ReportWire

Tag: iab-legal services industry

  • Affirmative Action Fast Facts | CNN

    Affirmative Action Fast Facts | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here is some background information about affirmative action as well as a few notable court cases.

    Affirmative action policies focus on improving opportunities for groups of people, like women and minorities, who have been historically excluded in United States’ society. The initial emphasis was on education and employment. President John F. Kennedy was the first president to use the term in an executive order.

    Supporters argue that affirmative action is necessary to ensure racial and gender diversity in education and employment. Critics state that it is unfair and causes reverse discrimination.

    Racial quotas are considered unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

    The state of Texas replaced its affirmative action plan with a percentage plan that guarantees the top 10% of high-school graduates a spot in any state university in Texas. California and Florida have similar programs.

    1954 – The US Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education, rules that the “separate but equal” doctrine violates the Constitution.

    1961 – President Kennedy creates the Council on Equal Opportunity in an executive order. This ensures that federal contractors hire people regardless of race, creed, color or national origin.

    1964 The Civil Rights Act renders discrimination illegal in the workplace.

    1978 – In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, a notable reverse discrimination case, the Supreme Court rules that colleges cannot use racial quotas because it violates the Equal Protection Clause. As one factor for admission, however, race can be used.

    1995The University of Michigan rejects the college application of Jennifer Gratz, a top high school student in suburban Detroit who is white.

    October 14, 1997 – Gratz v. Bollinger, et al., is filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan. The University of Michigan is sued by white students, including Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, who claim the undergraduate and law school affirmative action policies using race and/or gender as a factor in admissions is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    December 3, 1997 – A similar case, Grutter v. Bollinger, is filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan. Barbara Grutter, denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School, claims that other applicants, with lower test scores and grades, were given an unfair advantage due to race.

    December 2000 – The judge in the Gratz v. Bollinger case rules that the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy does not violate the standards set by the Supreme Court.

    March 2001 – The judge in the Grutter v. Bollinger case rules the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policy is unconstitutional.

    December 2001 – The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals hears appeals in both University of Michigan cases.

    May 14, 2002 The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the district court’s decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.

    January 17, 2003 – The administration of President George W. Bush files a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court, opposing the University of Michigan’s affirmative action program.

    April 1, 2003 – The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the two cases. US Solicitor General Theodore Olson offers arguments in support of the plaintiffs.

    June 23, 2003 – The Supreme Court rules on Grutter v. Bollinger that the University of Michigan Law School may give preferential treatment to minorities during the admissions process. The Court upholds the law school policy by a vote of five to four.

    June 23, 2003 – In Gratz v. Bollinger, the undergraduate policy in which a point system gave specific “weight” to minority applicants is overturned six to three.

    December 22, 2003 – The Supreme Court rules that race can be a factor in universities’ admission programs but it cannot be an overriding factor. This decision affects the Grutter and Gratz cases.

    November 7, 2006The Michigan electorate strikes down affirmative action by approving a proposition barring affirmative action in public education, employment, or contracting.

    January 31, 2007 – After the Supreme Court sends the case back to district court; the case is dismissed. Gratz and Hamacher settle for $10,000 in administrative costs, but do not receive damages.

    2008 – Abigail Noel Fisher, a white woman, sues the University of Texas. She argues that the university should not use race as a factor in admission policies that favor African-American and Hispanic applicants over whites and Asian-Americans.

    July 1, 2011 An appeals court overturns Michigan’s 2006 ban on the use of race and/or gender as a factor in admissions or hiring practices.

    November 15, 2012 – The US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals throws out Michigan’s 2006 ban on affirmative action in college admissions and public hiring, declaring it unconstitutional.

    June 24, 2013 – The Supreme Court sends the University of Texas case back to the lower court for further review without ruling.

    October 15, 2013 – The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case concerning Michigan’s 2006 law on affirmative action.

    April 22, 2014 – In a six to two ruling, the Supreme Court upholds Michigan’s ban of using racial criteria in college admissions.

    July 15, 2014 – The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholds the use of race by the University of Texas as a factor in undergraduate admissions to promote diversity on campus. The vote is two to one.

    November 17, 2014 – Students for Fair Admissions sues Harvard University, alleging Harvard intentionally discriminates against Asian-Americans. Students for Fair Admissions is run by Edward Blum, a conservative advocate, who sought Asian-Americans rejected by Harvard.

    December 9, 2015 – The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the University of Texas case regarding race as a factor in admissions policies.

    June 23, 2016 – The US Supreme Court upholds the Affirmative Action program by a vote of four to three with Justice Elena Kagan taking no part in the consideration. The ruling allows the limited use of affirmative action policies by schools.

    October 15, 2018 – The lawsuit against Harvard filed in 2014 by Students for Fair Admissions goes to trial.

    February 2019 – Texas Tech University enters an agreement with the Department of Education to stop considering race and/or national origin as a factor in its admissions process, concluding a 14-year-long investigation into the school’s use of affirmative action.

    October 1, 2019 – US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs upholds Harvard’s admissions process in the Students for Fair Admissions case, ruling that while Harvard’s admissions process is “not perfect,” she would not “dismantle a very fine admissions program that passes constitutional muster, solely because it could do better.”

    November 12, 2020 – A Boston-based US appeals court rejects an appeal brought by the Students for Fair Admissions group.

    January 24, 2022 – The US Supreme Court announces it will reconsider race-based affirmative action in college admissions. The justices will hear challenges to policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina that use students’ race among many criteria to decide who should gain a coveted place in an entering class. On June 29, 2023, the US Supreme Court says colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as a specific basis for granting admission.

    Source link

  • Ted Cruz Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    Ted Cruz Fast Facts | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the life of Ted Cruz, Republican senator from Texas and former 2016 presidential candidate.

    Birth date: December 22, 1970

    Birth place: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    Birth name: Rafael Edward Cruz

    Father: Rafael Cruz, pastor

    Mother: Eleanor Darragh, computer programmer

    Marriage: Heidi (Nelson) Cruz (2001-present)

    Children: Caroline and Catherine

    Education: Princeton University, B.A. in Public Policy, 1992; Harvard Law School, J.D., 1995

    Religion: Southern Baptist

    His father, Rafael Cruz, left Cuba as a teenager in 1957 amid the nation’s revolution. During the Cuban revolution, Rafael Cruz sided with Fidel Castro against dictator Fulgencio Batista, but later became a critic of Castro.

    While at Harvard Law School, Cruz was an editor of the Harvard Law Review and founder of the Harvard Latino Law Review.

    First Hispanic US Senator from Texas.

    Was a dual citizen of Canada and the United States until he renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014.

    1996-1997 – Clerks for US Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

    1997-1999 – Attorney with the Washington, DC-based law firm Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal.

    1999-2000 – Domestic policy adviser during George W. Bush’s first presidential campaign.

    2001 – Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice.

    2001-2003 – Director of the Office of Policy Planning, with the Federal Trade Commission.

    2003-2008 – Solicitor General of Texas. He is the first Hispanic to hold the position. He is also the longest serving solicitor general in Texas’ history.

    2004-2009 – Adjunct law professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

    2008-2012 – Attorney with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Houston.

    May 29, 2012 – Wins enough votes in the Texas GOP senatorial primary to force a runoff.

    July 31, 2012 – Defeats Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in the runoff election for the Republican Senate nomination, by a vote of 57% to 43%.

    November 6, 2012 – Elected US senator from Texas by defeating Democrat Paul Sadler, 56% to 41%.

    November 14, 2012 – Named vice chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

    January 3, 2013 – Sworn in as the 34th US senator from Texas.

    September 24, 2013 – Reads Dr. Seuss’s “Green Eggs and Ham” as a bedtime story for his children during a 21-hour speech aimed at derailing President Barack Obama’s health care reform law.

    June 2014 – His spokeswoman confirms that Cruz has renounced his Canadian citizenship, and is no longer a dual citizen of Canada and the United States.

    March 23, 2015 – Cruz announces his candidacy for president in a 30-second video message posted on Twitter shortly after midnight. Later in the day he announces he is running for president during a speech at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

    July 15, 2015 – A New York Times spokesperson confirms that Cruz’s memoir will appear on the New York Times’ bestseller list, a week after the newspaper rejected it as a bestseller because sales were allegedly inflated by “bulk purchases.” Cruz’s book “A Time for Truth” was published on June 30.

    April 27, 2016 – Cruz formally names Carly Fiorina as his vice presidential running mate – a last-ditch move to regain momentum after being mathematically eliminated from winning the GOP presidential nomination outright.

    May 3, 2016 – Cruz announces he is suspending his presidential bid after losing the Indiana primary.

    May 10, 2016 – Ending speculation about whether he would take a break from Congress to prep for another presidential run in 2020, Cruz announces that he will campaign to keep his Senate seat in 2018.

    September 23, 2016 – Cruz endorses Donald Trump for the presidency, surprising many after a contentious primary filled with nasty personal attacks and Cruz’s dramatic snub of Trump at the Republican National Convention, where he pointedly refused to endorse the nominee.

    November 6, 2018 – Cruz defeats Democratic Rep. Beto O’Rourke 50.9% to 48.3% in the race for Senate in Texas, holding off the progressive online fundraising sensation.

    March 15, 2019 – A watchdog group discloses that Cruz’s campaign has been fined $35,000 by the Federal Election Commission for failing to accurately report more than $1 million in loans that helped underwrite his first Senate bid in 2012.

    July 13, 2020 China announces sanctions against US officials, including Cruz, in retaliation for measures revealed on July 9 by the US Treasury Department over Beijing’s alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

    January 6, 2021 Cruz objects to Arizona’s Electoral College results during the joint session of Congress.

    February 17, 2021 Cruz travels to Cancun, Mexico, for vacation as a winter disaster in his home state leaves millions without power or water. He later says the trip “was obviously a mistake” and that “in hindsight I wouldn’t have done it.”

    September 30, 2021 The Supreme Court agrees to hear a case concerning Cruz’s 2018 campaign and consider regulations that limit money that committees can raise after the election to reimburse loans made before the election. On May 16, 2022, the Supreme Court rules in favor of Cruz. The court says that a federal cap on candidates using political contributions after an election to recoup personal loans made to their campaign is unconstitutional.

    Source link

  • Who is Steve Jones, the judge who’ll decide whether to move Fulton County defendants’ cases to federal court? | CNN Politics

    Who is Steve Jones, the judge who’ll decide whether to move Fulton County defendants’ cases to federal court? | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Federal district Judge Steve Jones of the Northern District of Georgia will hear requests from three of the 19 defendants hoping to move their Georgia election subversion cases out of state court.

    The group, which includes former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, is trying to get the case dismissed under federal law – a determination that may impact Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ case against former President Donald Trump and others. Meadows and others will present evidence about whether to move the case, while the judge has allowed the state court case to proceed in the meantime.

    Jones, a Barack Obama appointee, was confirmed by the US Senate in 2011 by a 90-0 vote. A former Superior Court judge, he grew up in Athens, Georgia, and graduated from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1987.

    So far, Jones has shown that he would like to avoid a circus while not giving short shrift to Meadows’ arguments, said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. The orders Jones has already issued have hewed tightly to the relevant statutes and case law, and he has moved the proceedings along very efficiently.

    Jones is “by the book, which includes quickly and quietly,” Vladeck said.

    Jones has overseen high-profile cases before.

    In July, he declined to toss three lawsuits claiming that Georgia’s congressional and legislative districts were drawn in a way that discriminates against Black voters. He slated a trial on the matter for September.

    In 2020, Jones blocked the state’s six-week abortion ban, which later took effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. In 2019, he rejected an attempt by a voting rights group to restore to the rolls 98,000 Georgia voters who had been removed after being classified as “inactive” after a new state law took effect.

    In that case, Jones found that the 11th Amendment of the Constitution and the principles of sovereign immunity “do not permit a federal court to enjoin a state (or its officers) to follow a federal court’s interpretation of the State of Georgia’s laws.” Jones also determined that the group, Fair Fight Action, failed to show that its claim had a substantial likelihood of success.

    Next, Jones will weigh movement in the case in which Trump is accused of being the head of a “criminal enterprise” that was part of a broad conspiracy to overturn his electoral defeat in Georgia. Trump, who faces 13 charges, is also expected to try to move the case to federal court, according to multiple sources familiar with his legal team’s thinking.

    Source link

  • Trump’s legal team meets with special counsel as federal indictment looms | CNN Politics

    Trump’s legal team meets with special counsel as federal indictment looms | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Donald Trump’s defense lawyers and special counsel Jack Smith met Thursday in Washington, DC, without the former president’s team getting any guidance about timing of a possible indictment, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

    The meeting happened on the same day that the grand jury hearing evidence from the special counsel’s probe into election subversion efforts by Trump and his allies was seen at the federal courthouse.

    A court official said that there will not be any grand jury indictment returns on Thursday. Grand jury proceedings are secret and it’s unclear what Thursday’s developments mean for Smith’s investigation.

    Since receiving a letter from Smith indicating he’s a target of the investigation earlier this month, Trump had argued against a meeting between his attorneys and Smith’s team because the former president believed the indictment was already a done deal, two sources familiar with his thinking said.

    In seeking a meeting with Smith’s team, Trump’s lawyers hoped to at least delay any potential plans for the grand jury to hand up an indictment Thursday, people briefed on the plans said.

    Another source familiar with the legal team’s thinking told CNN they also expected to discuss the logistics of how a potential indictment and arraignment of the former president would work.

    “My attorneys had a productive meeting with the DOJ this morning, explaining in detail that I did nothing wrong, was advised by many lawyers, and that an Indictment of me would only further destroy our Country,” Trump said on Truth Social.

    Trump’s political and legal strategy has been to delay any possible trials – including until potentially after the 2024 election – and to put the Justice Department in an uncomfortable position where they are pursuing a prosecution of President Joe Biden’s chief 2024 rival even as primary voters are beginning to have their say.

    Every day they can push back an indictment is a day that pushes back an ultimate trial date.

    The members of Trump’s legal team who attended Thursday’s meeting with Smith were John Lauro and Todd Blanche, sources familiar with the matter told CNN. Lauro recently joined the team to handle matters related to the 2020 election and the run-up to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

    Blanche has represented Trump in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case and the Manhattan criminal case stemming from a hush-money scheme.

    This is the second time Trump is facing potential charges brought by Smith’s team. Before Trump was charged in Florida in Smith’s probe into the mishandling of classified documents from his White House, he also was notified by prosecutors that he was a target of that investigation.

    Prosecutors aren’t required to give investigatory targets such a warning. Around the time Trump was given the heads up about the potential classified documents charges against him, his lawyers also met in early June with prosecutors for Smith’s team. The classified documents indictment was brought against him later that month.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    Source link

  • Hunter Biden’s aggressive new legal strategy initially caused anxiety at White House | CNN Politics

    Hunter Biden’s aggressive new legal strategy initially caused anxiety at White House | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    The White House initially reacted with anxiety toward a decision by Hunter Biden’s lawyer to pursue an aggressive legal strategy against increasing Republican attacks on him, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

    Much of the tension centered around Kevin Morris, the lawyer, bringing on attorney Abbe Lowell, who is known for his aggressive style and litigious nature. Since joining Hunter Biden’s legal team, Lowell has fired off letters demanding investigations into Biden’s opponents, filed a federal lawsuit in his defense and been involved in a child support dispute.

    According to multiple sources, senior White House officials and Democrats held a meeting late last year with Lowell, who was expected to be handling GOP-led congressional investigations into the president’s son but whose portfolio has since expanded.

    While some of the reticence at the White House around the new legal strategy has abated, sources told CNN, the initial anxiety about publicly pushing back against Hunter Biden’s detractors underscores some of the thorny issues that President Joe Biden must contend with as he runs for reelection.

    The president affirmed his support for his son in an interview that aired Friday on MSNBC, saying that the Justice Department’s investigation would not affect his presidency. “First of all, my son has done nothing wrong. I trust him. I have faith in him,” Biden told Stephanie Ruhle. “It impacts my presidency by making me feel proud of him.”

    A source close to Hunter Biden’s legal team said one reason the anxiety has died down is because the strategy has been successful. It’s also been assuaged in part thanks to the more open lines of communication between Lowell, the White House and President Biden’s personal attorney Bob Bauer, according to a person familiar with the matter.

    A senior Biden adviser insisted that the president’s advisers “don’t direct or advise” Hunter Biden’s legal team on what to do. The senior adviser stressed that Hunter Biden is a private citizen who has the right to make his own decisions about how to handle his legal strategy.

    A spokeswoman for Lowell declined to comment.

    Hunter Biden’s legal team also has been weighing the possibility of setting up a legal defense fund to help defray his legal bills, according to a person familiar with the matter. A key hurdle is whether they could create a fund with enough guardrails to protect against ethical conflicts for the Biden family.

    House Republicans have already launched an investigation into the Biden family’s business dealings, and a legal defense fund soliciting outside donations would be yet another target for congressional scrutiny.

    Late last year, shortly after Republicans won control of the House, Hunter Biden made it clear to the White House that he wanted to take a more aggressive approach in responding to attacks against him, according to a source familiar with this legal strategy.

    At the time, Republicans had made clear that the younger Biden was going to be their top target for congressional investigations. Hunter Biden was also still staring down a long-running federal criminal investigation focused on tax- and gun-related issues. And when there appeared to be no movement in the criminal probe for months, his lawyer Morris believed it was time to go on the offensive.

    As Hunter Biden and Morris moved ahead with their approach, a source familiar with the behind-the-scenes conversations described the White House as having a very negative reaction to the more aggressive strategy and surprise that Morris brought on Lowell.

    Multiple sources familiar with the legal strategy said the addition of Lowell caused tension even within the legal team. Josh Levy, one of Hunter Biden’s attorneys who had long been aligned with the Biden White House, resigned as Lowell joined the team.

    Levy declined to comment.

    The federal criminal investigation is ongoing, and Hunter Biden’s attorneys recently met with the Justice Department. Hunter Biden denies any wrongdoing.

    Since coming on board, Lowell has fired off letters calling for investigations into various officials. In one sent to the Office of Congressional Ethics, he requested an independent ethics review of GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s conduct for her public statements that “sound and read like school-yard insults rather than the work of a Member of Congress.”

    Another, sent to the Treasury Department’s inspector general, asked for a review of a former Donald Trump aide who allegedly acquired and published online financial activities of Hunter Biden, known as Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs). Hunter Biden’s legal team also recently filed a lawsuit accusing the aide of harassing Biden’s team.

    Earlier this week, Lowell traveled to Arkansas to represent Biden in a child support dispute that has become a proxy for Republican investigations, underscoring his wide-reaching involvement in his client’s legal troubles.

    Lowell also filed a lawsuit in March that accused a Delaware computer repair shop owner who worked on a laptop of trying to invade Biden’s privacy and wrongfully sharing his personal data for political purposes.

    Source link

  • Trump’s legal team seeks to throw out special grand jury report on 2020 election interference in Georgia | CNN Politics

    Trump’s legal team seeks to throw out special grand jury report on 2020 election interference in Georgia | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Attorneys for former President Donald Trump have asked for a judge to toss the final report and evidence from a special grand jury in Georgia that spent months investigating efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election.

    Trump’s attorneys also are asking that a judge disqualify the Fulton County District Attorney’s office from overseeing the investigation, according to a new court filing.

    “President Donald J. Trump hereby moves to quash the SPGJ’s [special purpose grand jury’s] report and preclude the use of any evidence derived therefrom, as it was conducted under an unconstitutional statute, through an illegal and unconstitutional process, and by a disqualified District Attorney’s Office who violated prosecutorial standards and acted with disregard for the gravity of the circumstances and the constitutional rights of those involved,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in the filing.

    The motion to quash the special grand jury’s work and disqualify the district attorney’s office from pursuing any charges in the case is Trump’s first effort to intervene in the long-running investigation conducted by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, a Democrat. It signals the aggressive approach Trump’s attorneys are likely to take in fighting any potential charges Trump could face.

    So far, no one has been charged in Georgia.

    Willis’ office is considering bringing racketeering and conspiracy charges, CNN reported Monday.

    CNN has requested comment from the Fulton County District Attorney’s office.

    The wide-ranging objections by Trump’s attorneys cover a number of decisions by the judge who oversaw the grand jury, the conduct of the Fulton County district attorney and a variety of interviews last month by the special grand jury’s foreperson.

    A special grand jury investigating Trump and his associates concluded its work in December and a judge overseeing the panel made small slivers of the report public in February. After the partial release, a foreperson for the panel went on a media tour during which she indicated roughly a dozen individuals had been recommended for criminal charges.

    The foreperson, Emily Kohrs, declined to say whether the special grand jury recommended criminal charges for Trump, telling CNN last month: “There may be some names on that list that you wouldn’t expect. But the big name that everyone keeps asking me about – I don’t think you will be shocked.”

    Special grand juries in Georgia can issue subpoenas and collect evidence, such as documents and testimony, but they cannot issue indictments. Instead, they write a final report that includes recommendations on whether anyone should face criminal charges. Then it’s up to the district attorney to decide whether to seek indictments from the regularly seated grand juries.

    Trump’s attorneys raised objections to several issues related to the special grand jury process, including the series of interviews by the foreperson and a recent media interview with other members of the special grand jury, who spoke to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution anonymously.

    “The results of the investigation cannot be relied upon and, therefore, must be suppressed given the constitutional violations,” Trump’s attorneys argued in the new filing. “The foreperson’s public comments in and of themselves likewise violate notions of fundamental fairness and due process and taint any future grand jury pool.”

    Trump’s team also argued that Willis’ office should have been disqualified from overseeing the entire case when we she was blocked from investigating now-Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, a Trump ally who served as a fake elector after the 2020 election. They also took issue with the media interviews Willis has provided.

    “The resulting prejudicial taint cannot be excised from the results of the investigation or any future prosecution,” Trump’s attorneys wrote, adding that the media interviews “violate prosecutorial standards and constitute forensic misconduct, and her social media activity creates the appearance of impropriety compounding the necessity for disqualification.”

    Trump’s legal team raised objections as well with how Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney oversaw the grand jury and interviews he provided after the panel’s work concluded. CNN was among the media outlets to interview McBurney.

    “The Supervising Judge made inappropriate and prejudicial comments relating to the conduct under investigation as well as potential witnesses invocation of the Fifth Amendment,” according to the Trump attorneys. “He improperly applied the law and subsequently denied appellate review while knowing his application of the law in that manner had vast implications on the constitutionality of the investigation.”

    They argued that McBurney was incorrect in determining the special grand jury was a criminal investigative body, a decision that weighed heavily with other judges who forced out-of-state witnesses to comply with subpoenas they received to appear before the panel.

    Source link

  • Trump leadership PAC spent more than $16 million on legal services in 2022 | CNN Politics

    Trump leadership PAC spent more than $16 million on legal services in 2022 | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Donald Trump’s leadership PAC spent more than $16 million on legal services in 2022, according to a tally of the Save America PAC distributions through the end of December. The number represents a massive set of bills from lawyers at a time when the former president faces multiple criminal inquiries, lawsuits and other challenges.

    The money appears to be largely geared toward firms representing Trump and his business and family interests. The disbursements show that Save America PAC paid more than $12.5 million to 16 law firms that have aided in his representation, either in the criminal matters or other legal disputes, according to CNN’s review of the data and additional reporting. Some of those law firms also represent others who’ve been sought out as subjects in the inquiries around Trump.

    The firm of a Trump defense attorney, Alina Habba, took in nearly $2 million from Save America in 2022. Habba Madaio & Associates has represented him opposite a New York State attorney general probe and in other lawsuits.

    Another firm, van der Veen, Hartshorn and Levin, which has lawyers who represented Trump in his 2021 impeachment proceedings and also represented a Trump Organization entity in New York, was paid $1.4 million, according to federal election records. And the two law firms of Trump’s primary criminal defense attorneys, Evan Corcoran and James Trusty, were each paid $1.2 million, Save America PAC reported.

    Some law firms receiving Save America’s payments represent close contacts of Trump’s, such as McGuireWoods, which represents his former chief of staff Mark Meadows.

    The large law firms McGuireWoods and Squire Patton Boggs, which represents former Trump White House speechwriter staffers, received almost $900,000 and $250,000, respectively, while several smaller law firms that represent key witnesses in ongoing investigations received payments into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    In all, nearly 30 law firms received at least $100,000 from Save America PAC.

    Source link

  • CFO of Alex Murdaugh’s former law firm testifies she confronted him about missing funds the morning his wife and son were killed | CNN

    CFO of Alex Murdaugh’s former law firm testifies she confronted him about missing funds the morning his wife and son were killed | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    The double murder trial of Alex Murdaugh continued Thursday with testimony about the disgraced attorney’s alleged financial crimes, which prosecutors have suggested were about to be revealed when Murdaugh allegedly killed his wife and son in an effort to distract from those schemes.

    The testimony of Jeanne Seckinger, the chief financial officer of Murdaugh’s law firm, was heard Thursday morning without the jury present as Judge Clifton Newman weighs whether to allow the state to present the evidence of the alleged financial crimes, for which Murdaugh faces 99 charges separate from the murder case.

    The morning of June 7, 2021 – the same day of the murders – Seckinger confronted Murdaugh about $792,000 in missing funds, she said Thursday, testifying that legal fees should have been made payable to the law firm, then known as PMPED, and not to individual attorneys.

    But Seckinger and other members of the firm realized in May 2021 they had not received a fee check stemming from a settlement signed in a case Murdaugh shared with another attorney, Chris Wilson, Seckinger testified, which was a concern.

    “Either he’s got a check he hasn’t turned into us that is properly payable to PMPED or he’s received a check payable to him,” Seckinger said.

    Seckinger testified she confronted Murdaugh on June 7 and told him she had reason to believe he had received the funds himself and that he needed to prove to her he had not.

    “He assured me that the money was there, and that he could get it,” Seckinger said.

    Prosecutors indicated in pretrial filings they believed Murdaugh killed his wife, Margaret “Maggie” Murdaugh and his 22-year-old son Paul Murdaugh to distract attention from various illicit schemes he was running and which the state contends were about to come to light when they were killed.

    “Ultimately,” prosecutors wrote in a motion, “the murders served as Murdaugh’s means to shift the focus away from himself and buy himself some additional time to try and prevent his financial crimes from being uncovered, which, if revealed, would have resulted in personal legal and financial ruin for Murdaugh.”

    At the time, Murdaugh was facing a lawsuit from the family of 19-year-old Mallory Beach, who was killed in February 2019 when a boat, owned by Murdaugh and allegedly driven by Paul, struck a bridge piling.

    Murdaugh’s financial records – which state court filings said “would expose (Murdaugh) for his years of alleged misdeeds” – could have been disclosed following a hearing in the civil case scheduled for June 10, 2021, three days after the killings.

    Prosecutors’ motion contends the missing $792,000 had already been spent. But the hearing was canceled after Maggie and Paul’s deaths, Seckinger said Thursday, and the firm opted not to confront Murdaugh about the missing money.

    “Alex was distraught and upset and not in the office much” after the killings, Seckinger said. “And nobody wanted to harass him about nothing that we thought was really missing, when we had several months till the end of the year to clear it up. So we were not going to harass him at that point in time.”

    Source link

  • ChatGPT passes exams from law and business schools | CNN Business

    ChatGPT passes exams from law and business schools | CNN Business



    CNN
     — 

    ChatGPT is smart enough to pass prestigious graduate-level exams – though not with particularly high marks.

    The powerful new AI chatbot tool recently passed law exams in four courses at the University of Minnesota and another exam at University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, according to professors at the schools.

    To test how well ChatGPT could generate answers on exams for the four courses, professors at the University of Minnesota Law School recently graded the tests blindly. After completing 95 multiple choice questions and 12 essay questions, the bot performed on average at the level of a C+ student, achieving a low but passing grade in all four courses.

    ChatGPT fared better during a business management course exam at Wharton, where it earned a B to B- grade. In a paper detailing the performance, Christian Terwiesch, a Wharton business professor, said ChatGPT did “an amazing job” at answering basic operations management and process-analysis questions but struggled with more advanced prompts and made “surprising mistakes” with basic math.

    “These mistakes can be massive in magnitude,” he wrote.

    The test results come as a growing number of schools and teachers express concerns about the immediate impact of ChatGPT on students and their ability to cheat on assignments. Some educators are now moving with remarkable speed to rethink their assignments in response to ChatGPT, even as it remains unclear how widespread use is of the tool among students and how harmful it could really be to learning.

    Since it was made available in late November, ChatGPT has been used to generate original essays, stories and song lyrics in response to user prompts. It has drafted research paper abstracts that fooled some scientists. Some CEOs have even used it to write emails or do accounting work.

    ChatGPT is trained on vast amounts of online data in order to generate responses to user prompts. While it has gained traction among users, it has also raised some concerns, including about inaccuracies and its potential to perpetuate biases and spread misinformation.

    Jon Choi, one of the University of Minnesota law professors, told CNN the goal of the tests was to explore ChatGPT’s potential to assist lawyers in their practice and to help students in exams, whether or not it’s permitted by their professors, because the questions often mimic the writing lawyers do in real life.

    “ChatGPT struggled with the most classic components of law school exams, such as spotting potential legal issues and deep analysis applying legal rules to the facts of a case,” Choi said. “But ChatGPT could be very helpful at producing a first draft that a student could then refine.”

    He argues human-AI collaboration is the most promising use case for ChatGPT and similar technology.

    “My strong hunch is that AI assistants will become standard tools for lawyers in the near future, and law schools should prepare their students for that eventuality,” he said. “Of course, if law professors want to continue to test simple recall of legal rules and doctrines, they’ll need to put restrictions in place like banning the internet during exams to enforce that.”

    Likewise, Wharton’s Terwiesch found the chatbot was “remarkably good” at modifying its answers in response to human hints, such as reworking answers after pointing out an error, suggesting the potential for people to work together with AI.

    In the short-term, however, discomfort remains with whether and how students should use ChatGPT. Public schools in New York City and Seattle, for example, have already banned students and teachers from using ChatGPT on the district’s networks and devices.

    Considering ChatGPT performed above average on his exam, Terwiesch told CNN he agrees restrictions should be put in place for students while they’re taking tests.

    “Bans are needed,” he said. “After all, when you give a medical doctor a degree, you want them to know medicine, not how to use a bot. The same holds for other skill certification, including law and business.”

    But Terwiesch believes this technology still ultimately has a place in the classroom. “If all we end up with is the same educational system as before, we have wasted an amazing opportunity that comes with ChatGPT,” he said.

    Source link

  • Bob Bauer: The man behind Biden’s classified documents strategy | CNN Politics

    Bob Bauer: The man behind Biden’s classified documents strategy | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden was facing the prospect of an imminent federal investigation after the discovery of classified documents at his former Washington office in November – and it was up to Bob Bauer, his personal attorney, to break the news to the White House, two sources familiar with the matter said.

    Bauer is now the driving force behind a strategy that has focused on cooperating with investigators and trying to zero out Biden’s legal risk but that has also drawn criticism for worsening the president’s political and PR woes.

    He finds himself at the center of the legal maelstrom swirling below Biden’s presidency – and has managed a drip-drip-drip of bad news for the president in recent months, with four subsequent discoveries of additional documents since that first November 2 search. The latest came following a nearly 13-hour search the FBI carried out at the president’s Wilmington, Delaware, home on Friday with the permission of Biden’s attorneys.

    A veteran Democratic attorney and former White House counsel under President Barack Obama, Bauer has developed a knack for telling powerful people things they need – but don’t necessarily want – to hear, multiple former colleagues said. Part of it lies in his matter-of-fact delivery, they said. The rest comes down to what several described as an unflappable demeanor, even amid spiraling crises.

    “He’s fearless in terms of delivering news to a client,” said Valerie Jarrett, a top Obama adviser who worked alongside Bauer in the White House. “He never blinks. You don’t have to wonder whether or not he’s going to get weak-kneed.”

    And so, when Jarrett and two other senior advisers agreed they had to tell Obama news he “did not want to hear” on what she described as a “highly sensitive and personal matter,” they sought out Bauer.

    Bauer reprised his role as bearer of bad news on November 2. After a White House official transmitted Bauer’s initial heads-up to Biden, Bauer later gave the president a more fulsome briefing, laying out the beginnings of a strategy to navigate the fallout, which continues to guide the White House’s public and private posture and which has come under heated public scrutiny.

    That criticism has focused most acutely on the White House’s first statement earlier this month, which acknowledged the discovery of classified documents at the Penn Biden Center office in November, but omitted the discovery of a second batch of documents at Biden’s Wilmington home in late December.

    “I’m kind of surprised by it because Bob is usually pretty savvy about this stuff,” a former Obama White House official who worked with Bauer said of the critical omission.

    Like the decision not to disclose the initial discovery of classified documents for more than two months, people familiar with the matter said Biden’s team wanted to avoid public disclosures that could be viewed as getting ahead of and undermining DOJ’s investigation.

    For months, Bauer was part of the small circle of aides involved in weighing what to disclose and when. That included lawyers inside the White House, like White House special counsel Richard Sauber, and Anita Dunn, Biden’s top communications adviser and Bauer’s wife. Keeping the information closely held was intentional, even as it risked leaving key messaging advisers out of the loop, because the legal concerns were driving the decision-making process.

    The group aware of the matter remained exceedingly small – even as it expanded to include Biden’s chief of staff Ron Klain and his senior adviser Mike Donilon – until it became inevitable that the president’s team would need to prepare for it to leak out in the media, people familiar with the details said.

    The aides understood that not revealing the discovery of a second batch of documents at Biden’s home in that initial statement would generate criticism, but they decided to adhere to Bauer’s legal strategy – wagering that losing some credibility with the press was less important than losing credibility with DOJ officials, according to a source familiar with the matter. Biden’s team also believed that making a more fulsome disclosure would not have lessened the public furor, the source said.

    Above all, Biden’s team is motivated by a desire to cooperate and draw DOJ’s investigation to a close. That mentality motivated Biden’s team to quickly agree to an FBI search of his Wilmington home, according to a source familiar with the matter, just nine days after Biden’s attorneys carried out their last search of the property.

    That source said Biden’s legal team viewed the FBI search as inevitable, particularly after the discovery of additional documents at the Wilmington home, and decided “the faster this happened, the better.”

    “This is a team that has consistently demonstrated they’re far more interested in the long game than whatever the issue of the day driving Twitter may be,” a second person familiar with the strategic planning said. “There’s an understanding that people outside may not get that, but this isn’t some kind of dramatic shift – it’s where they’ve always been even if it doesn’t satisfy the Beltway crowd.”

    There would be no divergence from the carefully constructed plans to highlight Biden’s agenda and no changes to his day-to-day schedule. Biden officials would publicly highlight the sharp differences between the Biden and Trump documents investigations, with those distinctions also driving their process behind the scenes.

    Weighing heavily on that thinking was a mid-November letter from DOJ’s National Security Division that directed Biden’s legal team not to review or move materials and asked for full cooperation, a source familiar with the matter said, which Biden’s legal team understood as issuing minimal public statements about the ongoing investigation.

    Bauer also wanted to avoid creating a precedent of proactively sharing new information about the case and taking the risk of providing an incomplete picture of an ongoing investigation, the source said – one that DOJ might be compelled to correct.

    In practice, the White House’s incomplete first public statement on the documents not only undercut the administration’s stated commitment to public transparency; it also caused a ripple effect at the Justice Department, where Attorney General Merrick Garland was preparing to name a special counsel.

    Garland had initially planned to leave out details of the investigation during that announcement, according to people briefed on the matter. But the White House’s omission of the Wilmington documents prompted DOJ officials to change course, the people said, and Garland instead laid out a timeline that revealed the second batch of documents had been found weeks earlier – and that the White House knew.

    The White House’s omission of that detail in the initial statement embodied the enduring tension between a legal and communications strategy, and while Bauer’s former colleagues said he was always mindful of both, his focus was on providing the best legal advice.

    “Bob is politically sophisticated – he understands all of that – but when he’s functioning in the role of lawyer, he behaves like one, which is to say he is conservative in securing, safeguarding the legal interests of his client,” said David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to Obama who worked with Bauer at the White House.

    Nearly a dozen former colleagues and friends who spoke with CNN unanimously described Bauer as a brilliant and savvy attorney who is cautious and rarely rattled. They invariably called him “collaborative,” “brilliant” and a true “lawyer’s lawyer” who demonstrated tremendous integrity in his professional life.

    “There is no lawyer in the country who is better equipped to handle a matter like this than Bob Bauer. Full stop,” said Kathy Ruemmler, a former White House counsel who served as Bauer’s principal deputy during the Obama administration.

    “The stakes don’t get any higher than this,” said Ben Ginsberg, a veteran Republican election lawyer and Bauer’s decades-long friendly rival. “But Bob spent 40 years on high-stakes matters and representing presidents, public officials and high-profile candidates. From (Biden’s) perspective, Bob is the right person for this.”

    Biden’s selection of Bauer to serve as his personal attorney was hardly a surprise to people inside the White House.

    Even before serving as general counsel on Biden’s 2020 campaign, where he navigated sexual assault accusations made against Biden by a former Senate staffer, Bauer had been a sounding board and adviser, including when Biden was weighing a run for president following the death of his son Beau in 2015. Bauer worked out an agreement with his law firm to act as an adviser to Biden as he deliberated whether he was ready to mount a bid for the Democratic nomination.

    Bauer took the lead on preparing Biden’s 2020 campaign for what they knew could be a messy Election Day – or even week. Then-President Donald Trump and his allies had made more than clear that if things didn’t go their way, they wouldn’t go down easy. Biden campaign officials – and the candidate himself – relied on what one person described as Bauer’s ability to see through the fogginess as they braced for the deluge of conspiracy theories and lies from their opponent.

    “Biden has always had total confidence in what Bob tells him,” one person familiar with the men’s relationship said. “You don’t hear him second-guessing him, which isn’t really true for the rest of the team.”

    Bauer has also become one of the few people to earn the deep trust of both Obama and Biden, whose innermost circles display little overlap. Bauer has served as personal attorney to both men and was among only a handful of aides who received a thank you in the acknowledgments of Biden’s 2017 memoir.

    Don Verrilli, the former solicitor general who served as Bauer’s deputy when he was White House counsel, witnessed up close Obama’s trust in Bauer. And during Zoom meetings between Biden and members of his vice presidential search committee, which Bauer headed, Verrilli saw a similar trust develop.

    “It was just evident how much respect (Biden) had for Bob and how much he trusted Bob,” Verrilli said.

    Dunn, the White House’s senior adviser for communications, is also among the few to crack both inner circles. Bauer and Dunn now find themselves paired in confronting the Biden documents case. People who have worked with the couple previously say they hold each other’s viewpoints in high regard, even if those don’t always align.

    “If you didn’t know they were married, you wouldn’t know they were married. They’re professionals,” said Ruemmler. “He gives his point of view, she gives her point of view. They don’t always agree.”

    Bauer’s strategy of maximum cooperation could be put to the test as special counsel Robert Hur takes over the case.

    US Attorney John Lausch’s initial review of the Biden’s documents matter was not a full-blown criminal investigation, and he did not use a grand jury. Even an interview with a key witness – Biden attorney Pat Moore, who first discovered the classified material at the Washington office – appears to have been an informal conversation that did not generate a 302 form that the government uses to memorialize interviews.

    Now Hur, who has yet to formally take up the role, is in the process of assembling his team, and legal experts expect he will use a grand jury.

    Biden’s legal team has stressed they plan to continue to cooperate with the investigation, but a source familiar with the matter said disagreements could eventually emerge with the Department of Justice about what future cooperation actually looks like.

    Bauer could, for example, confront the question of whether to make the president available to answer questions from investigators. The White House has not ruled out a presidential interview.

    “We’re not going to get ahead of that process with the special counsel and speculate on what they may or may not want or ask for,” said Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office.

    Source link

  • Trump legal team will look to challenge ‘every potential issue’ once indictment is unsealed | CNN Politics

    Trump legal team will look to challenge ‘every potential issue’ once indictment is unsealed | CNN Politics


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Donald Trump’s legal team will look to challenge “every potential issue” in his indictment once the charges are unsealed, an attorney for the former president said Sunday.

    “We’re not doing anything at the arraignment because that would be showmanship and nothing more because we haven’t even seen the indictment yet. We will take the indictment, we will dissect it, the team will look at every – every – potential issue that we will be able to challenge and we will challenge it,” Joe Tacopina told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”

    Tacopina and other Trump lawyers have done several TV interviews in anticipation of the former President’s first appearance in court Tuesday, when he will learn the charges that the Manhattan grand jury has approved against him.

    At times, the lawyers have vowed to ask for the charges to be dismissed. But the full slate of charges still aren’t known. And crucially, a judge will ultimately determine if the law is sound enough for the case to move forward to trial.

    Former Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance said in an interview with NBC News on Sunday, “We can speculate on what evidence we think they may or may not have, but even with the indictment published, we really will not know what the district attorney’s evidence is and what they would present at trial.”

    Vance’s team investigated the case but did not charge it, leaving it under the purview of his successor, Alvin Bragg.

    Trump faces more than 30 counts related to business fraud in the indictment. The investigation by the Manhattan district attorney’s office began when Trump was still in the White House and relates to a $130,000 payment made by his then-personal attorney Michael Cohen to adult film star Stormy Daniels in late October 2016, days before the presidential election, to silence her from going public about an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier.

    Trump has denied the affair.

    The Trump team’s court strategy could center around challenging the case because it may rely on business record entries that prosecutors tie to hush money payments to Daniels seven years ago, beyond the statute of limitations for a criminal case.

    Tacopina suggested in TV interviews Sunday that the statute of limitations may be passed, and said the Trump businesses didn’t make false entries.

    “They’re not false entries. But assuming they were, they’re misdemeanors way beyond the statute of limitations, so they had to cobble them together to try and get a felony,” he said.

    Tacopina on Sunday also said a request to move the case to a different New York City borough isn’t on the table yet for Trump’s legal team.

    “There’s been no discussion of that whatsoever,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in another interview. “It’s way too premature to start worrying about venue changes until we really see the indictment and grapple with the legal issues.”

    CORRECTION: This story has been updated to correct Cy Vance’s comments to NBC.

    Source link

  • Trump lawyers rail against DOJ in letter, reveal foreign leader briefings may be among classified documents taken from White House | CNN Politics

    Trump lawyers rail against DOJ in letter, reveal foreign leader briefings may be among classified documents taken from White House | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Two of Donald Trump’s defense lawyers now believe that classified briefings of phone calls with foreign leaders were among “all manner of documents” in 15 boxes that Trump returned to the National Archives a year after he left the presidency, according to a new letter his lawyers sent to Congress.

    This organization of the materials “indicates that the White House staff simply swept all documents from the President’s desk and other areas into boxes, where they have resided ever since,” the two lawyers, Timothy Parlatore and Jim Trusty, wrote to the GOP chair of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday.

    Their characterization not only reveals new details about the documents but also comes as part of a broadside against the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump over the classified documents that lays out talking points for Republicans as they try to portray the ongoing probe as politically motivated.

    The lawyers urge Congress to tell the Justice Department to “stand down,” even as special counsel Jack Smith’s probe has shown signs of nearing its end and even though Congress doesn’t have the power to control DOJ criminal investigations.

    Parlatore and Trusty say they reviewed the 15 boxes earlier this year that are now part of the Justice Department’s investigation. They saw placeholder pages where classified documents were removed by the National Archives, according to the letter.

    “The vast majority of the placeholder inserts refer to briefings for phone calls with foreign leaders that were located near the schedule for those calls,” the lawyers wrote.

    The 15 boxes were turned over to the Archives in January 2022. The FBI seized more boxes in August 2022 during a court-authorized search that found more than 100 classified documents, including 18 at the highest “top secret” classification level. Trump’s own legal team later found more classified materials in a search other locations.

    The Justice Department has never said exactly what was in the classified material found in Trump’s possession after the presidency. Trump’s lawyers say in their letter that the Justice Department has refused to tell them whether any of the documents remain classified.

    It’s not clear why at this point in the special counsel’s investigation that the Trump legal team was given access to the boxes turned over to the National Archives to look through them.

    Wednesday’s letter was sent to House Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner, and it represents Trump’s legal team seeking a political lifeline by asking Congress tell the Justice Department to step aside because they believe the intelligence community should conduct the investigation into what happened with the classified documents.

    “DOJ should be ordered to stand down, and the intelligence community should instead conduct an appropriate investigation and provide a full report to this Committee, as well as your counterparts in the Senate,” the lawyers wrote to Turner.

    “This is indicative of the staff’s packing processes and not any criminal intent by President Trump,” the lawyers argued.

    The lawyers also pointed to classified documents since discovered at the residences and offices of President Joe Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence.

    “As demonstrated by the discovery of documents with classification markings in the homes of President Trump, President Biden, and Vice President Pence, deficient document handling and storage procedures are not limited to any individual, administration, or political party,” the lawyers wrote.

    The intelligence community said in August following the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago that it was conducting its own damage assessment of the classified documents that had been retrieved.

    Earlier this month, intelligence leaders in Congress were provided access to some of the classified documents that had been taken from the residences and offices of Trump, Biden and Pence so that Congress could do its own review.

    Trump’s legal team sent Wednesday’s letter to Turner and copied other intelligence leaders in Congress, including the Democratic-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee. Trump’s allies have for years assailed the various probes into the former president, yet even his former attorney general, William Barr, has said the classified documents investigation puts the former president in serious legal jeopardy.

    In a February interview with CNN, Parlatore signaled Trump’s legal strategy, saying that DOJ should be “benched” on matters related to classified material and it should be left up to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to conduct an administrative review of the White House’s procedure for handling such documents at the end of each presidency.

    In Wednesday’s letter, Trump’s lawyers criticized the Justice Department’s handling of the case before the search of Mar-a-Lago, arguing that federal investigators put Trump on the defensive by issuing a grand jury subpoena instead of working cooperatively with Trump.

    The letter also tried to defend a certification made by one of Trump’s attorneys last year following the subpoena. In June 2022, the lawyer, Christina Bobb, signed a certification that Trump had complied with the subpoena by turning over the classified documents in his possession.

    “Ultimately, President Trump’s legal team complied with DOJ’s demands, performing as diligent a search as they could by Mr. (Jay) Bratt’s arbitrary deadline, and submitted a certification that affirmed the same,” the lawyers wrote in Wednesday’s letter.

    “To be clear, the certification stated that a diligent search was conducted, and all responsive documents found were provided — not that the search turned up all possible materials, as many media outlets have falsely characterized the certification as saying,” they added.

    The certification that Bobb signed, however, states that “any and all responsive documents accompany this certification.” Trump did not, however, turn over all classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

    Bobb has since testified to the grand jury, and another attorney who worked on the draft response to the subpoena, Evan Corcoran, was recently forced to testify to the federal grand jury about the response and other discussions with Trump, after prosecutors believed Trump used his attorney to advance a crime.

    Wednesday’s letter also did not note that the FBI’s August 2022 search warrant came after federal investigators were told that Trump directed the movement of boxes from a basement storage room to his residence at Mar-a-Lago following receipt of the subpoena.

    This story has been updated to reflect additional lawmakers copied on the letter from Trump’s lawyers.

    Source link

  • Trump shakes up legal team in wake of classified documents indictment | CNN Politics

    Trump shakes up legal team in wake of classified documents indictment | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump’s legal team is undergoing a significant shakeup in the wake of his indictment in the special counsel’s classified documents probe.

    In a sudden move, Trump announced Friday morning that he was removing two of his top attorneys, Jim Trusty and John Rowley, from the case and said Todd Blanche, a defense lawyer he hired in April after being indicted in Manhattan, would take the lead. Soon after, Trusty and Rowley issued a joint statement in which they said they were resigning from the legal team entirely.

    Trump is considering adding Miami-based attorney Benedict Kuehne to his legal team, a source familiar with the matter told CNN. He has not been formally added to the team yet but could join soon given Trump’s expected court appearance on Tuesday. CNN has reached out to Kuehne for comment.

    Lindsay Halligan, who is barred in the state where Trump was indicted, also remains on the team.

    In their statement, Trusty and Rowley said they were confident Trump will be “vindicated in his battle against the Biden Administration’s partisan weaponization of the American justice system” and said now was a “logical” time for them to step aside with the case having been filed in Miami.

    They added that they do not plan to make media appearances or to reveal conversations they’ve had with Trump. Trusty appeared on CNN just hours after Trump announced that he had been indicted to defend his client but also left open the door to potential changes in the legal team.

    Asked which members of the team would accompany Trump to court Tuesday, Trusty said, “We’ll see. It’ll make some excitement to see who shows up to the table on Tuesday, I guess.”

    Shortly before Friday’s statement was issued by Trusty and Rowley, Trump disclosed on Truth Social that neither would be representing him. He thanked them for their work, saying they “were up against a very dishonest, corrupt, evil, and ‘sick’ group of people,” but did not explain why they were departing.

    Trump’s legal team has seen significant turnover as the investigation into the mishandling of classified documents has unfolded. Last month, Timothy Parlatore, an attorney who played a key role in the investigation and once testified before the grand jury, left Trump’s legal team due to infighting, he told CNN’s Paula Reid.

    Source link