Manhattan, argumentaba que no era posible llevar a cabo una investigación penal de un presidente en funciones. Esta acción causó una gran demora.9 de julio de 2020Vance obtiene su primera victoria clave ante la Corte Suprema de EE. UU.Luego de que los jueces de apelaciones dictaron fallo en contra de Trump, la demanda se turnó a la Corte Suprema, donde los magistrados resolvieron que la presidencia no protegía a Trump de investigaciones del ámbito penal y, por lo tanto, no tenía el derecho absoluto de impedir la divulgación de sus declaraciones de impuestos.El fallo dejó a Trump con la oportunidad de formular distintas inconformidades a la citación de Vance.Otoño de 2020La investigación se intensificaAlgunos fiscales entrevistaron a empleados del principal banco y la aseguradora que prestan servicios a Trump y emitieron otras citaciones más.La fiscalía de distrito también indicó en otro escrito judicial que tenía motivos para investigar al presidente por fraude fiscal.La investigación que llevó a la acusación de Donald Trump ha abarcado casi cinco años. Stefani Reynolds para The New York Times22 de febrero de 2021La Corte Suprema le niega a Trump su último recurso para evitar que se den a conocer sus declaraciones de impuestosLa breve orden sin firmar fue una derrota decisiva para Trump y un punto de inflexión en la investigación de Vance.Apenas unas horas más tarde, se entregaron ocho años de informes financieros en la oficina de Vance.1.° de marzo de 2021La investigación se enfoca en un ejecutivo de alto rangoEn la primavera, los fiscales al mando de Vance concentraron su investigación en Allen Weisselberg, quien fungió por un largo periodo como director financiero de la Organización Trump, con la esperanza de ejercer presión sobre él para que cooperara con sus averiguaciones.A los fiscales les interesaba en particular saber si la Organización Trump le había otorgado prestaciones valiosas a Weisselberg como una especie de compensación no sujeta a impuestos.1.° de julio de 2021Se acusa a la Organización Trump de organizar un esquema de evasión de impuestos durante 15 añosCuando Weisselberg se negó a testificar en contra de su jefe, los fiscales anunciaron cargos en su contra y en contra de la empresa de Trump, pues su investigación reveló que la empresa había ayudado a sus ejecutivos a evadir impuestos ofreciéndoles como remuneración prestaciones como automóviles y apartamentos gratuitos que se les ocultaron a las autoridades.1.° de enero de 2022Asume un nuevo fiscal de distrito al frente de la oficina de ManhattanA la salida de Vance del cargo, su sucesor, Alvin Bragg, se encargó del caso. Ambos son demócratas.Bragg, quien se desempeñó como fiscal federal en el pasado, siguió empleando los servicios de dos de los líderes de la investigación: Mark Pomerantz, experimentado ex fiscal federal y abogado defensor en casos de delitos financieros, y Carey Dunne, el abogado general de Vance.23 de febrero de 2022Dos fiscales renuncian y ponen en duda el futuro de la investigaciónDespués de que Bragg expresó reservas acerca del caso, Pomerantz y Dunne suspendieron la presentación de evidencia sobre Trump ante un gran jurado. Un mes más tarde, presentaron su renuncia, lo que provocó protestas públicas por la decisión de Bragg de no proseguir con una acusación formal.En su carta de renuncia, que más adelante obtuvo The New York Times, Pomerantz señaló que Trump era culpable de varios delitos graves.18 de agosto de 2022Continúa la investigación de BraggTras guardar silencio casi total durante varias semanas de críticas, el fiscal de distrito habló por primera vez en público acerca de la investigación de Trump conducida por su oficina. Su mensaje, en esencia, fue que las averiguaciones continuarían.18 de agosto de 2022Weisselberg se declara culpable y accede a declarar en contra de la Organización TrumpAunque el director financiero se negó a entregar a Trump, accedió a testificar en el juicio de octubre en contra de la empresa en la que trabajó durante casi medio siglo.Finales del verano de 2022Los fiscales retoman el tema del pago a cambio del silencio de la actrizTranscurridos varios meses, los fiscales de Bragg retomaron el tema central original de la prolongada investigación: un pago para silenciar a Stormy Daniels, la estrella porno, quien dijo haber tenido relaciones sexuales con Trump.24 de diciembre de 2022Se declara culpable a la Organización Trump, en una victoria importante para el fiscal de distritoLos fiscales al mando de Bragg lograron que se declarara culpable a la empresa familiar de Trump, tras convencer al jurado de que esta era culpable de fraude fiscal y otros delitos.Enero de 2023El fiscal de distrito selecciona un nuevo gran juradoEl gran jurado se reunió durante los siguientes tres meses y escuchó testimonios de al menos nueve testigos sobre el pago a una actriz a cambio de su silencio.Mitad del invierno de 2023Los fiscales insinúan que es probable que se presente una acusación formal y ofrecen a Trump testificar frente al gran juradoEste tipo de ofertas por lo regular indican que pronto habrá una acusación formal; sería inusual notificar a un posible acusado si no se tiene la intención de presentar cargos en su contra.18 de marzo de 2023Trump predice su arresto y convoca a protestasSin ningún conocimiento directo, el expresidente afirma en una publicación en su cuenta de Truth Social que lo arrestarán en tres días e intenta convocar a sus partidarios. Se desdijo pronto de su predicción y no fue arrestado en ese momento.JuevesUn gran jurado decide presentar una acusación formal contra TrumpLos cargos, que todavía no se dan a conocer, serán los primeros presentados en contra de un presidente estadounidense.Jonah E. Bromwich cubre justicia penal en Nueva York, con énfasis en la fiscalía de distrito de Manhattan, las cortes penales estatales en Manhattan y las cárceles de la Ciudad de Nueva York. @jonesieman More

    • 63 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Indictment and What’s Next

      by

      The fallout will be widespread, with ramifications for the 2024 presidential race, policymaking and more.Donald Trump is likely to turn himself in on Tuesday.Christopher Lee for The New York TimesWhat you need to know about Trump’s indictment A Manhattan grand jury has indicted Donald Trump over his role in paying hush money to a porn star, making him the first former president to face criminal charges. It’s a pivotal moment in U.S. politics — there was an audible on-air gasp when Fox News anchors reported the news on Thursday — with ramifications for the 2024 presidential race, policymaking and more.Here are the most important things to note so far.Mr. Trump is likely to turn himself in on Tuesday, which will see the former president be fingerprinted and photographed in a New York State courthouse. (Prosecutors for the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, wanted Trump to surrender on Friday, but were rebuffed by the former president’s lawyers, according to Politico.) Afterward, Mr. Trump would be arraigned and would finally learn the charges against him and be given the chance to enter a plea. The former president has consistently denied all wrongdoing.Mr. Trump and his advisers, who were at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Thursday, were caught off guard by the announcement, believing some news reports that suggested an indictment wouldn’t come for weeks. The former president blasted the news, describing it in all-caps as “an attack on our country the likes of which has never been seen before” on Truth Social, the social network he founded.The case revolves in part around the Trump family business. Charges by the Manhattan district attorney arise from a five-year investigation into a $130,000 payment by the fixer Michael Cohen to the porn actress Stormy Daniels in 2016, before the presidential election that year.The Trump Organization reimbursed Mr. Cohen — but in internal documents, company executives falsely recorded the payment as a legal expense and invented a bogus legal retainer with Mr. Cohen to justify them. Falsifying business records is a crime in New York. But to make it a felony charge, prosecutors may tie the crime to a second one: violating election law.The fallout will be wide, and unpredictable. Democrats and Republicans alike used the news to underpin a flurry of fund-raising efforts. (Among them, of course, was Mr. Trump’s own presidential campaign.)It’s unclear how the indictment will affect the 2024 race. Mr. Trump, who can run for president despite facing criminal charges, is leading in early polls. Still, his potential opponents for the Republican nomination — including Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Mike Pence, Mr. Trump’s former vice president — harshly criticized the move. House Republicans have also flocked to his defense, potentially increasing the chances of gridlock in Washington.But while the charges may give Mr. Trump a boost in the G.O.P. primary, they could also hurt his standing in the general election against President Biden.HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING European inflation remains stubbornly high. Consumer prices rose 6.9 percent on an annualized basis across the eurozone in March, below analysts’ forecasts. But core inflation accelerated, a sign that Europe’s cost-of-living crisis is not easing. In the U.S., investors will be watching for data on personal consumption expenditure inflation, set to be released at 8:30 a.m.A Swiss court convicts bankers of helping a Putin ally hide millions. Four officials from the Swiss office of Gazprombank were accused of failing to conduct due diligence on accounts opened by a concert cellist who has been nicknamed “Putin’s wallet.” The case was seen as a test of Switzerland’s willingness to discipline bankers for wrongdoing.More Gulf nations back Jared Kushner’s investment firm. Sovereign funds in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar have poured hundreds of millions into Affinity Partners, The Times reports. The revelation underscores efforts by Mr. Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law, and others in the Trump orbit to profit from close ties they forged with Middle Eastern powers while in the White House.Lawyers for a woman accusing Leon Black of rape ask to quit the case. A lawyer from the Wigdor firm, who had been representing Guzel Ganieva, told a court on Thursday that the attorney-client relationship had broken down and that Ms. Ganieva wanted to represent herself. It’s the latest twist in the lawsuit by Ms. Ganieva, who has said she had an affair with the private equity mogul that turned abusive; Black has denied wrongdoing.Richard Branson’s satellite-launching company is halting operations. Virgin Orbit said that it failed to raise much-needed capital, and would cease business for now and lay off nearly all of its roughly 660 employees. It signals the potential end of the company after it suffered a failed rocket launch in January.A brutal quarter for dealmaking Bankers and lawyers began the year with modest expectations for M.&A. Rising interest rates, concerns about the economy and costly financing had undercut what had been a booming market for deals.But the first three months of 2023 proved to be even more difficult than most would have guessed, as the volume of transactions fell to its lowest level in a decade.About 11,366 deals worth $550.5 billion were announced in the quarter, according to data from Refinitiv. That’s a 22 percent drop in the number of transactions — and a 45 percent plunge by value. That’s bad news for bankers who had been hoping for any improvement from a dismal second half of 2022. (They’ve already had to grapple with another bit of bad news: Wall Street bonuses were down 26 percent last year, according to New York State’s comptroller.)The outlook for improvement isn’t clear. While the Nasdaq is climbing, there’s enough uncertainty and volatility in the market — particularly given concerns around banks — to deter many would-be acquirers from doing risky deals. Then again, three months ago some dealmakers told DealBook that they expected their business to pick up in the middle of 2023.Here’s how the league tables look: JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and the boutique Centerview Partners led investment banks, with a combined 58 percent of the market. And Sullivan & Cromwell, Wachtell Lipton and Goodwin Procter were the big winners among law firms, with 46 percent market share.Biden wants new rules for lenders The Biden administration on Thursday called on regulators to toughen oversight of America’s midsize banks in the wake of the crisis triggered by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, as policymakers shift from containing the turmoil to figuring out how to prevent it from happening again.Much of the focus was on reviving measures included in the Dodd-Frank law passed in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. These include reapplying stress tests and capital requirements used for the nation’s systemically important banks to midsize lenders, after they were rolled back in 2018 during the Trump administration.Here are the new rules the White House wants to see imposed:Tougher capital requirements and oversight of lenders. At the top of the list is the reinstatement of liquidity requirements (and stress tests on that liquidity) for lenders with $100 billion to $250 billion in assets like SVB and Signature Bank, which also collapsed.Plans for managing a bank failure and annual capital stress tests. The administration sees the need for more rigorous capital-testing measures designed to see if banks “can withstand high interest rates and other stresses.”It appears the White House will go it alone on these proposals. “There’s no need for congressional action in order to authorize the agencies to take any of these steps,” an administration official told journalists.Lobbyists are already pushing back, saying more oversight would drive up costs and hurt the economy. “It would be unfortunate if the response to bad management and delinquent supervision at SVB were additional regulation on all banks,” Greg Baer, the president and C.E.O. of the Bank Policy Institute, said in a statement.Elsewhere in banking:In the hours after Silicon Valley Bank’s failure on March 10, Jamie Dimon, C.E.O. of JPMorgan Chase, expressed his reluctance to get involved in another banking rescue effort. Dimon changed his position four days later as he and Janet Yellen, the Treasury secretary, spearheaded a plan for the country’s biggest banks to inject $30 billion in deposits into smaller ailing ones. “If my government asks me to help, I’ll help,” Mr. Dimon, 67, told The Times.“We are definitely working with technology which is going to be incredibly beneficial, but clearly has the potential to cause harm in a deep way.” — Sundar Pichai, C.E.O. of Google, on the need for the tech industry to responsibly develop artificial intelligence tools, like chatbots, before rolling them out commercially.Carl Icahn and Jesus Illumina, the DNA sequencing company, stepped up its fight with the activist investor Carl Icahn on Thursday, pushing back against his efforts to secure three board seats and force it to spin off Grail, a maker of cancer-detection tests that it bought for $8 billion. But it is a reference to Jesus that the company says he made that is garnering much attention.The company said that it had nearly reached a settlement with Mr. Icahn before their fight went public, in a preliminary proxy statement. It added that he had no plan for the company beyond putting his nominees on the board.But Illumina also said Mr. Icahn told its executives that he “would not even support Jesus Christ” as an independent candidate over one of his own nominees because “my guys answer to me.”Experts say Mr. Icahn’s comments could be used against him in future fights. Board members are supposed to act as stewards of a company, not agents for a single investor. “If any disputes along these lines arise for public companies where Icahn has nominees on the board, shareholders are going to use this as exhibit A for allegations that the directors followed Icahn rather than their own judgment,” said Ann Lipton, a professor of law at Tulane University.Mr. Icahn doesn’t seem to care. He said the comments were “taken out of context” and the company broke an agreement to keep negotiations private.“It was a very poor choice of words and he is usually much smarter than that,” said John Coffee, a corporate governance professor at Columbia Law School. “But he can always say that he was misinterpreted and recognizes that directors owe their duties to all the shareholders.”THE SPEED READ DealsBed Bath & Beyond ended a deal to take money from the hedge fund Hudson Bay Capital after reporting another quarter of declining sales, and will instead try to raise $300 million by selling new stock. (WSJ)Apollo Global Management reportedly plans to bid nearly $2.8 billion for the aerospace parts maker Arconic. (Bloomberg)Marshall, the maker of guitar amps favored by Jimi Hendrix and Eric Clapton, will sell itself to Zound, a Swedish speaker maker that it had partnered with. (The Verge)PolicyFinland cleared its last hurdle to joining NATO after Turkey approved its entry into the security alliance. (NYT)The F.T.C. is reportedly investigating America’s largest alcohol distributor over how wine and liquor are priced across the U.S. (Politico)“Lobbyists Begin Chipping Away at Biden’s $80 Billion I.R.S. Overhaul” (NYT)Best of the restNetflix revamped its film division, as the streaming giant prepares to make fewer movies to cut costs. (Bloomberg)“A.I., Brain Scans and Cameras: The Spread of Police Surveillance Tech” (NYT)A jury cleared Gwyneth Paltrow of fault in a 2016 ski crash and awarded her the $1 she had requested in damages. (NYT)“Do We Know How Many People Are Working From Home?” (NYT)We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to dealbook@nytimes.com. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Hush-Money Case Timeline: What Led to Indictment

      by

      The investigation by the Manhattan district attorney’s office into Donald J. Trump’s hush-money payments to a pornographic film star, which led to the indictment of the former president, has spanned nearly five years.Here are some key moments:Aug. 21, 2018Michael D. Cohen says he arranged hush-money payments for the president, and the investigation begins.Mr. Cohen, previously a personal lawyer and fixer for Mr. Trump, pleaded guilty to federal crimes and told a court that Mr. Trump had directed him to arrange hush-money payments to two women. The payments were made during the 2016 campaign to keep the women from speaking publicly about affairs they said they had conducted with Mr. Trump.Soon after Mr. Cohen’s admission, the Manhattan district attorney’s office opened an investigation to examine if the payments broke New York State laws. The office soon paused the inquiry at the request of federal prosecutors, who were still looking into the same conduct.August 2019The district attorney’s office subpoenas the Trump Organization.After federal prosecutors said that they had “effectively concluded” their investigation, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the Manhattan district attorney at the time, revived his own inquiry. Late in the month, prosecutors in his office issued a subpoena to the Trump Organization and another subpoena to Mr. Trump’s accounting firm, demanding eight years of Mr. Trump’s personal and corporate tax returns.Sept. 19, 2019Mr. Trump’s lawyers sue to protect his tax returns.The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, argued that a sitting president cannot be criminally investigated. It led to a lengthy delay.July 9, 2020Mr. Vance wins his first key victory at the U.S. Supreme Court.After appellate judges ruled against Mr. Trump, the lawsuit found its way to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled that the presidency did not shield Mr. Trump from criminal inquiries and that he had no absolute right to block the release of his tax returns.The ruling left Mr. Trump with the opportunity to raise different objections to Mr. Vance’s subpoena.AUTUMN 2020The investigation intensifies.Prosecutors interviewed employees of the main bank and insurance company that serve Mr. Trump and issued several new subpoenas.The district attorney’s office also signaled in another court filing that it had grounds to investigate the president for tax fraud.The investigation that led to the indictment of Donald J. Trump has spanned nearly five years.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesFeb. 22, 2021The Supreme Court denies Mr. Trump’s final bid to block the release of his returns.The brief unsigned order was a decisive defeat for Mr. Trump and a turning point in Mr. Vance’s investigation.Just hours later, eight years of financial records were handed over to Mr. Vance’s office.March 1, 2021The investigation’s focus turns to a top executive.In the spring, Mr. Vance’s prosecutors set their sights on Allen H. Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s long-serving chief financial officer, whom they hoped to pressure into cooperating with their investigation.The prosecutors were particularly interested in whether the Trump Organization handed out valuable benefits to Mr. Weisselberg as a form of untaxed compensation.July 1, 2021The Trump Organization is charged with running a 15-year tax scheme.When Mr. Weisselberg refused to testify against his boss, prosecutors announced charges against him and Mr. Trump’s company, saying that the company helped its executives evade taxes by compensating them with benefits such as free cars and apartments that were hidden from the authorities.JAN. 1, 2022A new Manhattan district attorney takes office.Mr. Vance left office, and his successor, Alvin L. Bragg, took over the case. Both are Democrats.Mr. Bragg, a former federal prosecutor, retained two of the investigation’s leaders, Mark F. Pomerantz, an experienced former federal prosecutor and white-collar defense lawyer, and Carey Dunne, Mr. Vance’s general counsel.Feb. 23, 2022Two prosecutors resign, leaving the investigation’s future in doubt.After Mr. Bragg expressed reservations about the case, Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne suspended the presentation of evidence about Mr. Trump to a grand jury. A month later, they resigned, prompting a public uproar over Mr. Bragg’s decision not to proceed with an indictment.In his resignation letter, which was later obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Pomerantz said that Mr. Trump had been guilty of numerous felonies.Aug. 18, 2022Mr. Bragg’s investigation continues.After staying mostly silent through weeks of criticism, the district attorney publicly discussed his office’s investigation of Mr. Trump for the first time. His fundamental message: The inquiry would continue.Aug. 18, 2022Allen Weisselberg pleads guilty and agrees to testify against the Trump Organization.Though the chief financial officer declined to turn on Mr. Trump himself, he agreed to testify at the October trial against the company that he had served for nearly half a century.Late Summer, 2022The prosecutors turn back to hush money.After several months, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors returned to the long-running investigation’s original focus: a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, a pornographic film actress who said she had a sexual relationship with Mr. Trump.Dec. 24, 2022The Trump Organization is convicted, securing a significant victory for the district attorney.Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors won a conviction of Mr. Trump’s family business, convincing a jury that the company was guilty of tax fraud and other crimes.January 2023The district attorney impanels a new grand jury.The grand jury met throughout the next three months and heard testimony about the hush-money payment from at least nine witnesses.Midwinter 2023Prosecutors signal that an indictment is likely, offering Mr. Trump a chance to testify before the grand jury.Such offers almost always indicate an indictment is close; it would be unusual to notify a potential defendant without ultimately seeking charges against him.March 18, 2023Mr. Trump predicts his arrest and calls for protests.Without any direct knowledge, the former president posted on his Truth Social account that he would be arrested three days later and sought to rally supporters to his side. His prediction was soon walked back, and he was not arrested at that time.March 30, 2023Mr. Trump is indicted by a grand jury.The charges, which are still unknown, will be the first against any president, current or former. More

    • 200 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Cronología del soborno a una actriz porno que podría culminar en una acusación formal contra Trump

      by

      Los fiscales de Manhattan que investigan un pago realizado a Stormy Daniels podrían estar a punto de convertir a Donald J. Trump en el primer expresidente estadounidense en ser acusado penalmente.En aquel momento, todo era más sórdido que trascendental. Una estrella de la telerrealidad invitó a una actriz porno que tenía la mitad de su edad a una habitación de hotel después de una ronda en un torneo de golf de celebridades. Ella llegó con un vestido de lentejuelas doradas y tacones con tiras. Él le prometió salir en televisión y luego, ella aseguró, se acostaron.Sin embargo, la cadena de acontecimientos derivados del encuentro de 2006 que la estrella del cine para adultos Stormy Daniels ha dicho que tuvo con la personalidad de la televisión Donald Trump está a punto de convertirse en un acontecimiento histórico: la primera acusación penal formal contra un expresidente de Estados Unidos.El fiscal de distrito de Manhattan Alvin Bragg señaló que está preparándose para presentar cargos por delitos graves contra Trump; se espera que Bragg lo acuse de ocultar los 130.000 dólares que Michael D. Cohen, el abogado y solucionador de problemas de Trump, le pagó a Daniels a cambio de su silencio antes de las elecciones presidenciales de 2016.Es probable que la condena dependa de que los fiscales demuestren que Trump reembolsó a Cohen y falsificó registros comerciales cuando lo hizo, posiblemente para ocultar una violación de la ley electoral.No sería un caso sencillo. Se espera que los fiscales utilicen una teoría jurídica que no ha sido evaluada en los tribunales de Nueva York, lo que plantea la posibilidad de que un juez pueda desestimar o limitar los cargos. El episodio ha sido analizado tanto por la Comisión Federal Electoral como por fiscales federales de Nueva York; ninguno tomó medidas contra Trump.Trump ha negado haber tenido relaciones sexuales con Daniels y asegura no haber hecho nada malo. El expresidente, que aspira a la candidatura republicana a la Casa Blanca en 2024, ha dejado claro que tachará la acusación de “cacería de brujas” política y la utilizará para movilizar a sus partidarios. El sábado, predijo que sería detenido el martes y convocó protestas.El principal testigo de los fiscales sería Cohen, quien se declaró culpable de violaciones al financiamiento de campañas federales en agosto de 2018 y admitió que ayudó a concertar el pago a Daniels —además de otro pago a una exmodelo de Playboy— para ayudar a la candidatura presidencial de Trump por órdenes de Trump.Cualquier acusación contra Trump presentada por el fiscal de distrito de Manhattan, Alvin L. Bragg, se sustentaría en una teoría legal que no ha sido probada en los tribunales de Nueva York, lo que hace que su éxito no esté para nada garantizado.Benjamin Norman para The New York TimesUna acusación formal marcaría otro episodio extraordinario en la era de Trump: un expresidente —cuyo mandato concluyó con una revuelta en el Capitolio, que trató de revocar unas elecciones justas y quien está bajo investigación por no devolver documentos clasificados— podría enfrentar su primera acusación penal por pagar por el silencio de una estrella porno.Un encuentro en el lago TahoeDaniels, cuyo nombre de pila es Stephanie Gregory y vivió la mayor parte de su infancia en un rancho destartalado en Baton Rouge, Luisiana, tenía 27 años en julio de 2006, cuando conoció a Trump, que entonces tenía 60, en el torneo de golf para famosos celebrado en Nevada.En su autobiografía de 2018, Full Disclosure, Daniels recuerda haberse sentido avergonzada y motivada a tomar el rumbo que tomó tras escuchar, siendo niña, al padre de un amigo referirse a ella como “escoria blanca”. Atraída por el dinero que podía ganar, Daniels comenzó a trabajar como bailarina exótica en un antro local llamado Cinnamon’s, incluso antes de terminar el bachillerato. A los 23 años, comenzó a actuar en películas pornográficas y poco después se casó con el primero de sus cuatro esposos: Bartholomew Clifford, quien dirigió películas para adultos bajo el nombre “Pat Myne”.Cuando conoció a Daniels, Trump ya se había transformado de magnate inmobiliario a estrella de telerrealidad; había viajado al torneo sin su tercera esposa, Melania, que se quedó en casa con su hijo recién nacido. Trump y Daniels se cruzaron en el campo de golf y más tarde en la sala de regalos, donde fueron fotografiados juntos en un estand de su productora de contenido pornográfico, Wicked Pictures. Trump la invitó a cenar.Mientras charlaban esa noche en el penthouse de Trump en Harrah’s Lake Tahoe —Daniels ha dicho que Trump llevaba un pijama de seda negro y pantuflas— él le dijo que debería participar en El aprendiz, un programa de telerrealidad de la NBC. Daniels dudo que él pudiera lograr que ella participara en el programa. Él le aseguró que sí, contó Daniels.De allí en adelante, Trump comenzó a llamarla de vez en cuando desde un número bloqueado, y le decía “honeybunch” (cariñito, en español). Se vieron al menos dos veces más en 2007, en una fiesta de presentación del efímero vodka Trump y en el hotel Beverly Hills, donde vieron la programación de la Semana del tiburón. Pero no volvieron a tener relaciones. Trump nunca la llevó a El aprendiz. Aun así, siguió llamándola, según ella. Al final, ella dejó de contestar.Vendiendo historiasStormy Daniels, una estrella de cine para adultos, recibió 130.000 dólares del mediador de Trump a cambio de su silencio.Shannon Stapleton/ReutersDesde el año 2000, Trump protagonizó campañas presidenciales improbables que parecían más trucos publicitarios que candidaturas serias. En 2011 inició otra, en la que promovió teorías conspirativas según las cuales el entonces presidente Barack Obama había nacido fuera del territorio estadounidense. Mientras lo hacía, Daniels, aún molesta, empezó a trabajar con una agente para ver si podía vender la historia de sus encuentros.Negociaron un trato por 15.000 dólares con Life & Style, una revista de farándula. Daniels le dijo al reportero que la entrevistó que creía que la oferta de Trump de convertirla en concursante había sido una mentira, según una transcripción que apareció después en internet.“¿Crees que solo fue para impresionarte, para intentar acostarse contigo?”, preguntó el reportero. “Sí”, respondió Daniels. “Y supongo que funcionó”, agregó.Cuando la revista contactó a la Organización Trump en busca de comentarios, Cohen devolvió la llamada. El abogado se había incorporado a la empresa cuatro años antes y se había convertido en el solucionador de Trump, haciendo todo lo necesario para resolver los problemas difíciles de su jefe y la familia Trump. Cohen amenazó con demandar, la revista eliminó el reportaje y Daniels no recibió ni un centavo.Por su parte, Trump abandonó la contienda presidencial y siguió siendo el presentador de El aprendiz.En octubre de ese año, la historia de Daniels sobre Trump salió a la luz de manera fugaz después de que su agente la filtrara a un blog de chismes llamado The Dirty, con la finalidad de despertar el interés de alguna publicación que quisiera pagar por la historia. Un par de medios de comunicación le dieron seguimiento, pero ninguno ofreció una remuneración. Daniels negó la historia, y su agente hizo que un abogado de Beverly Hills, California, Keith Davidson, retirara la publicación.Cuando Obama se preparaba para dejar el cargo en 2015, Trump decidió presentarse de nuevo a las elecciones presidenciales. Ese agosto, se sentó en su oficina de la Torre Trump con Cohen y David Pecker, el editor de American Media Inc. y su periódico sensacionalista más importante, The National Enquirer.Pecker, amigo de toda la vida de Trump, había recurrido a The Enquirer para impulsar las anteriores campañas presidenciales de Trump. Según tres personas familiarizadas con la reunión, Pecker prometió publicar historias positivas sobre Trump y negativas sobre sus rivales. También acordó trabajar con Cohen para encontrar y suprimir historias que pudieran perjudicar los nuevos esfuerzos de Trump, una práctica conocida como “atrapar y matar”.El National Enquirer, un tabloide dirigido por David Pecker, desempeñó un papel central en los esfuerzos por “atrapar y matar” historias negativas sobre Trump.Marion Curtis vía Associated PressEn la primavera de 2016, Daniels, con ayuda de su agente, intentó vender su historia de nuevo, esta vez por más de 200.000 dólares. Pero las publicaciones a las que contactó la rechazaron, incluido The Enquirer.Más o menos por esas fechas, Karen McDougal, exmodelo de Playboy, comenzó a explorar cómo monetizar su propia historia de su encuentro con Trump. McDougal, quien fue la conejita del año de Playboy en 1998, ha declarado haber tenido un amorío con Trump desde 2006, cuando ella tenía 35 años. Habían pasado tiempo juntos en su apartamento de la Torre Trump y en el mismo torneo de golf donde se dio el encuentro con Daniels. Pero según McDougal, ella puso fin a la relación en 2007. Trump ha negado el romance.En 2016, con su carrera como modelo en declive, McDougal contrató a Davidson, el mismo abogado que había ayudado a Daniels a eliminar la publicación del blog de 2011.Karen McDougal, exmodelo de Playboy, aseguró que también tuvo un amorío con Trump y que National Enquirer le pagó por su historia, la cual nunca fue publicada.Bennett Raglin/Getty Images for BacardiEl abogado se puso en contacto con el editor de The Enquirer, Dylan Howard, para venderle la historia de McDougal, y, según declaraciones de tres personas con conocimiento de las conversaciones, tanto Howard como Pecker informaron a Cohen. A finales de junio, Trump pidió personalmente ayuda a Pecker para mantener a McDougal en silencio, según un testimonio de Pecker ante los fiscales federales.Sni embargo, el tabloide no hizo nada sino hasta que McDougal estaba a punto de conceder una entrevista a ABC News. A principios de agosto, American Media acordó pagarle a McDougal 150.000 dólares por los derechos exclusivos de su historia sobre Trump, camuflando el verdadero propósito del acuerdo al garantizarle que aparecería en dos portadas de revistas, entre otras cosas, según han declarado cinco personas familiarizadas con los hechos.American Media admitiría después, en un acuerdo para evitar un proceso federal, que el principal propósito del acuerdo fue suprimir la historia de McDougal, la cual la empresa no tenía intención alguna de publicar.Mientras tanto, Daniels seguía sin encontrar a alguien que quisiera comprar su historia. Su suerte cambiaría a principios de octubre.‘Podría hacernos ver muy mal’El solucionador de problemas de Trump, Michael D. Cohen, a la derecha, fue a prisión en parte por violaciones de financiamiento de campañas relacionadas con pagos de sobornos. Le ha dado la espalda al expresidente y podría testificar en su contra.Jefferson Siegel para The New York TimesLa noticia cayó como una bomba en la contienda presidencial. El 7 de octubre de 2016, el diario The Washington Post publicó lo que se conocería como la cinta Access Hollywood, en la que Trump, sin darse cuenta de que el micrófono estaba encendido, fue grabado mientras describía en términos lascivos cómo manoseaba a las mujeres.La gente que rodeaba a Daniels se dio cuenta enseguida de que la nueva vulnerabilidad de Trump la convertía en una amenaza mayor, y por lo tanto su historia había ganado valor. Davidson, el abogado de Los Ángeles, también era amigo de la agente de Daniels, Gina Rodríguez, y del editor de The Enquirer, Howard. El día después de la aparición de la cinta Access Hollywood, Davidson y Howard se enviaron mensajes de texto sobre el daño que la cinta había causado a la campaña de Trump. Entonces, Howard le pidió a la agente de Daniels que le enviara otro mensaje a su jefe, Pecker.Los ejecutivos del Enquirer alertaron a Cohen, quien le pidió ayuda a Pecker para contener la historia.Howard regateó con la agente de Daniels, pero cuando le presentó a Pecker una oferta para comprar la historia por 120.000 dólares, el editor se negó.“Tal vez llame a Michael para avisarle y que él se encargue desde allí”, escribió Howard.Dylan Howard, editor del National Enquirer, conectó a Cohen con un abogado de Daniels para discutir un pago por la historia de su encuentro con Trump.Ilya S. Savenok/Getty Images para American MediaEsa noche, Cohen habló por teléfono con Trump, Pecker y Howard, según los registros obtenidos por las autoridades federales. Howard lo puso en contacto con el abogado, Davidson, quien negociaría el acuerdo en nombre de Daniels.Tres días después de la difusión de la cinta de Access Hollywood, Cohen aceptó pagar 130.000 dólares en un acuerdo que amenazaba con graves sanciones económicas para Daniels si alguna vez hablaba de su aventura con Trump. El contrato utilizó seudónimos: Peggy Peterson, o “PP”, para Daniels, y David Dennison, o “DD”, para Trump. Sus identidades solo se revelaban en una carta adjunta.Daniels firmó su copia sobre la cajuela de un auto cerca de un plató de filmación de una película pornográfica en Calabasas, California. Cohen firmó en nombre de Trump.Pero Cohen pospuso el pago. Ha dicho que estaba intentando averiguar de dónde sacar el dinero mientras Trump hacía campaña. Según Cohen, Trump había aprobado el pago y delegado en él y en el director financiero de la Organización Trump la tarea de organizarlo. Consideraron opciones para canalizar el dinero a través de la empresa, dijo Cohen, pero no se decidieron por una solución.Daniels comenzó a sentir que Trump intentaba darle largas al asunto hasta después de las elecciones del 8 de noviembre; si perdía, su historia perdería valor. A mediados de octubre, después de que Cohen incumpliera dos plazos del pago, el abogado de Daniels canceló el acuerdo, y la actriz porno empezó de nuevo a vender la historia. A la semana siguiente, Howard envió un mensaje de texto a Cohen diciéndole que si Daniels lo hacía público, su trabajo para encubrir el encuentro sexual también podría darse a conocer.“Podría hacernos ver muy mal a todos”, escribió Howard.Cohen aceptó hacer el pago de su propio bolsillo. Habló brevemente con Trump en dos ocasiones. Luego, transfirió 130.000 dólares de su línea personal de crédito a la cuenta de una empresa ficticia de Delaware y se los transfirió al abogado de Daniels.Davidson hizo circular un nuevo acuerdo de dinero por silencio. Daniels lo firmó y notarizó en una tienda UPS cerca de un Walmart Supercenter en Forney, Texas, cerca de su casa.“Espero que todo esté bien entre nosotros”, le escribió Cohen a Davidson en un mensaje de texto después.“Le aseguro que todo está muy bien”, respondió el abogado.Daniels guardó silencio. Una semana y media después, Trump ganó las elecciones.Una vez en la Casa Blanca, Trump se ocupó de otro asunto relacionado con Daniels. Firmó cheques para reembolsarle a Cohen el soborno.Jonah E. Bromwich More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Dissecting Charges That Could Arise From the Trump Investigations

      by

      Prosecutors in New York, Georgia and the Justice Department face complex choices about what crimes to charge if they decide to indict Donald Trump.WASHINGTON — Prosecutors like to say that they investigate crimes, not people. The looming decision by the Manhattan district attorney about whether to indict former President Donald J. Trump on charges related to an alleged hush money payment to a porn actress is highlighting the complexity of the legal calculations being made by prosecutors in New York, Georgia and the Justice Department as they examine Mr. Trump’s conduct on a number of fronts.The investigations — which also focus on Mr. Trump’s efforts to cling to power after the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents after leaving office — are confronting prosecutors with tough choices. They must decide whether and how to charge not just Mr. Trump, but also associates who could face jeopardy for actions to which he was not a direct party, like mail or wire fraud for communications that he did not participate in.The publicly known understanding of the evidence is incomplete. It is not clear, for example, in several instances what facts investigators have been able to gather about Mr. Trump’s personal knowledge, directions and intentions related to several of the matters.Here is a look at some of the criminal laws that different prosecutors appear to be weighing and how they might apply to Mr. Trump’s actions.Stormy Daniels was paid $130,000.Markus Schreiber/Associated PressThe Stormy Daniels Hush Money PaymentOverviewAlvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, appears to be nearing a decision about whether to charge Mr. Trump with a crime related to his $130,000 hush money payment just before the 2016 election to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels, who has said they had an extramarital affair. Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, sent the money to Ms. Daniels, and the Trump Organization reimbursed him over the course of 2017, according to a 2018 federal court filing in Mr. Cohen’s case. Mr. Trump’s business concealed the true purpose of the payments, the filing said, by recording them as having been for a legal retainer that did not exist.Potential charge: Bookkeeping fraudThe New York Times has reported that the case may include a potential charge of falsifying business records under Article 175 of the New York Penal Law. A conviction for a felony version of bookkeeping fraud carries a sentence of up to four years.To prove that Mr. Trump committed that offense, prosecutors would seemingly need evidence showing that he had knowingly caused subordinates to make a false entry in his company’s records “with intent to defraud.” For the action to be a felony rather than a misdemeanor, prosecutors would also need to show that Mr. Trump falsified the business records with the intention of committing, aiding or concealing a second crime.The public understanding of Mr. Bragg’s theory of the case remains murky and incomplete. The district attorney’s office has reportedly weighed invoking alleged campaign-finance violations as that intended second crime, which could raise complications. Among other things, presidential elections are governed by federal law, and it is not clear whether Mr. Bragg has found a theory by which a state campaign law covered Mr. Trump’s actions, or if a state prosecutor can cite a law over which he lacks jurisdiction. It remains possible that Mr. Bragg has obtained nonpublic evidence of some other intended offense, like if there was any initial intention to deduct the payments as a business expense on state tax returns.Bookkeeping fraud has a two-year statute of limitations as a misdemeanor and a five-year one as a felony, both of which would normally have expired for payments made to Mr. Cohen in 2017. But New York law extends those limits to cover periods when a defendant was continuously out of state, as when Mr. Trump was while living in the White House or at his home in Florida. In addition, during the pandemic, New York’s statute of limitations was extended by more than a year.Mr. Trump has claimed — without evidence — that he declassified all the files taken to Mar-a-Lago.Saul Martinez for The New York TimesThe Mar-a-Lago DocumentsOverviewJack Smith, a special counsel for the federal Justice Department, is investigating matters related to Mr. Trump’s handling of several hundred documents marked as classified that he kept at his Florida club and home, Mar-a-Lago, after leaving office, and how Mr. Trump resisted efforts by the government to retrieve all of those files. After the Justice Department obtained a subpoena for all remaining files marked as classified, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, M. Evan Corcoran, turned over some while helping to draft a statement falsely saying those were all that remained. In August, the F.B.I. executed a search warrant and found 103 more, including in Mr. Trump’s desk.Prosecutors last week persuaded a federal judge that Mr. Corcoran should be compelled to answer more questions from a grand jury investigating the documents matter, notwithstanding attorney-client privilege. That means the judge agreed with prosecutors that the situation met the threshold for an exception for lawyer communications or work that apparently helped further a crime.Potential charge: Unauthorized retention of national security documentsOne of the charges the F.B.I. listed in its affidavit for the Mar-a-Lago search warrant was Section 793(e) of Title 18, a provision of the Espionage Act. Prosecutors would have to show that Mr. Trump knew he was still in possession of the documents after leaving the White House and failed to comply when the government asked him to return them and then subpoenaed him. The theoretical penalty is up to 10 years per such document.Prosecutors would also have to show that the documents related to the national defense, that they were closely held and that their disclosure could harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary. Although Mr. Trump has claimed — without evidence — that he declassified all the files taken to Mar-a-Lago, prosecutors would not need to prove that they were still classified because the Espionage Act predates the classification system and does not refer to it as an element..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Potential charge: ObstructionAnother charge in the F.B.I. affidavit was Section 1519 of Title 18, which makes it a crime to conceal records to obstruct an official effort. Prosecutors would need to show that Mr. Trump knew he still had files that were responsive to the National Archives’ efforts to take custody of presidential records and the Justice Department’s subpoena for files marked as classified, and that he intentionally caused his subordinates to fail to turn them all over while leading officials to believe they had complied. The penalty is up to 20 years per offense.Potential charge: Mishandling official documentsA third charge in the affidavit was Section 2071 of Title 18, which criminalizes the concealment or destruction of official documents, whether or not they were related to national security. Among other things, former aides to Mr. Trump have recounted how he sometimes ripped up official documents, and the National Archives has said that some of the Trump White House paper records transferred to it had been torn up — some of which were taped back together and some of which were not reconstructed. The penalty is up to three years per offense plus a ban on holding federal office, although the latter is most likely unconstitutional, legal experts say.Potential charge: Contempt of courtSection 402 of Title 18 makes it a crime to willfully disobey a court order, like the grand jury subpoena Mr. Trump received in May 2022 requiring him to turn over all documents with classification markings remaining in his possession. It carries a penalty of a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in prison. To bring this charge, prosecutors would need evidence showing he knew that he was still holding onto other files with classification markings during and after his representatives purported to comply with the subpoena.Potential charge: Conspiracy to make a false statementSection 1001 of Title 18 makes it a crime to make a false statement to a law enforcement officer about a fact material to the officer’s investigation, and Section 371 makes it a crime to conspire with another person to break that or any other law. It carries a penalty of up to five years. Prosecutors would need to be able to show that Mr. Trump and Mr. Corcoran knew and agreed that the lawyer should lie to the Justice Department about there being no further documents responsive to the subpoena.Ballots being recounted in Atlanta, which is part of Fulton County, in 2020.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesThe Georgia Election Law InvestigationOverviewFani T. Willis, the district attorney for Fulton County, Ga., is investigating events related to Mr. Trump’s attempts to overturn President Biden’s narrow victory in that state in the 2020 election. Among other things, in a phone call that was recorded and leaked, Mr. Trump called Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, and pressured him to “find” enough additional votes for him to flip the outcome.Ms. Willis is also investigating Trump associates’ efforts to get 16 of his supporters to falsely declare themselves to be an alternative slate of electors from Georgia, which helped lay the groundwork for Mr. Trump’s push to get Vice President Mike Pence to reject the true results when Congress met to certify the election on Jan. 6, 2021.Potential charges: Election code violationsMost elections offenses in Georgia’s code are misdemeanors, but there are several felony charges that Ms. Willis may be considering, based on the same basic set of facts. These include Section 21-2-603, which makes it a crime to conspire with another person to violate a provision of the election code, and Section 21-2-604, which makes it a crime to solicit another person to commit election fraud.To bring such a charge against Mr. Trump, prosecutors would need to cite another election law whose violation was his alleged goal. It is possible, for example, that they might be considering contending that Mr. Trump’s pushing Mr. Raffensperger to “find” additional votes amounted to implicitly asking him to violate a provision that makes it a felony for the secretary of state to alter official election records, but Mr. Trump’s language was not explicit.Potential charge: RacketeeringMs. Willis has indicated that she is considering bringing charges under Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. So-called RICO laws are tools that were developed to make it easier to go after organized criminal enterprises, and can be used against members of any group that engaged in a pattern of criminal activities with a common purpose. A conviction would carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.To convict Mr. Trump under Georgia’s RICO law, Section 16-14-4, prosecutors would need to show that as part of his efforts with associates to overturn Georgia’s election results, he conspired with others or engaged in two or more offenses from a list of several dozen offenses, most of which are violent crimes but which include things like solicitation, forgery and making materially false statements to state officials.The House Jan. 6 committee made a criminal referral of Mr. Trump and others to the Justice Department.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesThe 2020 Election and Jan. 6OverviewMr. Smith, the special counsel, is also conducting a broader federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election results and the events of Jan. 6. The House committee that carried out the investigation into the riot last year made a criminal referral of Mr. Trump and others to the Justice Department. While that was of largely symbolic value — the department already had an investigation open and Congress has no authority to prosecute — the analysis in the panel’s final report sets out possible charges that Mr. Smith could also consider.Potential charge: Obstruction of an official proceedingOne criminal accusation the Jan. 6 committee leveled against Mr. Trump was the attempted corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding, under Section 1512(c) of Title 18. It is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Prosecutors have used this law to charge about 300 ordinary Jan. 6 defendants — people who rioted — and an appeals court is currently weighing whether that charge has been appropriately applied in those cases. But even if the judiciary upholds use of the charge, such a case against Mr. Trump would be very different since he did not physically participate in the riot.The Jan. 6 committee argued that he could be charged with it based on two sets of actions. First, it argued that his summoning of supporters to Washington and urging them to march on the Capitol and “fight like hell” violated that law. Mr. Trump’s defense team would surely seek to raise doubt about whether he intended for his supporters to riot, including because he also told them to protest “peacefully.”Second, the committee portrayed as criminal obstruction the scheme to recruit so-called fake electors from various states and pressuring Mr. Pence to cite their existence as a basis to delay certifying the election. The panel stressed how Mr. Trump had been told that there was no truth to his claims of a stolen election, which it said proved his intentions were corrupt. Among other things, Mr. Trump’s defense team would surely argue that because a lawyer, John Eastman, advised him to take those steps, there is no proof he understood that doing so was illegal.Potential charge: Conspiracy to defraud the United StatesA second criminal accusation leveled by the Jan. 6 committee was Section 371 of Title 18, which makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conspire with another person to defraud the government. The panel cited an array of evidence about Mr. Trump’s interactions with various lawyers and aides in pursuit of his effort to prevent the certification of Mr. Biden’s electoral victory. The committee also argued that prosecutors could prove Mr. Trump intended to be deceitful via evidence that he was repeatedly told that his allegations of widespread voter fraud were baseless.Potential charge: Conspiracy to make a false statementThe Jan. 6 committee highlighted the efforts to submit slates of fake electors to Congress and to the National Archives. As with other such potential charges, a key challenge for prosecutors would be proving Mr. Trump’s intentions and understanding beyond a reasonable doubt.Potential charge: InsurrectionThe committee also pointed to Section 2383 of Title 18, which makes it a crime to incite, assist or “aid and comfort” an insurrection against the authority and laws of the federal government. The panel emphasized in particular how Mr. Trump refused for hours to take steps to call off the rioters despite being implored by aides to do so, and an inflammatory tweet he sent about Mr. Pence in the midst of the violence.While the committee said the events of Jan. 6 met the standard for an insurrection, it is notable that prosecutors have not accused any of the Jan. 6 defendants to date of that offense — even those they charged with seditious conspiracy. More