ReportWire

Tag: jack smith

  • Special Counsel Obtained Trump’s Twitter DMs Before Jan. 6 Indictment

    Special Counsel Obtained Trump’s Twitter DMs Before Jan. 6 Indictment

    [ad_1]

    Federal prosecutors obtained many of former President Donald Trump’s direct messages sent on his Twitter account, as well as drafts and deleted missives, according to court papers unsealed Tuesday.

    It’s unclear what information the direct messages may contain or who they were exchanged with. But the revelation, first reported by CNN, adds new details to court documents from last week that first showed Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith’s team had obtained a search warrant for Trump’s Twitter account in January.

    The court papers say that federal prosecutors sought “all content, records and other information” related to Trump’s account covering the period from October 2020 to January 2021 — when his @realDonaldTrump handle was permanently suspended — including drafts and any messages that were liked or retweeted. The dates would encompass the run-up to the 2020 election through the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    The documents stem from court hearings in February after Twitter tried to resist the search warrant, claiming a linked nondisclosure order would violate the company’s First Amendment rights.

    The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia later fined Twitter — now known as X — $350,000 after it delayed complying. The company later turned over the information to Smith’s team.

    But the court filings show U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell excoriated Twitter in February, accusing the company of taking “extraordinary” steps to inform Trump about the search warrant. At one point, Howell asked the company’s lawyers if owner Elon Musk wanted to “make Donald Trump feel like he is a particularly welcomed new renewed user of Twitter?”

    The former president was indicted Aug. 1 on four federal charges related to multiple conspiracies surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol and his efforts to remain in office after losing the 2020 election to Joe Biden.

    Trump attacked Smith on Sunday amid reports of the search warrant, calling the special counsel a “lowlife prosecutor” and accusing the man of breaking into his account “without informing me.”

    “What could he possibly find out that is not already known,” Trump asked on Truth Social, the social media account he established after being suspended from Twitter.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump stiffed his alleged co-conspirators, whose false claims brought in $250 million

    Trump stiffed his alleged co-conspirators, whose false claims brought in $250 million

    [ad_1]

    Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump arrive to speak to police gathered at a Fraternal Order of Police lodge during a campaign event in Statesville, North Carolina, Aug. 18, 2016.

    Carlo Allegri | Reuters

    Several of the attorneys who spearheaded President Donald Trump‘s frenzied effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election tried, and failed, to collect payment for the work they did for Trump’s political operation, according to testimony to congressional investigators and Federal Election Commission records. This is despite the fact that their lawsuits and false claims of election interference helped the Trump campaign and allied committees raise $250 million in the weeks following the November vote, the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot said in its final report.

    Among them was Trump’s closest ally, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Trump and Giuliani had a handshake agreement that Giuliani and his team would get paid by the Trump political operation for their post-election work, according to Timothy Parlatore, an attorney for longtime Giuliani ally Bernard Kerik.

    But the Trump campaign and its affiliated committees ultimately did not honor that pledge, according to campaign finance records. The records show that Giuliani’s companies were only reimbursed for travel and not the $20,000 a day he requested to be paid.

    Parlatore also told CNBC that the Giuliani operation was never compensated for its work. According to Parlatore, the failure to pay Giuliani and his team came up last week in a private interview between prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith’s team and Kerik, a member of Giuliani’s team in late 2020.

    “Lawyers and law firms that didn’t do s— were paid lots of money and the people that worked their ass off, got nothing,” Kerik complained in a 2021 tweet.

    Bob Costello, Giuliani’s attorney, declined to comment further about the agreement, citing privileged conversations between his client and then-President Trump.

    Trump has a long history of not paying his bills. But the revelation that he likely stiffed Giuliani, a longtime friend, is all the more striking given that much of the work Giuliani did for the Trump operation is detailed in a sprawling RICO indictment in Georgia released Monday, in which Giuliani is a co-defendant alongside Trump and 17 other people.

    The indictment details trips Giuliani made, phone calls he placed and meetings he attended, all in service of what prosecutors say was a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election.

    Criminal or not, what is indisputable is that Giuliani and his team did a lot of legal and PR work for Trump. Over more than two months, Giuliani served as the public face of Trump’s election challenges, which ultimately failed.

    Nonetheless, these challenges helped Trump and his allies raise an unprecedented $250 million from small-dollar donors in the weeks following the November election, according to the final congressional report by the House select committee on the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. The money came in response to countless fundraising appeals that claimed it was needed to fund Trump’s election challenges in court.

    Yet instead of paying the lawyers who tried unsuccessfully to overturn his loss, the money went into Trump’s leadership PAC, Save America.

    CNBC Politics

    Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

    According to the final report by the House select committee, “After raising $250 million dollars on false voter fraud claims, mostly from small-dollar donors, President Trump did not spend it on fighting an election he knew he lost.” Trump’s entire political network, including his joint fundraising committees, spent over $47 million combined from the start of 2020 through the end of 2021 on legal fees, according to a report by OpenSecrets.

    Today, that money raised by Trump’s political operation is instead helping Trump pay his own legal bills in the criminal cases against him. Trump’s Save America PAC spent over $20 million in the first half of the year alone on legal fees as the president faced the first two of his four indictments.

    The PAC began the second half of the year with only about $3 million in cash on hand.

    Sidney Powell, an attorney later disavowed by the Trump campaign, participates in a news conference with President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani at the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C., Nov. 19, 2020.

    Jonathan Ernst | Reuters

    Giuliani is not the only unindicted co-conspirator in the special counsel’s election case who got stiffed by the Trump operation.

    Federal Election Commission records and testimony from the House Jan. 6 select committee hearings reveal that none of the private-sector lawyers identified — but not indicted — in that case got paid for their post-election work: Not Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro or John Eastman.

    Giuliani and Eastman wanted a mix of reimbursements and payments, but records show they received virtually none of that money. Powell had to turn to her own law firm to pay her volunteers. All the while, the Trump team raised hundreds of millions of dollars off the false claims of election fraud that Powell and Giuliani promoted on TV and in court.

    Chesebro, for his part, told the House committee that the work he did for the Trump team was pro bono.

    On Monday, all four lawyers entered a new phase in their legal relationship with Trump, when they were charged alongside him in the Georgia RICO case.

    Giuliani, Chesebro, Powell and Eastman were among the more than a dozen other co-defendants in the indictment brought against Trump in Georgia on charges of trying to illegally overturn the 2020 election results in the state and elsewhere.

    Giuliani wanted $20,000 a day

    Matthew Morgan, an election lawyer for the Trump campaign, recalled to the House select committee in 2022 that Giuliani requested $20,000 a day from the Trump political operation to fight the election results. Working five days a week for two months, November and December 2020, this would have amounted to around $800,000 in legal fees.

    But Giuliani never got it. According to federal records, two companies linked to the former New York City mayor got about $100,000 in travel fees and reimbursements from the Trump operation. Kerik’s company saw about $85,000 for travel-related expenses, according to the records. But not a penny more from team Trump for their services.

    Eastman wanted refunds and payment

    Longtime conservative attorney John Eastman had an alleged role in trying to stall the certification of the 2020 election results.

    Attorney John Eastman speaks next to President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, as Trump supporters gather ahead of the president’s speech to contest the certification by Congress of the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election on the Ellipse in Washington, D.C., Jan. 6, 2021.

    Jim Bourg | Reuters

    Morgan told the House select committee that when Eastman first officially came on board in December, he did so on a voluntary basis, but he requested that his expenses be reimbursed by Trump’s team.

    Federal Election Commission records show that Eastman didn’t directly receive a single reimbursement from Trump’s campaign, despite that agreement.

    Shortly after Jan. 6, 2021, Eastman requested payment “for services rendered,” according to Morgan’s testimony to the select committee. Though Morgan did not recall how much Eastman asked for, he said his understanding was that “the services requested was for the totality of all the work he’d done for the campaign.”

    Morgan told the committee that he sent the request to another Trump campaign legal advisor, Justin Clark.

    FEC records show that no payments were ever made by any of Trump’s committees to Eastman.

    Eastman’s attorneys declined to comment.

    The fact that neither Giuliani nor Eastman got paid also reflected a deep rift that emerged after the election between top staffers on Trump’s formal campaign and the small band of lawyers pushing fringe theories of how Trump could overturn his loss.

    A group of Trump campaign leaders and legal minds, occasionally referred to as “Team Normal,” pushed back against the conspiracy theories being peddled by the outside attorneys.

    Ultimately, it was members of “Team Normal” that had a say in the campaign’s purse strings.

    Clark later recounted an email he received on Christmas Eve 2020 from Giuliani associates, seeking payment.

    “What I make of it is that I think these guys were reporting directly to Mr. Giuliani, and when it came time to get paid, they were looking to me to get money, and I was never in the position to be prepared to just write checks to people ….we’re not just going to set money on fire to do stuff,” Clark told the House committee.

    An attorney for Clark declined to comment.

    Powell paid staff through her own firm

    Sidney Powell is the likely third unnamed co-conspirator in Smith’s federal indictment, according to NBC News. She’s also one of the co-defendants in the Georgia case brought against Trump and his allies.

    Powell was one of the leading voices on Fox News shortly after the election, peddling the false claim that voting machine companies Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems were each involved in conspiracies to stop Trump from becoming president.

    Both companies have denied the claims and taken Fox to court. This year, Fox settled the Dominion lawsuit, agreeing to pay the voting machine company an unprecedented $787.5 million. The defamation suit levied against Fox by Smartmatic is still open.

    Powell later told the House select committee that her firm, Sidney Powell P.C., not the Trump campaign, paid assistants who helped her pursue those claims about the election.

    “When money was donated, I wanted to make sure they got paid,” she said in her interview with the House panel. “That’s all I remember about that part. And I paid them.”

    FEC records indicate that no payments from Trump and his allies ever went to Powell’s law firm.

    But her nonprofit group Defending The Republic raised over $16 million since the November 2020 election, according to the group’s 990 tax forms. The group does not reveal its donors, however, and it’s unclear how much of that money ended up in Powell’s personal coffers.

    Powell did not respond to a request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Vows To Keep Talking About Criminal Cases Despite Prosecutors Pushing For Protective Order

    Trump Vows To Keep Talking About Criminal Cases Despite Prosecutors Pushing For Protective Order

    [ad_1]

    WINDHAM, N.H. (AP) — Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday kept up his attacks on special counsel Jack Smith and vowed to continue talking about his criminal cases even as prosecutors sought a protective order to limit the evidence that Trump and his team could share.

    In the early voting state of New Hampshire, Trump assailed Smith as a “thug prosecutor” and a “deranged guy” a week after being indicted on felony charges for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    The former president lobbed the insults at Smith just days after the Department of Justice asked a judge to approve a protective order stopping Trump from publicly disclosing evidence. Federal prosecutors contend that Trump is seeking to “try the case in the media rather than in the courtroom.”

    The judge overseeing the case has scheduled a hearing over the protective order for Friday morning. Trump, after his rally on Tuesday, made a post on his social media network attacking the judge, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan.

    Trump’s lawyers have argued that the prospective order is too broad and would restrict his First Amendment rights of free speech, something Trump echoed on stage Tuesday.

    “I will talk about it. They’re not taking away my First Amendment,” Trump said, speaking to supporters during a rally at a high school in the southeastern New Hampshire town of Windham.

    The former president said he needs to be able to respond to reporters’ questions about the case on the campaign trail — something he has not made a practice of doing — and cited the movie “2000 Mules,” which made various debunked claims about mail ballots, drop boxes and ballot collection in the 2020 presidential election.

    “All of this will come up during this trial,” Trump said.

    In the four-count indictment filed against Trump last week, the Justice Department accused him of orchestrating a scheme to block the peaceful transfer of power. He was told by multiple people in trusted positions that his claims were false, prosecutors said, but he spread them anyway to sow public mistrust about the election.

    Trump, who pleaded not guilty to the charges, repeated his lies about the election on Tuesday, despite the fact that numerous federal and local election officials of both parties, a long list of courts, top former campaign staffers and even his attorney general have all said there is no evidence of the fraud he alleges.

    “There was never a second of any day that I didn’t believe that that election was rigged. It was a rigged election, and it was a stolen disgusting election and this country should be ashamed,” Trump said.

    Trump, who is also facing charges in Florida and New York, is gearing up for a possible fourth indictment, in a case out of Fulton County, Georgia, over alleged efforts by him and his allies to illegally meddle in the 2020 election in that state. The county district attorney, Fani Willis, has signaled that any indictments in the case would likely come this month.

    Trump alluded to that Tuesday, predicting that when it comes to indictments, “I should have four by sometime next week.” He also launched into a highly personal attack on Willis, who is Black, calling the 52-year-old prosecutor “a young woman, a young racist in Atlanta.”

    “She’s got a lot of problems. But she wants to indict me to try to run for some other office,” he said.

    A spokesperson for Willis declined to comment.

    Beyond his criminal cases, Trump faces several civil cases that are working their way through the courts.

    Although he usually boasts that his legal problems only help his campaign prospects, he made a rare admission Tuesday of the toll they are taking. His political operation spent more than $40 million on legal fees so far this year, according to recent campaign finance disclosures.

    Trump, who has portrayed the investigations as politically motivated, said they are forcing him “to spend time and money away from the campaign trail in order to fight bogus made-up accusations and charges.”

    “That’s what they’re doing. ‘I’m sorry, I won’t be able to go to Iowa today. I won’t be able to go to New Hampshire today,’” he said. “Because I’m sitting in a courtroom on bull—-.”

    The crowd cheered and broke into chants of “bull——!”

    Trump smiled and shook his head while he watched the crowd chant.

    “Thank you very much,” he said.

    Price reported from New York. Associated Press writer Kate Brumback in Atlanta contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s attorneys argue for narrower protective order in 2020 election case

    Trump’s attorneys argue for narrower protective order in 2020 election case

    [ad_1]

    Washington — Former President Donald Trump’s legal team said only “genuinely sensitive materials” should be shielded from public view in response to a request from special counsel Jack Smith, who asked a judge to limit what evidence could be publicly shared in the case involving Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. 

    In a 29-page court filing on Monday, Trump attorney Todd Blanche and John Lauro argued for a much narrower protective order than Smith had proposed, saying “a less restrictive alternative that would satisfy any government interest in confidentiality while preserving the First Amendment rights of President Trump and the public.” 

    “In a trial about First Amendment rights, the government seeks to restrict First Amendment rights,” Trump’s attorneys wrote. “Worse, it does so against its administration’s primary political opponent, during an election season in which the administration, prominent party members, and media allies have campaigned on the indictment and proliferated its false allegations.” 

    The defense team said only material deemed “sensitive” — including grand jury information, material derived from sealed search warrants and personal details — should be blocked from public disclosure as the case progresses.

    “President Trump does not contest the government’s claimed interest in restricting some of the documents it must produce, such as those containing Rule 49.1 information and Rule 6 grand jury materials,” the attorneys said, referring to personally identifiable information and grand jury material, respectively. “However, the need to protect that information does not require a blanket gag order over all documents produced by the government. Rather, the Court can, and should, limit its protective order to genuinely sensitive materials.”

    Trump is charged with four criminal counts accusing him of trying to thwart the 2020 election results through several schemes that sought to block the transfer of power to President Biden. Trump has pleaded not guilty.

    In a court filing last Friday, Smith said he was ready to hand over a “substantial” amount of evidence to Trump’s defense team, but asked U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to issue a protective order that would bar Trump and his attorneys from improperly disclosing evidence. The government’s proposed order would apply to “[a]ll materials provided by the United States in preparation for, or in connection with, any stage of this case” and would bar their disclosure beyond the defense team, potential witnesses and their attorneys and others authorized by the court.

    Smith said restrictions on what evidence could be made public are “particularly important in this case” because Trump has posted on social media about “witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him.” 

    He pointed to a Truth Social post from Trump earlier Friday that said, “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” 

    “If the defendant were to begin issuing public posts using details — or, for example, grand jury transcripts — obtained in discovery here, it could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case,” the court filing said.

    Trump’s campaign said in a statement Saturday that the Truth Social post was in response to “dishonest special interest groups” and political committees that have attacked him. 

    Trump’s lawyers also addressed that post in Monday’s filing, saying it “does nothing to support the [government’s] Proposed Order.”

    “The government argues that, based on this post, there is a danger that President Trump might publish grand jury transcripts or other sensitive information,” they said. “A provocative claim when searching for headlines, perhaps, but one that falters under minimal scrutiny.”

    The filing argued that the government “does not explain how a post on a different topic, which does not include or describe sensitive information, suggests President Trump might disseminate such information in the future.”

    The former president’s legal team had sought more time to respond to the government’s request for a protective order, but Chutkan denied the request, keeping in place a Monday afternoon deadline.

    In the hours leading up to the deadline, Trump lashed out at Smith and Chutkan in a series of Truth Social posts. 

    “I shouldn’t have a protective order placed on me because it would impinge upon my right to FREE SPEECH,” Trump said in one.

    Later Monday, Smith asked the judge to reject the defense team’s proposed changes to the protective order, arguing that such changes would allow them “to try this case in the media rather than in the courtroom.” 

    Smith cited Lauro’s appearance on five news programs on Sunday in which he discussed the case, the dispute over the protective order and potential testimony from former Vice President Mike Pence, who is a key witness in the case. Smith also noted that Trump has attacked Pence on social media in recent days. 

    Trump’s legal team’s proposed changes to the protective order would allow them to make public witness interviews that were not conducted during grand jury proceedings, Smith said. 

    “The Court should not grant a protective order that would allow defense counsel or the defendant to disseminate evidence such as snippets of witness interview recordings —no matter how short, misleading, or unlikely to be admissible at trial under the Federal Rules of Evidence— and claim that it supports some position the defendant later may make in pre-trial motions or at trial,” Smith argued. “Such conduct has the potential to unnecessarily inflame public opinion short of all relevant facts, intimidate witnesses, pollute the jury pool, and in general degrade the integrity of proceedings in this Court.” 

    Caitlin Yilek

    Caitlin Yilek is a politics reporter for CBS News Digital. Reach her at caitlin.yilek@cbsinteractive.com. Follow her on Twitter: https://twitter.com/hausofcait

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump lashes out at Justice Department amid indictments

    Trump lashes out at Justice Department amid indictments

    [ad_1]

    Trump lashes out at Justice Department amid indictments – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    In the days after former President Donald Trump’s third criminal indictment, related to his attempts to stay in power following the 2020 election, he continued campaigning and railing against special counsel Jack Smith. Meanwhile, a new CBS News poll finds more than half of Americans believe Trump tried to stay in office through illegal and unconstitutional means. CBS News chief election and campaign correspondent Robert Costa reports from Washington.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • CBS News poll finds after latest Trump indictment, many Americans see implications for democracy. For some, it’s personal

    CBS News poll finds after latest Trump indictment, many Americans see implications for democracy. For some, it’s personal

    [ad_1]

    America’s response to this week’s indictment of Donald Trump is providing a window into more than just how Americans view his alleged actions per se — but also into what they think it means for democracy itself.

    • Half the nation believes Trump tried to stay in office beyond his term through illegal and unconstitutional means. 
    • To most Americans, such an effort would mean undermining democracy.
    • For them and for a majority of Americans overall, the series of indictments and ongoing investigations against Trump are seen as “defending democracy” and “upholding the rule of law.”
    • Just under a third of the country thinks Trump was trying to stay in office through legal, constitutional means — legal, in part because most of them (and including most Republicans) believe Trump’s claim that the election was illegitimate in the first place. 
    • For most Republicans, the series of indictments are also personal, seeing them as “an attack” on people like them — echoing some of Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail. 
    • And big majorities of Republicans think the indictments are an attempt to stop Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.
    trump-plans-after-2020.png

    trump-undermining-democracy.png

    Most Americans generally describe the multiple indictments Trump is now facing as “upholding the rule of law” and “defending democracy.” 

    Most also think they are an effort to stop Trump’s 2024 campaign, boosted by Republicans who are very likely to think so (but this group actually includes some Democrats, too, perhaps seeing that campaign as a threat to democracy in the same way they see Trump’s actions.)

    indictments-and-investigations.png

    A closer look at partisan differences

    There are more strong party splits over what all these indictments mean. Democrats see it as upholding the law. Republicans see it as a political move, and most Republicans see it personally as an attack on people like them, channeling some of Trump’s campaign points.

    indictments-and-investigations-party.png

    There are some differences within the GOP, though: it’s MAGA-identifiers who see the indictments as an attack on people like them. But nearly all Republicans feel the indictments are an attempt to stop the Trump campaign.

    indictments-and-investigations-maga.png

    Most independents, along with large numbers of Democrats, say that if in fact Trump was trying to overturn an election, that would be undermining democracy.

    trump-undermining-democracy-party.png

    Opinion here seems related to what people believe about the 2020 election. Those who think Joe Biden was not legitimately elected — mostly Republicans — tend to think Trump planned to stay in office through legal processes, and some of them think he was upholding democracy.

    As has been the case since he took office, most Republicans have said they don’t think Mr. Biden was legitimately elected.

    biden-legitimate-winner-party.png

    Where might this go next?

    Concern about an attempted overturn, and concern about political motivations, aren’t mutually exclusive. Many Americans are concerned about both when asked to weigh them. 

    But for Republicans, we see overwhelming concern more about the perceived politics, just as we did when we asked about the charges and politics after the classified documents indictment.

    which-concerns-you-more.png

    which-concerns-you-more-party.png

    There’s a group, about a fifth of the country, who aren’t entirely taking party lines in either direction, who do think Biden won legitimately, and also that Trump didn’t act illegally. Some voice concern the charges are political, but four in 10 of them say that if Trump did try to overturn the election, it would be undermining democracy. So, this would be the group to watch if, in fact, a trial gets underway, but right now, they aren’t paying as much attention to the events.

    This CBS News/YouGov survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 2,145 U.S. adult residents interviewed between August 2-4, 2023. The sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, and education based on the U.S. Census American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, as well as past vote. The margin of error is ±2.9 points. 

    Toplines

    Anthony Salvanto


    Anthony Salvanto

    Anthony Salvanto, Ph.D., is CBS News’ director of elections and surveys. He oversees all polling across the nation, states and congressional races, and heads the CBS News Decision Desk that estimates outcomes on election nights. He is the author of “Where Did You Get This Number: A Pollster’s Guide to Making Sense of the World,” from Simon & Schuster (a division of Paramount Global), and appears regularly across all CBS News platforms. His scholarly research and writings cover topics on polling methodology, voting behavior, and sampling techniques.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Justice Department requests protective order in Trump election interference case to limit his public comments

    Justice Department requests protective order in Trump election interference case to limit his public comments

    [ad_1]

    The Justice Department has asked a federal judge overseeing the criminal case against former President Donald Trump in Washington to step in after he released a post online that appeared to promise revenge on anyone who goes after him.

    Prosecutors on Friday requested that U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan issue a protective order concerning evidence in the case, a day after Trump pleaded not guilty to charges of trying to overturn his 2020 election loss and block the peaceful transition of power. The order, different from a “gag order,” would limit what information Trump and his legal team could share publicly about the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith.

    Chutkan on Saturday gave Trump’s legal team until 5 p.m. Monday to respond to the government’s request. Trump’s legal team, which has indicated he would look to slow the case down despite prosecutors’ pledge of a speedy trial, then filed a request to extend the response deadline to Thursday and to hold a hearing on the matter, saying it needed more time for discussion.

    Chutkan swiftly denied that extension request Saturday evening, reaffirming that Trump must abide by Monday’s deadline.

    Protective orders are common in criminal cases, but prosecutors said it’s “particularly important in this case” because Trump has posted on social media about “witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him.”

    Prosecutors pointed specifically to a post on Trump’s Truth Social platform from earlier Friday in which Trump wrote, in all capital letters, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!”

    Prosecutors said they are ready to hand over a “substantial” amount of evidence — “much of which includes sensitive and confidential information” — to Trump’s legal team.

    They told the judge that if Trump were to begin posting about grand jury transcripts or other evidence provided by the Justice Department, it could have a “harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”

    Prosecutors’ proposed protective order seeks to prevent Trump and his lawyers from disclosing materials provided by the government to anyone other than people on his legal team, possible witnesses, the witnesses’ lawyers or others approved by the court. It would put stricter limits on “sensitive materials,” which would include grand jury witness testimony and materials obtained through sealed search warrants.

    A Trump spokesperson said in an emailed statement that the former president’s post “is the definition of political speech,” and was made in response to “dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs.”

    Chutkan, a former assistant public defender nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, has been one of the toughest punishers of rioters who stormed the Capitol in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack, fueled by Trump’s baseless claims of a stolen election.

    The indictment unsealed this past week accuses Trump of brazenly conspiring with allies to spread falsehoods and concoct schemes intended to overturn his election loss to Democrat Joe Biden as his legal challenges floundered in court.

    The indictment chronicles how Trump and his allies, in what Smith described as an attack on a “bedrock function of the U.S. government,” repeatedly lied about the results in the two months after he lost the election and pressured his vice president, Mike Pence, and state election officials to take action to help him cling to power.

    Trump faces charges including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and conspiracy to obstruct Congress’ certification of Biden’s electoral victory.

    It’s the third criminal case brought this year against the early front-runner in the 2024 Republican presidential primary. But it’s the first case to try to hold Trump responsible for his efforts to remain in power during the chaotic weeks between his election loss and the attack by his supporters on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    Smith has also charged Trump in Florida federal court with illegally hoarding classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and thwarting government efforts to get them back.

    The magistrate judge, in that case, agreed to a protective order in June that prohibits Trump and his legal team from publicly disclosing evidence turned over to them by prosecutors without prior approval. Prosecutors are seeking another protective order in that case with more rules about the defense team’s handling of classified evidence.

    Trump is scheduled to stand trial in March in the case brought by the Manhattan district attorney stemming from alleged “hush-money” payments made during the 2016 campaign. The Manhattan district attorney has charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records. 

    Trump is scheduled to stand trial in May in the classified documents case.  

    After his court appearance on Thursday in the Washington case, Trump characterized the prosecution as a “persecution” designed to hurt his 2024 presidential campaign. His legal team has described it as an attack on his right to free speech and his right to challenge an election that he believed had been stolen.

    Smith has said prosecutors will seek a “speedy trial” against Trump in the election case. Judge Chutkan has ordered the government to file a brief by Thursday proposing a trial date. The first court hearing in front of Chutkan is scheduled for Aug. 28.  

    Meanwhile, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is also nearing a charging decision this month in her investigation into 2020 election interference in the state of Georgia. Road closures will take effect around the courthouse beginning next week in preparation, according to the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office.    

    Addressing the Alabama Republican Party summer dinner Friday night, Trump continued to escalate his rhetoric against Smith, calling him a “deranged, sick person,” and accusing federal and local prosecutors, without providing any proof, of “election interference.”

    “Every one of these many fake charges filed against me by the corrupt Biden DOJ could have been filed two-and-a-half years ago,” Trump said. “But they waited and waited until I became a dominant force in the polls.”

    Ahead of his appearance, the Trump campaign released a new ad dubbed the “Fraud Squad” which negatively depicts Smith, Willis and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The ad is expected to run nationally, including in Washington, Atlanta and New York, according to a Trump aide.   

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What Trump’s Jan. 6 arraignment means for the nation

    What Trump’s Jan. 6 arraignment means for the nation

    [ad_1]

    What Trump’s Jan. 6 arraignment means for the nation – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Donald Trump once again found himself being arraigned in federal court — this time accused of trying to overturn the 2020 election results. CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett breaks down Thursday’s arraignment, and what this case means for the nation.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Harvard Law Professor Spots 1 Major Flaw In Case Against Trump

    Harvard Law Professor Spots 1 Major Flaw In Case Against Trump

    [ad_1]

    Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe called the indictment against Donald Trump “brilliant,” but said there’s one factor that could render the whole thing moot: Timing.

    “I do think that [Attorney General] Merrick Garland did not proceed as fast as he might have,” Tribe said on MSNBC on Tuesday evening.

    As a result, the case against Trump over his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol could drag on into the next presidency.

    “If the next presidency is held either by Donald Trump or by one of his acolytes or by virtually any Republican, there is the horrible prospect that this will all be wiped away,” he said. “And that it will be relegated to a kind of a historic footnote.”

    Tribe said it’s a reminder of how “vulnerable and fragile” the legal system is.

    “We have a system that might go too slowly, that might be too opaque,” he said. “And a system that is not at all guaranteed to triumph over politics.”

    See his full discussion with MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell below:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rep. Jamie Raskin Dismantles Trump’s ‘Comical’ New Jan. 6 Claim

    Rep. Jamie Raskin Dismantles Trump’s ‘Comical’ New Jan. 6 Claim

    [ad_1]

    Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) called the latest claim by an attorney for Donald Trump “just comical” after the former president was indicted on Tuesday on four counts related to the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol.

    John Lauro, an attorney for Trump, called the indictment “an attack on free speech and political advocacy” during a CNN interview.

    But Raskin said on MSNBC that Trump’s speech has nothing to do with it.

    It’s his actions that led to the indictment.

    “You have a right to say, for example, ‘Oh, I think that the meeting of the House and the Senate in joint session to count Electoral College votes is a fraud or is taking away Donald Trump’s presidency.’ You can say whatever you want,” Raskin said. “But the minute you actually try to obstruct the meeting of Congress, you crossed over from speech to conduct.”

    He offered another example:

    “It’s like, y’know, you can say, ‘Well, I think the currency is phony and everybody should be allowed to make up their own money.’ You can say that. But the minute you start printing your own money, now you’ve run afoul of the counterfeit laws. And it’s the exact same thing with the Electoral College.”

    In this case, he said, Trump didn’t simply express ideas about the election with his debunked claims of fraud but also assembled “counterfeit electors” to attempt to substitute for the real electors.

    “At that point, they’ve crossed over from speech to conduct,” he said.

    Raskin said the Jan. 6 committee last year accused Trump of aiding and abetting and giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists ― but special counsel Jack Smith didn’t charge the former president on that count.

    He said he believes it so prosecutors don’t have to argue on grounds of speech and can focus entirely on conduct.

    Raskin called the evidence against the former president “overwhelming.”

    See more of his discussion on MSNBC below:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Trump’s 3rd indictment impacts 2024 campaign

    How Trump’s 3rd indictment impacts 2024 campaign

    [ad_1]

    How Trump’s 3rd indictment impacts 2024 campaign – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    While former President Donald Trump’s third indictment takes center stage, the race for 2024 continues. A New York Times-Siena College poll has Trump with a 37-point lead over Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis among Republican voters surveyed. CBS News political director Fin Gómez joined to examine what kind of impact the latest criminal charges against Trump could have on the campaign — if any.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Special counsel Jack Smith announces new Trump charges, calling Jan. 6 an

    Special counsel Jack Smith announces new Trump charges, calling Jan. 6 an

    [ad_1]


    CBS News Live

    Live

    Washington — Special counsel Jack Smith announced new charges against former President Donald Trump stemming from his office’s investigation into Trump’s efforts to stay in power after he lost the 2020 election, saying the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol was “fueled by lies.”

    “The attack on our nation’s Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy,” Smith said in a brief remarks after the release of the 45-page indictment detailing the charges. “As described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies. Lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the U.S. government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election.”

    US-JUSTICE-POLITICS-TRUMP
    Special counsel Jack Smith speaks to members of the media at the Department of Justice building in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 1, 2023.

    SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images


    Trump is charged with with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. 

    Smith’s investigation has examined efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn President Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, including the events that led up to the Jan. 6 attack. Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and claimed Smith is politically biased.

    It’s the second indictment against Trump stemming from Smith’s investigations into the former president. He is also charged with conspiracy, obstruction and willfully retaining national defense information for his alleged mishandling of classified documents after he left the White House. Trump has pleaded not guilty.

    Caitlin Yilek

    Caitlin Yilek is a politics reporter for CBS News Digital. Reach her at caitlin.yilek@cbsinteractive.com. Follow her on Twitter: https://twitter.com/hausofcait

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump indicted by grand jury in special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 investigation

    Trump indicted by grand jury in special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 investigation

    [ad_1]


    CBS News Live

    Live

    Washington — Former President Donald Trump has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges stemming from efforts to remain in power after he lost the 2020 presidential election, adding to the former president’s ongoing legal troubles as he mounts a third bid for the White House.

    According to the indictment handed up Tuesday by a federal grand jury, Trump faces four charges: conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.

    “From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 20, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant, Donald J. Trump, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the grand jury, to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States — that is, the right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted,” the indictment states. 

    The indictment lists six unnamed co-conspirators, who, the indictment alleges were “enlisted” to assist Trump in “his criminal efforts to overturn” the election “and retain power.”

    Trump has been summoned to appear at 4 p.m. on Thursday before Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya at the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C.

    This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pro-Trump PAC spent over $40 million on legal bills for Trump and aides in 2023

    Pro-Trump PAC spent over $40 million on legal bills for Trump and aides in 2023

    [ad_1]

    Trump campaigns amid legal troubles


    Trump campaigns in Iowa and Pennsylvania as legal troubles mount

    01:58

    Save America, the political action committee founded by former President Donald Trump, has spent more than $40 million on legal fees for Trump and his allies on multiple legal cases in the first six months of 2023, a source familiar with the PAC’s upcoming public filing confirmed to CBS News.

    The PAC is expected to officially disclose that information and other expenditures in its semi-annual Federal Election Commission filing on Monday. The Washington Post first reported the figure. 

    The more than $40 million figure in half a year represents a sharp increase in the PAC’s legal service spending, which came in at over $16 million across all of 2021 and 2022 combined, according to a previous FEC filing. 

    Earlier this year, the Trump campaign noted in fine print that it was increasing the percentage of supporters’ donations it sent to Trump’s Save America PAC from 1% to 10%, as the New York Times first reported in June. 

    Before Trump announced he was running for reelection in November 2022, the Republican National Committee paid many of the former president’s legal bills. But in November, RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel told CNN the committee could not pay the former president’s legal bills if he announced a 2024 presidential bid, which he shortly thereafter did. 

    Trump has made varying claims about his net worth over the years. As of May, Forbes estimated the former president’s net worth at $2.5 billion. 

    Trump has already been indicted on multiple counts and his biggest legal battles are only intensifying. The New York “hush money” case trial won’t get going until March, at the earliest, and he won’t face trial until at least May in the Mar-a-Lago documents case, as currently scheduled. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all counts in both cases.

    The former president could also be facing more indictments. He said on social media earlier in July that he received a target letter from special counsel Jack Smith related to the Jan. 6 investigation and alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, and multiple sources confirmed the post was accurate. In Fulton County, Georgia, a grand jury has also been investigating attempts to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 presidential election in that state. 

    Fin Gómez


    fin-gomez.jpg

    Fin Gómez is CBS News’ political director.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump could face conspiracy, witness tampering charges in Jan. 6 probe

    Trump could face conspiracy, witness tampering charges in Jan. 6 probe

    [ad_1]

    Trump could face conspiracy, witness tampering charges in Jan. 6 probe – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    CBS News has learned more details about a target letter sent to former President Donald Trump informing him he’s the subject of a Justice Department investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. A senior Trump source confirmed the letter highlights three federal statutes. CBS News congressional correspondent Scott MacFarlane reports on the potential charges Trump could face, including conspiracy to commit an offense or to defraud the U.S.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 7/18: CBS Evening News

    7/18: CBS Evening News

    [ad_1]

    7/18: CBS Evening News – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Trump receives target letter in Jan. 6 investigation; Powerball jackpot hits $1 billion

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 7/18: Prime Time with John Dickerson

    7/18: Prime Time with John Dickerson

    [ad_1]

    7/18: Prime Time with John Dickerson – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    John Dickerson reports on Donald Trump facing another potential indictment, an American soldier detained in North Korea, and an update on the murder case of Tupac Shakur.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump receives target letter in Jan. 6 investigation

    Trump receives target letter in Jan. 6 investigation

    [ad_1]

    Trump receives target letter in Jan. 6 investigation – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Former President Donald Trump has received a target letter from special counsel Jack Smith regarding the investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The letter could signal an indictment is forthcoming. Robert Costa reports.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Don Bacon discusses Trump target letter, defense spending bill and more

    Don Bacon discusses Trump target letter, defense spending bill and more

    [ad_1]

    Don Bacon discusses Trump target letter, defense spending bill and more – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Reaction from Capitol Hill is pouring in following former President Donald Trump’s social media post saying he’s been informed by special counsel Jack Smith that he is a target of the investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska joined “America Decides” to discuss the target letter and the fight over controversial amendments in the defense spending bill.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump opposes quick trial date in classified documents case

    Trump opposes quick trial date in classified documents case

    [ad_1]

    Walt Nauta (L), a US Navy veteran and a White House military valet to former US president Donald Trump, and Stanley Woodward (R), lawyer, arrive at the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building on July 06, 2023 in Miami, Florida.

    Eva Marie Uzcategul | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images

    Former President Donald Trump on Monday night asked a federal court to hold off on setting a date for the criminal trial over his handling of classified documents, arguing that the unprecedented case requires “a measured consideration and timeline.”

    Attorneys for Trump and Walt Nauta, the former president’s valet and co-defendant, also noted that it will be “challenging” for them to prepare for a trial before the Nov. 5, 2024, presidential election, for which Trump is seeking the Republican nomination.

    “There is simply no question any trial of this action during the pendency of a Presidential election will impact both the outcome of that election and, importantly, the ability of the Defendants to obtain a fair trial,” the attorneys argued.

    Their joint court filing in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida came in response to the Department of Justice, which had already asked the court to delay the start of the trial by nearly four months to mid-December.

    Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, had initially scheduled the former president’s criminal trial to start on Aug. 14. Court watchers and legal experts widely expect that the trial will be postponed to a much later date to give the parties adequate time to prepare.

    Nauta had only recently pleaded not guilty to the six counts against him because his arraignment was twice delayed. Nauta is charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding and corruptly concealing documents, and making false representations. Trump was arraigned weeks earlier, pleading not guilty to 37 criminal counts.

    The sensitive subject matter at the heart of the case could also lengthen the timeline. Since it centers on the top secret documents stored at Trump’s residence, the case and eventual trial will need to adhere to the federal statute that governs how the proceedings will play out.

    The Justice Department and Nauta’s lawyers had clashed earlier Monday about when a pre-trial hearing focused on that statute, called the Classified Information Procedures Act or CIPA, should take place. The DOJ opposed Nauta’s request to delay that hearing, which was set for Friday, arguing it was unnecessary.

    In a subsequent filing Monday evening, Trump’s attorneys said they had struck an agreement with the DOJ to hold the CIPA hearing Tuesday, July 18.

    This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.

    [ad_2]

    Source link