ReportWire

Tag: testimony

  • Donald Trump and his adult children are listed as potential witnesses in NY fraud case | CNN Politics

    Donald Trump and his adult children are listed as potential witnesses in NY fraud case | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Donald Trump, his adult children, and his closest business advisers could be called to testify during the civil fraud trial expected to begin next week in New York.

    The former president is listed on the witness lists submitted by the New York attorney general and Trump’s legal team.

    Placing someone on a potential witness list does not mean that person will be called to testify. Attorneys for both sides need to be inclusive on their witness lists of any potential person they might want to call, or the judge could exclude the testimony.

    Trump previously sat for a deposition in the case and said he had little “if any” role in preparing the financial statements that a New York judge ruled earlier this week were fraudulent.

    Also on both lists are Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, who are both defendants in the case, and numerous current and former Trump Organization employees, including former chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg. Most of the witnesses have also testified in videotaped depositions.

    In civil cases, defendants can be called to testify and if they refuse, the jury, or in this case Judge Arthur Engoron, can use that against them in weighing the evidence.

    The New York attorney general’s office identified 28 witnesses they could call in the case, including Michael Cohen and Ivanka Trump. Ivanka Trump was initially a defendant in the case, but a New York appeals court struck her from the lawsuit saying the claims brought against her were too old.

    Trump’s attorneys identified 127 possible witnesses that they would call, including some of the lenders behind the loans at issue in the lawsuit.

    The case is scheduled to start Monday. Engoron will decide how much money the Trumps would pay the state after finding the former president and his business engaged in a persistent fraud by using inflated financial statements for nearly a decade.

    The state is also seeking to prove the Trumps engaged in insurance fraud and falsified business records. Engoron has set aside nearly three months for the trial.

    An appeals court ruling is expected as soon as Thursday that could potentially impact the trial start date.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US regulator seeks court order to compel Elon Musk to testify about his Twitter acquisition | CNN Business

    US regulator seeks court order to compel Elon Musk to testify about his Twitter acquisition | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    The US Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday applied for a court order to force Elon Musk to testify in an ongoing probe related to his acquisition of Twitter and public disclosures he made in connection with the deal, according to court filings.

    The filing Thursday in San Francisco federal court seeks a judge’s order requiring Musk to testify, alleging “blatant refusal to comply” with an earlier SEC subpoena.

    X, the company formerly known as Twitter, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The SEC action is the latest turn in a long-running inquiry into whether Musk fully complied with his disclosure obligations when he began acquiring large amounts of Twitter stock, prior to his deal to buy the company. And it underscores years of friction between Musk and the agency over his public comments on numerous matters involving his companies.

    Musk began buying up large amounts of Twitter stock in early 2022, and he revealed on April 4 of that year that he had become the company’s largest shareholder. Later that month, Musk inked a deal to buy the platform for $44 billion and — after a monthslong legal battle attempting to exit the deal — officially closed the acquisition in October of last year. Musk has faced a number of legal challenges related to his Twitter acquisition in the months since his takeover.

    Musk testified twice as part of the SEC’s investigation in July 2022, according to the agency.

    Starting that same month, Musk produced “hundreds of documents” to federal investigators working on the probe, “including documents Musk authored,” according to a declaration by an SEC attorney filed alongside the agency’s court request.

    The SEC served Musk with a subpoena to testify again in the matter in May 2023, according to the court filing. The current subpoena at issue seeks evidence and testimony from Musk that the SEC does not yet possess, the agency said.

    Despite previously agreeing to testify on September 15 and rescheduling the testimony once, Musk “abruptly notified the SEC” two days before his scheduled appearance to say he would not be showing up, the filing states.

    The SEC attempted to negotiate with Musk to find alternative dates later this fall, according to court documents.

    “These good faith efforts were met with Musk’s blanket refusal to appear for testimony,” it adds.

    “The subpoena with which Musk failed to comply relates to an ongoing nonpublic investigation by the SEC,” the filing continued, “regarding whether, among other things, Musk violated various provisions of the federal securities laws in connection with (1) his 2022 purchases of Twitter, Inc (“Twitter”) stock, and (2) his 2022 statements and SEC filings relating to Twitter.”

    When Musk informed the SEC he would not be appearing to testify, his lawyer, Alex Spiro, wrote to the agency on September 13, saying Musk had “already sat for testimony twice in this matter” and that “enough is enough.”

    Spiro’s letter, which was included as an exhibit in the SEC’s court filings, accused regulators of seeking Musk’s testimony in bad faith and attempting to waste Musk’s time.

    In addition, Spiro claimed that the recent release of Walter Isaacson’s biography of Musk would interfere because it contained “new information potentially relevant to this matter” that would take time for both sides to digest.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Michael Cohen to take stand in fraud trial of his former boss, Donald Trump | CNN Politics

    Michael Cohen to take stand in fraud trial of his former boss, Donald Trump | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Michael Cohen was once one of Donald Trump’s most loyal allies.

    But after going to jail for tax crimes and lying to Congress, Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and “fixer,” became a star witness against his former boss, testifying before Congress about the hush-money payments he made to women claiming affairs with Trump and writing books highly critical of the former president.

    Tuesday, Trump and Cohen are expected to be face to face in a New York courtroom as Cohen delivers testimony as part of the New York attorney general’s civil fraud case against the former president.

    When Cohen takes the stand, he will face down a very angry Donald Trump. It’s the first time the two have been in the same room or even spoken in five years, according to multiple sources.

    “It appears that I will be reunited with my old client @realDonaldTrump when I testify this Tuesday, October 24th at the @NewYorkStateAG civil fraud trial. See you there!” Cohen posted last week on the social media site Threads.

    Cohen’s testimony is the latest high-profile moment in the civil fraud trial, in which New York Attorney General Letitia James is seeking to bar Trump from doing business in the state. While Trump has played only a passive role in the trial to date, he is expected to be called as a witness later on.

    Michael Cohen reacts to testimony about Eric Trump

    Trump voluntarily attended the civil trial’s opening days, and the former president returned last week, when Cohen was initially supposed to be called to testify, though Cohen’s appearance was delayed after he cited a medical issue.

    Trump is also returning to the courtroom after he was fined $5,000 last week by Judge Arthur Engoron – and warned about possible imprisonment – for violating a gag order not to speak about any members of the court staff. Engoron fined Trump over a social media post attacking Engoron’s clerk that had not been removed from Trump’s campaign website.

    Cohen is expected to testify about meetings with former Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg and Trump regarding Trump’s financial statements and net worth. Cohen has claimed there were meetings with Weisselberg and Trump about Trump’s net worth before the financial statements were filed. Weisselberg testified earlier in the trial, “I don’t believe it ever happened, no.”

    The attorney general’s office has said Cohen’s testimony before the House Oversight Committee in February 2019 – when Cohen alleged that officials at the Trump Organization inflated the value of its assets to secure loans and insurance and that they lowered the values for tax benefits – was the impetus for its investigation that led to the lawsuit against Trump.

    Assistant Attorney General Colleen Faherty is expected to question Cohen on direct examination.

    Cohen’s testimony is also a crucial part of the criminal case against Trump brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who charged Trump earlier this year with falsifying business records related to the hush-money payments.

    Cohen testified before Congress in 2019 about Trump’s involvement in the hush-money scheme involving both former Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult-film star Stormy Daniels, who alleged having affairs with Trump (Trump has denied the affairs). Cohen even released a recording in which he and Trump can be heard discussing how they would buy the rights to McDougal’s story.

    Tuesday’s testimony, however, is expected to focus not on the hush-money payments but on Trump’s financial statements. Before Cohen testifies, the first witness will be Bill Kelly, the general counsel of Mazars, Trump’s onetime accounting firm.

    The trial is now in its fourth week. The attorney general’s office has called 12 witnesses to testify, including six current or former Trump Organization employees, two of whom are defendants in the case: Weisselberg and former Controller Jeff McConney.

    Trump’s lawyers have cross-examined only about half the witnesses so far, opting to reserve their right to call them in the defense case. Engoron set aside more than three months for the trial, which could continue through late December.

    An appraiser for Cushman & Wakefield testified last week that Trump’s son Eric Trump was closely involved in several appraisal consultations with the real estate firm for Trump assets Seven Springs and Trump National Golf Club in Briarcliff Manor, New York, that valued the properties substantially lower than the amounts that appeared on Trump’s financial statements in those years.

    Eric Trump said in a deposition for the case that he didn’t remember being involved in any appraisals for Trump properties.

    The attorneys are scheduled to argue at a hearing Friday morning whether Ivanka Trump, the former president’s daughter, can be forced to testify at trial even though an appellate court dismissed her as a defendant because the claims against her were too old.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Giuliani and election fraud promoters didn’t vet claims, new court documents show | CNN Politics

    Giuliani and election fraud promoters didn’t vet claims, new court documents show | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    New court filings in a defamation lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani show the promoters of the election fraud narrative after Donald Trump lost the presidency failed to do basic vetting of the claims they were touting – and didn’t see such vetting as necessary.

    For instance, in a December 2020 text cited in Tuesday’s filing, Trump lawyer Boris Epshteyn said that the president wanted simple examples of election fraud, which didn’t need to be proven.

    “Urgent POTUS request need best examples of ‘election fraud’ that we’ve alleged that’s super easy to explain,” Epshteyn wrote, according to evidence attached to the filing. “Doesn’t necessarily have to be proven, but does need to be easy to understand. Is there any sort of ‘greatest hits’ clearinghouse that anyone has for best examples?”

    The documents were among a trove of evidence presented by two Georgia election workers suing Giuliani, a former Trump lawyer, for allegedly smearing them after the 2020 election. They are now asking a federal court to hold Giuliani liable for possibly losing crucial evidence after he pulled out of settlement talks.

    Giuliani is feeling legal pressure related to his work for Trump to contest the election in 2020, after he sat for interviews with the special counsel’s criminal investigation in June and faces possible disbarment as an attorney. The evidence in the lawsuit from Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss of Georgia, who were at the center of Giuliani’s claims that vote-counting was fraudulent in the state, includes documents that could be pursued by criminal investigators as well.

    Freeman and Moss’s attorneys allege Giuliani never took necessary steps to preserve his electronic data after the election. They say Giuliani testified in a deposition that he had used multiple cell phones, email addresses and other communications applications after the election, but hadn’t looked thoroughly through those records in the course of the lawsuit. Instead, he said his phones had been “wiped out” after the FBI seized them in April 2021 as part of a separate criminal investigation.

    “Sanctions exist to remedy the precise situation here—a sophisticated party’s abuse of judicial process designed to avoid accountability, at enormous expense to the parties and this Court. Defendant Giuliani should know better. His conduct warrants severe sanctions,” Moss and Freeman’s attorneys wrote to the federal court on Tuesday night.

    Giuliani already was fined $90,000 to reimburse the Georgia workers’ attorneys for a previous dispute they had over evidence gathering.

    In recent days, Giuliani’s attorney approached Freeman and Moss’ lawyers to discuss an “agreement,” or at least a partial settlement, according to court filings. On Monday, however, Giuliani told them he couldn’t agree to “key principles” both sides had negotiated, keeping the lawsuit alive, according to the latest filing.

    In a statement, Giuliani adviser Ted Goodman said the plaintiffs are attempting to “embarrass” the former mayor.

    “The requests by these lawyers were deliberately overly burdensome, and sought information well beyond the scope of this case—including divorce records—in an effort to harass, intimidate and embarrass Mayor Rudy Giuliani,” Goodman said. “It’s part of a larger effort to smear and silence Mayor Giuliani for daring to ask questions, and for challenging the accepted narrative. They can’t take away the fact that Giuliani is objectively one of the most effective prosecutors in American history who took down the Mafia, cleaned up New York City and comforted the nation following 9/11.”

    The plaintiffs’ lawyers have deposed key players like Bernie Kerik, who was tasked with helping Giuliani to collect supposed fraud evidence; Christina Bobb, the then-OANN correspondent who moonlighted as a legal adviser to the Trump team; and Giuliani himself.

    In excerpts of a deposition Giuliani gave in the case, the former New York mayor says that he cannot recall running a criminal background check to firm up a claim he made that Freeman had an arrest record and a history of voter fraud.

    “You didn’t think it was important to do that before you accused them of having a criminal background?” the plaintiffs’ lawyer asked Giuliani, referring to his clients.

    “I just repeated what I was told,” Giuliani said.

    In the litigation, his attorneys have acknowledged that she had no such criminal record, but Giuliani said in the March 1 deposition that he had only in recent days asked Kerik to run a criminal background check on her.

    Giuliani was also questioned about a strategic plan – partially tweeted out by Kerik in late December 2020 – that laid out several claims of voter fraud across the country. According to evidence obtained by the plaintiffs described in the Giuliani deposition, Giuliani had noted that the communications plan needed “confirmation of arrest and evidence.”

    Giuliani testified that he believed that, before the allegations were handed to the White House, they should be confirmed. But Giuliani could not say for sure whether the uncorroborated version of the claims was ultimately shared with the White House.

    “This is so confusing, I don’t know what they told the White House,” Giuliani said in the deposition, adding that “I was not at the meeting, by design.”

    In the deposition excerpts, Giuliani goes to great lengths to distance himself from the so-called “Strategic Communications Plan of the Giuliani Presidential Legal Defense Team.” Kerik, meanwhile, testified in his deposition for the lawsuit that Giuliani was aware of the strategic communications plan, which was focused on getting allegations of election fraud in front of state legislators. According to Kerik, the plan and allegations were continually discussed over six weeks.

    The plaintiffs are also touting examples of when Giuliani, according to what they have collected, was made aware that some of the allegations he was making about supposed election fraud in Georgia were false.

    In one email they obtained that was sent to his assistant in December 2020, a Fox News reporter asked Giuliani for comment on statements by an investigator in the Georgia secretary of state’s office that debunked the claims Trump allies were making about the Georgia election workers.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prince Harry gives tense testimony in historic courtroom battle against British media | CNN Business

    Prince Harry gives tense testimony in historic courtroom battle against British media | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Prince Harry has become the first senior British royal to give evidence on a witness stand in 132 years, as his bitter fight against the UK’s tabloid press came to a head in tense courtroom showdown on Tuesday.

    Harry is suing a big British newspaper group, Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), alleging the publisher’s journalists hacked his phone and used other illicit means to gather information about his life between 1996 and 2009.

    Follow live updates from the courtroom here.

    As the landmark hearing got underway at the High Court in London, Prince Harry answered questions in a measured, almost hushed tone. He appeared nervous at first, and was at one point asked to raise his voice.

    He faced forensic and detailed questioning from MGN’s lawyer, Andrew Green who probed him on the specifics of his claims and occasionally left him scrambling to recall sections of his written statement or find pieces of evidence.

    But the Duke of Sussex brought to court an overriding argument that he has previously made on television programs and in podcast interviews: that the media’s intrusion and tactics caused him significant distress and wrecked some of his closest relationships.

    And he increasingly asserted himself as the testimony wore on, clashing at times with the publisher’s lawyer as they dissected reams of press coverage and legalese.

    “Some editors and journalists do have blood on their hands” for the distress caused to him, Harry told the court at one point – and “perhaps, inadvertently death,” he added, in reference to his mother Princess Diana.

    Here’s what we learned as Harry began giving evidence on Tuesday.

    Tuesday’s courtroom session touched on dozens of snippets from Harry’s youth, repeated aloud in court as the prince and MGN’s lawyer parsed over the fine details of several news articles.

    Harry’s diagnosis with the “kissing disease,” also known as mono; his teenage trips to the pub; his broken thumb and a back injury sustained in a game of polo; his gap year afternoons on the beach; and Princess Diana’s trips to collect him from school – all were all the subject of stories entered into evidence, and each was dissected by Green and the duke.

    Overall, the prince alleges that about 140 articles published in titles belonging to Mirror Group contained information gathered using unlawful methods, and 33 of those articles have been selected to be considered at the trial.

    In the courtroom on Tuesday, Harry said that “every single article has caused me distress.”

    “All of these articles played an important role – a destructive role – in my growing up,” Harry said. The newspapers in question were on constantly display “in every single palace, unfortunately,” while he was growing up. At school, fellow students and others would read the articles, he said. Harry described the level of coverage as “incredibly invasive.”

    Green began by attempting to establish whether Harry remembered reading the articles in question at the time of publication. When the duke conceded he could not always recall, Green pressed him on how he could realistically argue they could have affected him so strongly. It was a theme to which Green would often return.

    In a written statement entered into the court record on Tuesday, Harry expressed concern that his conversations with family and friends may have been intercepted. He noted that he and his brother, Prince William, “naturally discussed personal aspects of our lives as we trusted each other with the private information we shared.”

    He said private information about his life was raised on voicemails left on the phones of his father Charles and his mother Diana.

    Prince Harry at his school, Eton, in 2003. The period being examined in the trial covers Harry's teenage years and his early 20s.

    Harry said that he would discuss “private and sensitive matters regarding our family and personal lives” on voicemails left on the phone of the then Kate Middleton, now the Princess of Wales, he said. The Duke listed a number of other friends with whom he had been in contact, including the late TV presenter Caroline Flack, in his witness statement.

    He said he recalled “unusual mobile activity” relating to his voicemails that he dismissed at the time, but now alleges was caused by phone hacking.

    “I remember on multiple occasions hearing a voicemail for the first time that wasn’t ‘new’,” he wrote. “I would simply put it down to perhaps a technical glitch, as mobile phones were still relatively new back then, or even just having too many drinks the night before (and having forgotten that I’d listened to it).”

    Also in his written statement, Harry argued that the press actively tried to ruin his relationships. “I always felt as if the tabloids wanted me to be single, as I was much more interesting to them and sold more newspapers,” Harry wrote.

    “Whilst they would, of course, report on my successes in life, it seemed to me that they took far greater pleasure in knocking me down, time and time again,” he added.

    Harry claimed that papers would go about that task by putting “strain” on his relationships and creating distrust between him and his partners. He spoke regularly about one of his former girlfriends, Chelsy Davy, alleging journalists would find out about flight details to photograph her at airports, and would book rooms in the same hotels as the couple when they were on vacation.

    The duke evidently believes that continues to be the case since his marriage to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. “This twisted objective is still pursued to this day even though I’m now married,” he wrote.

    There was a throng of media outside the court on Tuesday.

    The atmosphere in court was occasionally tense. “Are we not, Prince Harry, in the realms of total speculation,” Green asked Harry at one point on Tuesday, after an exchange over a story about the teen prince breaking his thumb. Green had quizzed the duke about which specific illicit means of newsgathering Harry was alleging.

    “I’m not the one who wrote the article,” Harry replied.

    “No, but you’re the one who’s bringing the claim,” Green said.

    Earlier in the morning, when discussing Harry’s use of a landline phone to talk to his mother from school, Harry suggested that either that phone or Diana’s could have been hacked.

    “That’s just speculation you’ve come up with now,” Green said in response.

    The exchanges between Harry and Green ultimately settled into a predictable pattern; when a new article was brought up, Green would press Harry on how he could know that the information was obtained illegally, and not through typical means.

    Harry would often respond that he couldn’t fathom how information would have made its way into newspapers without illicit involvement. And he would repeatedly assert that the journalists who wrote the stories, not the subject of the stories, should answer questions about their sourcing.

    There were times during the back-and-forth between Harry and Green when the prince appeared uncomfortable or unaware of the minutiae of his case.

    Harry at one point joked that he was being put through a “workout” by having to repeatedly reach for bundles of evidence, stacked in folders beside him.

    Green offered to arrange for someone to help the prince navigate the evidence, and Harry would often reply “if you say so,” when Green sought to establish details of the articles the prince’s team entered into evidence.

    After a brief mid-morning recess, the judge asked Harry to raise his voice to ensure he could be heard throughout the courtroom, telling the duke that a number of observers in the courtroom had struggled to hear him.

    The questioning was far more intense and detailed than anything Harry has experienced in the many television and podcast interviews he has given on the topic of press intrusion.

    And Green sought to poke a number of holes in Harry’s argument, including that Harry was initially unaware of several specific stories, or that details in those stories could not have come through phone hacking as they had already been reported by other outlets.

    In a lengthy witness statement and over the course of an hours-long testimony, the Duke of Sussex touched on a number of topics. They included:

    The British government: Harry criticized the current Conservative government in his written testimony, in particular for what he described as an overly close relationship with the media.

    “On a national level as, at the moment, our country is judged globally by the state of our press and our government – both of which I believe are at rock bottom,” Harry wrote.

    He added that Rishi Sunak’s government “clearly have no appetite” for press regulation, “because their friends in the press said so.”

    Piers Morgan: The British broadcaster was the editor of The Mirror from 1995 to 2004, and has been intensely critical of the duke and his wife, Meghan, in recent years. “The thought of Piers Morgan and his band of journalists earwigging into my mother’s private and sensitive messages … makes me feel physically sick,” Harry wrote in his evidence.

    He claimed that, in response to his lawsuit, “myself and my wife have been subjected to a barrage of horrific personal attacks and intimidation from Piers Morgan,” suggesting that Morgan has taken the stance “in the hope that I will back down.”

    Morgan has been unapologetic about his criticism of the pair, calling them “repulsive narcissistic hypocrites” in one December tweet.

    The Queen’s concerns: Harry said he had recently learned that Queen Elizabeth II had a member of her staff secretly fly to Australia in 2003, and stay in a house down the road from where Harry was staying on his gap year.

    “She was concerned about the extent of the coverage of my trip and wanted someone I knew to be nearby, in case I needed support,” Harry wrote.

    At the time Harry had been photographed on the beach with friends – photos that Harry claims must have been obtained illicitly, because he did not understand how any journalists would know he was there.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Key moments from the video of Trump’s deposition in E. Jean Carroll trial released to the public | CNN Politics

    Key moments from the video of Trump’s deposition in E. Jean Carroll trial released to the public | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The video deposition of Donald Trump played before the jury in the E. Jean Carroll civil battery and defamation trial was made public Friday, showing the former president discussing the accusations against him, the “Access Hollywood” tape and the Russia “hoax.”

    In the video, Trump confirms that he made the allegedly defamatory statements denying knowing Carroll, calling her allegations that he raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman’s dressing room in the mid-1990s a “hoax,” and saying she is not his type.

    He also tells Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, that she, too, is not his type. And many times during the deposition, he calls Carroll a series of names, including “nut job,” a “whack job” and “mentally sick.”

    The edited deposition runs for nearly an hour. Trump was interviewed in October 2022. He denies all allegations against him.

    Here are key moments from the deposition as reviewed by CNN:

    At one point, Trump is shown a black and white photograph that includes Carroll, but mistakes her for his second wife, Marla Maples. Holding the photo, he points at it and says, “That’s Marla, that’s my wife.”

    After his attorney, Alina Habba, intervenes, Trump says the photo is blurry.

    KAPLAN: You have in front of you a black and white photograph that we’ve marked as DJT 23. And I’m going to ask you, is this the photo that you were just referring to?

    TRUMP: I think so, yes.

    KAPLAN: And do you recall when you first saw this photo?

    TRUMP: At some point during the process, I saw it. That’s I guess her husband, John Johnson, who was an anchor for ABC, nice guy, I thought, I mean, I don’t know him but I thought he was pretty good at what he did. I don’t even know who the woman. Let’s see, I don’t know who – it’s Marla.

    KAPLAN: You’re saying Marla’s in this photo?

    TRUMP: That’s Marla, yeah. That’s, that’s my wife.

    KAPLAN: Which woman are you pointing to?

    TRUMP: Here

    HABBA: No, that’s Carroll.

    TRUMP: [inaudible] Oh I see.

    KAPLAN: The person you just pointed to is E. Jean Carroll.

    TRUMP: Who’s that, who’s this?

    HABBA: [inaudible] That’s your wife.

    KAPLAN: And the person, the woman on the right is your then-wife –.

    TRUMP: I don’t know, this was the picture. I assume that’s John Johnson. Is that –.

    HABBA: That’s Carroll.

    TRUMP: – Carroll, because it’s very blurry.

    Since Carroll came forward in 2019, Trump has repeatedly denied her allegations, often saying that she is “not my type.” Here, Kaplan asks Trump about a June 24, 2019, interview with The Hill, where the president used that phrase.

    KAPLAN: One of the other things that you said about Ms. Carroll at the time appears in your June 24 statement, which is DJT 22. And what you said there is, “I’ll say it with great respect. Number one, she’s not my type.” When you said that Ms. Carroll was not your type, you meant that she was not your type physically, right?

    TRUMP: I saw her in a picture. I didn’t know what she looked like. And I said it, and I say it with as much respect as I can, but she is not my type.

    After more back and forth with Trump repeating the claim, Kaplan ended the exchange:

    KAPLAN: I take it the three women you’ve married are all your type?

    TRUMP: Yeah.

    The former president continued insulting Carroll in denying her allegations.

    TRUMP: I still don’t know this woman. I think she’s a whack job. I have no idea. I don’t know anything about this woman other than what I read in stories and what I hear. I know, I know nothing about her.

    …

    TRUMP: She said that I did something to her that never took place. There was no anything. I know nothing about this nut job.

    Trump appears the most agitated on the video when he denies the rape allegation, saying it is “the worst thing you can do. The worst charge.” He also says that he has a right to defend himself, and asks why, if he is insulted, he can’t insult someone back.

    Kaplan later asked Trump about a Truth Social post from October 12, 2022, where, among other things, he says, “And, while I am not supposed to say it, I will. This woman is not my type!”

    KAPLAN: Okay, then you go on to say in the statement, “And while I’m not supposed to say it, I will.” Why were you not supposed to say it?

    TRUMP: Because it’s not politically correct to say – read the next, go ahead, that she’s not my type. Yeah, because it’s not politically correct to say it, and I know that, but I’ll say it anyway. She’s accusing me of rape. A woman that I have no idea who she is. It came out of the blue. She’s accusing me of rape, of raping her. The worst thing you can do, the worst charge. And, and you know, you know it’s not true too. You’re a political operative also. You’re, you’re a disgrace. But she’s accusing me, and so are you, of rape, and it never took place. And I will tell you, I made that statement. And I said, well, it’s politically incorrect. She’s not my type. And that’s 100% true. She’s not my type.

    trump ireland

    New video shows Trump talking to reporters about E. Jean Carroll trial

    The deposition includes an exchange between Trump and Carroll’s attorneys about his frequent use of the word “hoax.”

    KAPLAN: Now, in your Truth Social statement on October 12, you use the word hoax. Specifically, you say, “It is a hoax and a lie just like all the other hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years.” Do you see that?

    TRUMP: Yeah.

    KAPLAN: Recall making that statement? And I take it what you’re saying there is Ms. Carroll fabricated her claim that you sexually assaulted her, correct?

    TRUMP: Yes, totally. 100%.

    KAPLAN: Fair to say, you’d agree with me, would you not, that you use the term hoax quite a lot?

    TRUMP: Yes, I do.

    KAPLAN: CNN reported that you used it more than 250 times in 2020. Does that sound right?

    TRUMP: Could be. I’ve had a lot of hoaxes played on me. This is one of them.

    KAPLAN: And how would, how would you define the word hoax?

    TRUMP: A fake story. A false story. A made up story.

    KAPLAN: Something that’s not true.

    TRUMP: Something that’s not true. Yes.

    KAPLAN: Sitting here today can you recall what else you have referred to as a hoax?

    TRUMP: Sure. The Russia Russia Russia hoax, it’s been proven to be a hoax. Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine hoax. The Mueller situation for two and a half years hoax – ended and no collusion. It was a whole big hoax. The lying to the FISA court hoax; the lying to Congress many times hoax by all these people, this scum that we have in our country; lying to Congress hoax; the spying on my campaign hoax. They spied on my campaign and now they admitted that was another hoax, and I could get a whole list of them. And this is a hoax too.

    KAPLAN: This, when you say this and that –.

    TRUMP: This ridiculous situation that we’re doing right now, it’s a big fat hoax. She’s a liar and she’s a sick person in my opinion, really sick. Something wrong with her.

    As the exchange continues, Kaplan asks Trump about his having called voting by mail a “hoax.” Trump acknowledges both that he said that and has, in fact, voted by mail himself.

    KAPLAN: Okay, in addition to the Russia Russia Russia hoax, the Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine hoax, the Mueller the Mueller or Mueller hoax, the lying to FISA hoax, the lying to Congress hoax, and the spying on your campaign hoax. Isn’t it true that you also referred to the use of mail in ballots as a hoax?

    TRUMP: Yeah, I do. I do. I think they’re very dishonest, mail in ballots, very dishonest.

    KAPLAN: And isn’t it true that you yourself have voted by mail?

    TRUMP: I do. I do. Sometimes I do. But I don’t know what happens to it once you, once you give it, I have no idea.

    Trump was also asked to react to the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape.

    He repeated his admonition that the exchange with Billy Bush captured on the videotape was “locker room talk,” and said it was historically something that stars – including himself – could get away with “fortunately or unfortunately.”

    KAPLAN: And you say – and again this has become very famous – in this video, ‘“I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the p*ssy. You can do anything.” That’s what you said. Correct?

    TRUMP: Well, historically, that’s true with stars.

    KAPLAN: It’s true with stars that they can grab women by the p*ssy?

    TRUMP: Well, that’s what, if you look over the last million years I guess that’s been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately or fortunately.

    KAPLAN: And you consider yourself to be a star?

    TRUMP: I think you can say that. Yeah.

    KAPLAN: And now you said before, a couple of minutes ago, that this was just locker room talk.

    TRUMP: It’s locker room talk.

    KAPLAN: And so does that mean that you didn’t really mean it?

    TRUMP: No, it’s locker room talk. I don’t know. It’s just the way people talk.

    Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff both testified during the trial about times they say they were sexually assaulted by Trump, who has denied the accounts. Neither woman is a party to the Carroll litigation.

    Stoynoff said Trump forcibly kissed her on December 27, 2005, during a photoshoot and interview session at Mar-a-Lago for People magazine. A story on the Trumps was eventually published in 2006, and Stoynoff went public with her allegations during the 2016 presidential campaign.

    Trump addressed the claims during his deposition.

    KAPLAN: Okay, now, are you familiar with someone by the name of Natasha Stoynoff?

    TRUMP: No. You’ll have to give me a little bit of a background.

    KAPLAN: Do you remember she wrote about you a lot when she worked at People Magazine?

    TRUMP: Oh I do remember there was some woman that wrote and then she, a long time later, I think she wrote a wonderful story. And then a long time later, as I remember it, a long time later, she said that I was aggressive with her. But she wrote the most beautiful story. And then all of a sudden, like, is it a year or two years later, she comes out with this phony story. That I was aggress-, I said, well, why would she have written such a good story for People Magazine, she wrote a really nice piece. And then all of a sudden, like, you know, years or months, many months later, she came up with this phony charge.

    Leeds, a woman who has claimed Trump sexually assaulted her while sitting in first class on an airplane in the late 1970s, also testified. Trump again denied the claims in his deposition.

    TRUMP: This woman made up a story, just like your client made it up. Just made up a story having to do with sitting me and sitting next to me in an airplane. And I mean, I’ll have to read this again, but that story was so false, also. But this was, I guess, making out as opposed to what your client said. This story was so false. This is a disgrace also.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell ordered to follow through with $5 million payment to expert who debunked his false election data | CNN Politics

    My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell ordered to follow through with $5 million payment to expert who debunked his false election data | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell has been ordered to shell out $5 million to an expert who debunked his data related to the 2020 election, according to a decision by the arbitration panel obtained by CNN.

    Lindell, a purveyor of election conspiracies, vowed to award the multimillion-dollar sum to any cyber security expert who could disprove his data. An arbitration panel awarded Robert Zeidman, who has decades in software development experience, a $5 million payout on Wednesday after he sued Lindell over the sum.

    CNN has obtained arbitration documents and video depositions, including a deposition of Lindell, related to the dispute.

    “Based on the foregoing analysis, Mr. Zeidman performed under the contract,” the arbitration panel wrote in its decision. “He proved the data Lindell LLC provided, and represented reflected information from the November 2020 election, unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data. Failure to pay Mr. Zeidman the $5 million prized was a breach of the contract, entitling him to recover.”

    The decision marks yet another blow to the MyPillow CEO’s credibility after he publicly touted unproven claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Lindell has also faced defamation suits related to his election claims.

    “The lawsuit and verdict mark another important moment in the ongoing proof that the 2020 election was legal and valid, and the role of cybersecurity in ensuring that integrity,” said Brian Glasser, founder of Bailey & Glasser, LLP, who represented Zeidman. “Lindell’s claim to have 2020 election data has been definitively disproved.”

    In a brief phone interview with CNN, Lindell said “this will end up in court” and slammed the media and professed the need to get rid of electronic voting machines.

    Zeidman told CNN’s Erin Burnett on “OutFront” Thursday he was relieved by the judgment, adding that he sued not for the money, but to disprove election lies.

    “I have some friends who I hope will still be friends because I am a conservative Republican,” Zeidman said. “But I thought the truth needed to come out.”

    Lindell convened a so-called “cyber symposium” in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in 2021, designed to showcase the data he claimed to have obtained related to the 2020 election. He invited journalists, politicians and cybersecurity experts to attend.

    “The symposium was to get the big audience and have all the media there and then they – the cyber guys – saying yes this data is from the 2020 election and you better look at how they intruded into our machines, our computers, and that was the whole purpose,” Lindell said in a deposition obtained by CNN.

    He also announced a “Prove Mike Wrong Challenge” – in which anyone who could prove his data was unrelated to the 2020 election could win the multimillion payout – to get more traction in the media for his election fraud claims.

    “I thought, well what if I put up a $5 million challenge out there, then it would get news, which it did,” Lindell said in the deposition. “So, then you got some attention.”

    Zeidman signed up for the challenge, agreed to its contractual terms and discovered Lindell’s data to be largely nonsensical.

    “Normally data analysis could take weeks or months and I had three days,” Zeidman told CNN. “But the data was so obviously fake that I spent a few hours before I could show it was fake.”

    While Lindell has made a variety of outlandish and unproven claims about the 2020 election, such as insisting foreign governments infiltrated voting machines, the arbitration panel made clear its judgment was solely focused on whether the data Lindell provided to experts was related to the 2020 election.

    “The Contest did not require participants to disprove election interference. Thus, the contestants’ task was to prove the data presented to them was not valid data from the November 2020 election,” the arbitration panel wrote.

    “The Panel was not asked to decide whether China interfered in the 2020 election. Nor was the Panel asked to decide whether Lindell LLC possessed data that proved such interference, or even whether Lindell LLC had election data in its possession,” according to the arbitration panel. “The focus of the decision is on the 11 files provided to Mr. Zeidman in the context of the Contest rules.”

    The panel’s decision ticked through each of the data files provided Zeidman, determining repeatedly that the data was unrelated to the 2020 election.

    It’s unclear when or if Zeidman will ever be able to collect his payout. Lindell recently told right-wing podcaster and former Trump administration official Steve Bannon that his company took out nearly $10 million in loans as he battles defamation suits related to his false election claims.

    “I’m afraid he’s going to be out of money before I ever see my five million,” Zeidman told Burnett.

    During his deposition, Lindell said he was never concerned someone might actually win the challenge.

    “No, because they have to show it wasn’t from 2020 and it was,” Lindell said, chuckling.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ex-Fox producer said she gave misleading testimony in Dominion case ‘to keep my job’ | CNN Business

    Ex-Fox producer said she gave misleading testimony in Dominion case ‘to keep my job’ | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Abby Grossberg, the former Fox News producer who accused the right-wing network of pressuring her into giving misleading testimony in the Dominion defamation case, told NBC News Thursday in her first TV interview that she was “bullied, intimidated and coerced” into protecting the right-wing network to keep her job.

    “It felt awful. I mean it felt terrible because I knew that I was bullied, intimidated, and coerced into saying that just to keep my job and stay at the company,” Grossberg told NBC.

    Asked why she did that, Grossberg said “Because I made the decision to keep my job so that I can keep paying my bills. It seemed like the safer decision for me at the time.”

    Her latest comments echo what she said last week in an interview with CNN’s Oliver Darcy, where she said she filed the lawsuit to protect her career and “expose the lies and deceit” that she says is rampant at the right-wing network.

    Fox News contests all of her allegations, and said in a prior statement that, “the assertion that Ms. Grossberg was coached or intimidated into being dishonest during her Dominion deposition is patently false.”

    Fox News also denies wrongdoing in the underlying Dominion case, and says it didn’t defame anyone.

    Last week, Grossberg filed explosive lawsuits in New York and Delaware accusing Fox News lawyers of pressuring her into providing misleading testimony in the Dominion case – testimony that would protect the network and its top talent. Since filing the lawsuit, she submitted new sworn testimony in the Dominion defamation case that undermines some of Fox’s defenses.

    She also claimed in her lawsuit that she had been subjected to a toxic and sexist work environment while at Fox News. The network has vehemently pushed back against these allegations.

    After filing the lawsuit, Grossberg was fired from Fox News. The right-wing network said in a statement that she violated corporate rules improperly exposed legally privileged information in her lawsuit.

    During Thursday’s interview, Grossberg said that she experienced harassment so severe that she thought about killing herself.

    “I reached a breaking point where the harassment was so bad that I called a crisis line,” Grossberg told NBC News. “I thought I could just walk in front of a car and I wouldn’t have to go to work tomorrow.”

    Describing the allegedly toxic workplace at the right-wing network, Grossberg said: “Women were objectified. It was a game. It was a sport. Female politicians who came on the show were mocked. There were debates about who they’d rather sleep with. C-word all the time.”

    A Fox News spokesperson didn’t offer any comment when asked about Grossberg’s mention of suicide. But the spokesperson denied Grossberg’s claims of workplace misogyny, saying her lawsuit was “riddled with false allegations against the network and our employees.” The spokesperson also noted that women are currently serving as the CEO of Fox News Media and the presidents of two of its networks.

    Fox News is no stranger to claims of workplace sexism. Fox News founder Roger Ailes, former primetime star host Bill O’Reilly and other men were forced out amid sexual harassment allegations, and the network has paid tens of millions to settle related lawsuits.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden, DOJ won’t assert privilege in Trump deposition in lawsuit brought by fired FBI official | CNN Politics

    Biden, DOJ won’t assert privilege in Trump deposition in lawsuit brought by fired FBI official | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Justice Department said Friday that neither it nor the Biden White House would assert certain privileges in depositions of former President Donald Trump and FBI Director Christopher Wray that have been ordered in a lawsuit brought by an ex-FBI official whose termination Trump pushed for when he was president.

    The new filing from the Justice Department in the lawsuit brought by former FBI official Peter Strzok is the latest example of the Biden administration having to weigh the protections of the presidency against the extraordinary legal cases related to President Joe Biden’s predecessor.

    Strzok’s lawsuit alleges that Trump’s political agenda prompted his firing and that the Justice Department broke the law in publicly releasing texts he had exchanged with former FBI lawyer Lisa Page. The texts revealed that Page and Strzok – who both worked on the Trump-Russia probe when it was in its early stages – had expressed anti-Trump sentiments and that they were engaged in a romantic, extramarital affair. Trump repeatedly called for Strzok’s ouster before he was terminated in 2018. Page has also brought her own lawsuit over the release of texts.

    The Justice Department had sought to quash the subpoenas of Trump and Wray, but was unsuccessful, with DC District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruling that both men had to sit for depositions. Jackson’s ruling, which she issued after a sealed hearing in February, also said the depositions must be limited to less than two hours and that they must focus on a narrow set of issues in the case.

    When the Justice Department was seeking to quash the subpoenas, it had indicated that the presidential communications privilege could limit what questions Wray could answer about his communications with Trump concerning the matters in dispute in the lawsuit. Jackson ordered the DOJ to indicate by late March whether Biden would assert privilege in the depositions and Friday’s filing indicated the administration would not engage in a privilege fight.

    “The Executive Office of the President will not assert the Presidential Communications Privilege, and Defendants will not assert the Deliberative Process Privilege, with respect to the authorized topics,” the filing said. It added that a representative of Trump was made aware of the ruling ordering the depositions and said that “Former President Trump has not requested an assertion of privilege over any of the information within the scope of the authorized deposition.”

    The department, however, signaled in the filing that it still might appeal Jackson’s order, with a footnote stating that “Defendants expressly reserve their rights to seek further review of this Court’s February 23, 2023 decision.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fox News producer files explosive lawsuits against the network, alleging she was coerced into providing misleading Dominion testimony | CNN Business

    Fox News producer files explosive lawsuits against the network, alleging she was coerced into providing misleading Dominion testimony | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    A Fox News producer on Monday filed a pair of explosive lawsuits against the right-wing talk channel, alleging that the network’s lawyers coerced her into providing misleading testimony in Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation case against the company.

    The lawsuits filed by Abby Grossberg, who worked as a senior booking producer for Maria Bartiromo and most recently head of booking for Tucker Carlson, accused Fox’s legal team of having engaged in wrongful conduct as it prepared her for a pre-trial deposition in the election technology company’s case.

    The lawsuits from Grossberg, who has since been placed on administrative leave by Fox, were filed in Delaware Superior Court and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

    “Fox News Attorneys acted as agents and at the behest of Fox News to misleadingly coach, manipulate, and coerce Ms. Grossberg to deliver shaded and/or incomplete answers during her sworn deposition testimony, which answers were clearly to her reputational detriment but greatly benefitted Fox News,” the lawsuit filed in Delaware stated.

    The Delaware lawsuit alleged that the “concerted efforts and actions” from Fox’s legal team ultimately caused Grossberg to testify in a way that portrayed the facts “in a false light” in order to “shift culpability” away from senior Fox News executives and “away from Fox Corporation.”

    That matter is important because Fox Corporation, the parent company of Fox News, has asked to be dropped as a party in Dominion’s lawsuit by arguing that it does not play a big role in coverage decisions at the network.

    Dominion has alleged in its lawsuit against Fox Corporation and Fox News that during the 2020 election the right-wing network “recklessly disregarded the truth” and pushed various pro-Trump conspiracy theories about the election technology company because “the lies were good for Fox’s business.” Fox News has strongly disputed Dominion’s allegations.

    A Fox News spokesperson responded to Grossberg’s lawsuits in a statement that said, “Fox News Media engaged an independent outside counsel to immediately investigate the concerns raised by Ms. Grossberg, which were made following a critical performance review. We will vigorously defend these claims.”

    Fox News also on Monday filed suit against Grossberg, seeking a restraining order to prevent her from divulging privileged information that it said would cause the network to “suffer immediate irreparable harm.” A judge has not yet ruled on Fox’s request.

    In a phone interview Monday night, Grossberg and her attorney, Gerry Filippatos, disputed Fox News’ assertion the complaints only came after a critical performance review.

    “It’s another example of Fox News not only shying away from the truth, but attempting to bury the truth,” Filippatos told CNN.

    “Fox just does not care,” Grossberg added. “It summarizes everything perfectly. They don’t care about their employees … and they don’t care about their viewers.”

    In her lawsuits, Grossberg also made a number of eye-popping allegations about the workplace environment at Fox News, accusing the network of rampant sexism.

    Grossberg, who indicated she was passed over for a top job on Bartiromo’s show because the network preferred it be filled by a male, said Fox News executives referred to the “Sunday Mornings Futures” host as a “crazy b**ch” and “menopausal.”

    When she began work on Carlson’s show, Grossberg said the environment was horrific. On her first day, she said she learned the show’s workspace was decorated with large photos of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “in a plunging bathing suit revealing her cleavage.”

    “Grossberg was mortified by what she was witnessing and began to experience a sinking feeling in her stomach as it became apparent how pervasive the misogyny and drive to embarrass and objectify women was among the male staff at [‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’],” the lawsuit filed in New York said.

    The lawsuit continued to describe a culture at Carlson’s program in which women were subjected to crude terms and in which jokes about Jewish people were made out in the open. Grossberg named Carlson and members of his staff in the lawsuit filed in New York.

    Filippatos said that Grossberg has “ample documentary evidence in all forms to support a broad swath” of the allegations made in the lawsuits.

    Grossberg told CNN that she filed her lawsuit in hopes that it will spur change at the network and because she believed it “was the only step” she had to regain her pride and save her career. Grossberg said she wanted to “expose the lies and deceit” that she “witnessed for years” on two of Fox News’ biggest shows.

    “I’ve covered many stories while I have been there,” Grossberg told CNN. “Dominion is just a small portion. And I’ve witnessed it from the very beginning until my last day of work last week.”

    “It’s constant,” she added. “Ratings are very important to the shows, to the network, and to the hosts. It’s a business and that’s what drives coverage.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge says jury in E. Jean Carroll case can see ‘Access Hollywood’ tape and testimony of two other accusers | CNN Politics

    Judge says jury in E. Jean Carroll case can see ‘Access Hollywood’ tape and testimony of two other accusers | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge on Friday said that E. Jean Carroll, in her defamation case against former President Donald Trump, can use as evidence the testimony of two other sexual assault accusers as well as the “Access Hollywood” tape, in which he bragged about being able to grope women.

    US District Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected Trump’s request that the judge block the accusers from testifying at trial. Trump also asked the judge to block the Access Hollywood tape from being played at the trial.

    Carroll, the former magazine columnist who sued Trump for defamation after he denied raping her in the mid-1990s, has indicated that she will call Natasha Stoynoff and Jessica Leeds, two women who came forward with allegations against Trump in 2016, as well as use their videotaped depositions.

    Stoynoff alleged Trump sexually assaulted her when she was reporting an article about Trump and his wife, Melania, for People magazine. Leeds alleged Trump groped her while they were on an airplane together. Trump has denied both allegations, as well as Carroll’s rape claims.

    In Friday’s opinion, the judge pointed to court rules passed by Congress in 1994 that say that that in a civil case “based on a party’s sexual assault,” evidence that the defendant committed any other sexual assault may be admitted in trial.

    The judge said that, even though Carroll’s case is a defamation case, she must prove Trump sexually assaulted her in order to prevail.

    “In consequence, this indeed is a case ‘based on’ a sexual assault even under the categorical approach,” said Kaplan, who sits on the federal bench in the Southern District of New York.

    The judge noted that Trump has publicly denied the accusations of the other women Carroll seeks to put on the stand and said that Trump is entitled to put those denials before the jury.

    Carroll is also seeking to introduce as evidence statements Trump made during the 2016 campaign about his accusers. Kaplan is deferring on ruling whether those statements are admissible.

    Trump’s lawyers had argued that the Access Hollywood tape was “irrelevant and highly prejudicial.” They argued that the testimony of the two other accusers “will offer no relevant or meaningful insight into the central question.”

    “We maintain the utmost confidence that our client will be vindicated at the upcoming trial,” Trump attorney Alina Habba said Friday.

    A spokesperson for Carroll’s lawyers declined to comment on the new ruling.

    The case is set to go to trial in April while awaiting a DC appeals court decision that could determine whether the case proceeds against Trump. Carroll also sued Trump for battery and defamation in a separate lawsuit under a new New York law. The judge has not determined whether the trials will be combined.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mike Pence asks judge to block subpoena for Jan. 6 testimony | CNN Politics

    Mike Pence asks judge to block subpoena for Jan. 6 testimony | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former Vice President Mike Pence has filed a motion asking a judge to block a federal grand jury subpoena for his testimony related to January 6 on the grounds that he is protected by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, according to a source familiar with the filing.

    Pence had publicly signaled that he planned to resist the subpoena, arguing it was “unconstitutional and unprecedented.” His legal team filed the motion Friday night, the same day former President Donald Trump’s attorneys asked a judge to block Pence from speaking to a grand jury about certain matters covered by executive privilege.

    The Pence motion – filed as part of sealed proceedings – seeks to stop testimony pertaining to his legislative functions around January 6, which could potentially include a broad swath of testimony. It is separate from Trump’s motion, which argues that the former president can shield former aides from sharing internal communications.

    Special counsel Jack Smith is seeking documents and testimony related to January 6, 2021, and wants Pence to testify about his interactions with Trump leading up to the 2020 election and the day of the attack on the US Capitol.

    But the former vice president asserts that because he was also acting as president of the Senate that day, he is shielded by the Speech or Debate Clause, which protects lawmakers from certain law enforcement actions targeted at their legislative duties.

    Pence has written a memoir detailing his interactions with Trump leading up to January 6, which could complicate efforts to resist the subpoena.

    His team previously indicated to the Justice Department that he’d be open to answering questions if they were limited to the matters he had previously discussed publicly, including in his book, a source told CNN.

    Pence’s legal team did not comment. The Justice Department also did not comment.

    Since taking over the investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, Smith, who has a reputation for moving quickly, has accelerated the probe’s pace and began imposing tight deadlines on subpoenas. Smith also is simultaneously investigating Trump’s handling of classified documents after leaving office.

    Trump huddled with several members of his legal team at his Mar-A-Lago resort in Palm Beach last week to discuss Smith’s investigations, according to a source familiar with the meeting.

    Smith recently subpoenaed Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows and Trump’s former national security adviser Robert O’Brien in both of the Trump-related probes, and investigators have sat down with his former acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf as part of the probe into 2020 election interference.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Alex Murdaugh’s risky testimony ultimately brought him down | CNN

    Alex Murdaugh’s risky testimony ultimately brought him down | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Convicted former attorney Alex Murdaugh’s decision to take the stand at his double murder trial was not entirely surprising given his family’s legal legacy stretching back to the early 1900s in coastal South Carolina.

    But legal experts say it was ultimately a costly maneuver for the scion of the well-connected Murdaugh clan, which prosecuted crime for three successive generations across the state’s rural low country.

    “Being a skilled attorney, I think he thought he could outsmart the jurors,” attorney and legal affairs commentator Areva Martin said.

    On Friday, one week after Murdaugh, 54, spent hours on the witness stand trying to convince a jury of his innocence, he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murders of his wife and son.

    “He had to testify. There were too many lies,” CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson said Saturday. “Obviously the jury felt that he was conning them.”

    Murdaugh’s biggest lie perhaps was denying for a year and half that he was anywhere near his wife, Maggie, and 22-year-old son, Paul, when they were fatally shot on the family’s Islandton property on June 7, 2021.

    On the stand, Murdaugh maintained he didn’t kill them but found their bodies after returning from a brief visit to his sick mother that night.

    A key piece of evidence came from Paul Murdaugh, who recorded a video moments before he was gunned down and killed. It showed a family dog near the kennels on the property. It also captured his father’s voice in the background, placing Alex Murdaugh at the scene of the crime.

    The video, which Murdaugh didn’t know existed before the trial, eliminated his alibi. The longtime lawyer took the stand in a courthouse where a portrait of Murdaugh’s grandfather had adorned a wall before the trial. He sought to explain why he lied about his whereabouts.

    “He had never faced accountability in his life and had always been able to escape that – and that was more important to him than anything,” lead prosecutor Creighton Waters told CNN.

    “That’s why I was always convinced that he would testify in this case. That he was assured that he could talk his way out of it one more time. Not out of all the trouble but certainly talk his way out of this. Obviously the jury saw otherwise.”

    Within moments of taking the stand, Murdaugh acknowledged his voice is heard in the video that appeared to be taken at the dog kennels where the bodies were found, saying he lied to investigators about being there earlier that evening because of “paranoid thinking” stemming from his drug addiction.

    Over the course of the trial, numerous witnesses identified Murdaugh’s voice in the background of the footage. But Murdaugh was emphatic that he “didn’t shoot my wife or my son. Anytime. Ever.”

    Craig Moyer, a juror who helped convict Murdaugh on Thursday, told ABC News it took the panel less than an hour to reach a unanimous decision.

    The video was crucial.

    “I could hear his voice clearly,” Moyer told ABC. “And everybody else could too.”

    Murdaugh was “a good liar,” Moyer said, “but not good enough.”

    Moyer told ABC he “didn’t see any true remorse or compassion” from Murdaugh. On the stand, Murdaugh “didn’t cry,” Moyer said. “All he did was blow snot.”

    Waters said he simply wanted to get Murdaugh talking during cross examination. And he did.

    “We have to remember this guy was an experienced lawyer,” Waters said. “He’s a part-time assistant solicitor and there’s 100 years of prosecution legacy in his family… I felt like he believed he could look at that jury and really convince them. But I felt if I got him talking he would eventually lie and they would get to see that in real time.”

    Defense attorney Dick Harpootlian defended the decision to let Murdaugh testify, saying his credibility was under question because of financial wrongdoings. He said the defense team plans to appeal the sentence within 10 days.

    In a separate case that has not yet gone to trial, Murdaugh faces 99 charges stemming from a slew of alleged financial crimes, including defrauding his clients, former law firm and the government of millions.

    “Once they got that character information – ‘he’s a thief, he’s a liar’ – then this jury had to think that he’s a despicable human being, and not to be believed,” Harpootlian told reporters after sentencing, referring to evidence about the financial crimes introduced at the murder trial. Murdaugh, he added, always wanted to take the stand.

    Harpootlian told CNN it was “inexplicable that he would execute his son and his wife in that fashion, in my mind.”

    Another defense lawyer, Jim Griffin, said putting Murdaugh on the stand showed the jury his client’s “emotions about Maggie and Paul, which are very raw and real.”

    Still, putting Murdaugh on the stand was a risky move, according to legal experts.

    “His testimony was very poor. In fact, I think it was borderline atrocious,” jury consultant Alan Tuerkheimer told CNN. “Jurors don’t like it when witnesses are being questioned and they don’t answer and what he kept doing continually was going beyond the scope of the questions.”

    Tuerkheimer added that Murdaugh “kept trying to interject his own narrative. He was evasive, I thought he prevaricated a lot and his testimony was self serving and jurors do not like that. He should have stuck to quick yes or no answers when he was being crossed.”

    Tuerkheimer also questioned the effectiveness of Murdaugh frequently referring to his dead wife and son as “Mags” and “Paul Paul.”

    “It’s effective if it’s genuine and it just did not come off as genuine. Look, lawyers love to testify. They use words to persuade people. And once he was on the stand, he just couldn’t contain himself,” Tuerkheimer said of Murdaugh.

    “And when he was using those terms in trying to endear himself with the jury, they just didn’t think that it was authentic. They rejected it and it was a Hail Mary that he had to testify. And, like most Hail Marys, it didn’t work.”

    On Thursday, after more than a month and dozens of witnesses, the jury convicted Murdaugh of two counts of murder in the June 2021 killings, as well as two counts of possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime.

    The next day, after his sentencing, Murdaugh – wearing a brown jumpsuit and handcuffs – was escorted out of a courthouse that once symbolized his family’s history of power and privilege in the region.

    “For him the chance of convincing one or two jurors that he might be a liar, he might be a thief, but he’s not a killer, was worth taking that risk,” defense attorney Misty Marris told CNN Saturday. “But in my opinion, the testimony was what actually sunk him.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prosecutors call rebuttal witnesses in Alex Murdaugh’s murder trial before jury visits scene where wife and son were killed | CNN

    Prosecutors call rebuttal witnesses in Alex Murdaugh’s murder trial before jury visits scene where wife and son were killed | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Prosecutors on Tuesday planned to call up to seven further witnesses to rebut parts of Alex Murdaugh’s defense in his murder trial, according to attorneys in court.

    The first rebuttal witness was Ronnie Crosby, an attorney who worked with Murdaugh and testified for the prosecution three weeks ago.

    “He was a theatrical-type presence in the courtroom and he could get very emotional during closing arguments in front of a jury,” Crosby testified Tuesday.

    Once the rebuttal witnesses are complete, the jury will be allowed to view Murdaugh’s property in Islandton, particularly its dog kennels near where the bodies of Murdaugh’s wife, Margaret “Maggie” Murdaugh, and son Paul Murdaugh were found. Closing arguments will follow after that.

    The rebuttal comes more than a month into the murder trial and a day after the defense rested its case following testimony from 14 witnesses.

    The most important defense witness was Murdaugh himself, as he admitted he had lied about his whereabouts on the night of the murders and that he had in fact been at the kennels shortly before the murders took place. He blamed his lies on “paranoid thinking” stemming from his addiction to painkillers.

    “I don’t think I was capable of reason, and I lied about being down there, and I’m so sorry that I did,” Murdaugh said.

    Prosecutors, who called 61 witnesses in the case, have argued he killed his wife and son to gain sympathy and distract from the financial misconduct allegations, some of which the state says were about to come to light before the fatal shootings. Murdaugh indeed confessed to much of that financial misconduct – yet denied killing his family.

    “If I was under the pressure that they’re talking about here, I can promise you I would hurt myself before I would hurt one of them, without a doubt,” Murdaugh said on the stand Friday.

    He has pleaded not guilty to two counts of murder and two weapons charges in the June 7, 2021, killings. He is separately facing 99 charges related to alleged financial crimes that will be adjudicated later.

    Alex Murdaugh stands during a break in his murder trial on Friday.

    In their case, prosecutors sought to poke holes in Murdaugh’s account of the night of the killings, using cell phone data, video and other evidence to suggest he tried to manufacture an alibi.

    In the absence of direct evidence connecting Murdaugh to the killings – no murder weapon, bloody clothing or eyewitnesses – key arguments in his trial have revolved around the timeline of events and Murdaugh’s whereabouts the night of June 7, 2021.

    In particular, prosecutors used video filmed at the dog kennels shortly before authorities say the killings took place to show Murdaugh was at the scene just minutes before the fatal shootings. Multiple witnesses testified that Murdaugh’s voice can be heard in the background of the video, which was filmed on Paul’s phone starting at 8:44 p.m. In his testimony, Murdaugh admitted he was indeed there and had lied about it.

    Murdaugh testified last week that he went down to the kennels at Maggie’s request, but then returned to the house and laid down on a couch. When he got up, he said, he drove to visit his ailing mother at her home in nearby Almeda, before returning to his property later that night. Police say he called 911 at 10:07 p.m. to report finding the bodies.

    The defense has painted Murdaugh as a loving father and husband being wrongfully accused of the killings after what it says has been a mishandled investigation and crime scene.

    Among the witnesses called by Murdaugh’s attorneys were his former legal partner who testified the scene was not properly secured, and a forensics expert who said his analysis suggests two shooters carried out the killings.

    Murdaugh’s only surviving son, Buster Murdaugh, also testified last week, saying his father was “destroyed” and “heartbroken” following the killings.

    To show the killings could have taken place after Murdaugh left the kennels, the defense has tried to establish that Maggie and Paul’s time of death could have fallen in a much longer time window than prosecutors have presented.

    More than a week ago, Colleton County Coroner Richard Harvey testified that he estimated the time of death to be around 9 p.m. – just minutes after Murdaugh’s voice was captured on the video – based in part on armpit checks he conducted to feel how warm the bodies were.

    Harvey, who said he arrived on scene at 11:04 p.m., also testified that rigor mortis – the stiffening of a body’s joints and muscles following death – had not yet set in, and that it typically starts developing one to three hours following death.

    However, when asked by the defense if the pair could have been shot anytime between 8 or 10 p.m., Harvey said yes.

    A forensic pathologist, Jonathan Eisenstat, testified Monday that armpit temperature checks are “just not a valid method to try to make a determination of time of death,” calling the technique “just a guess.”

    Instead, he said, someone arriving on scene should first check the ambient temperature of the area where the body is found and then take a rectal temperature to get as close to a core body temperature as possible.

    Harvey testified earlier that he did not take rectal temperatures that night. During cross examination, prosecutors asked if the coroner had an idea of when the killings occurred since he did not take exact temperatures.

    “You really do not have a general idea as to when that incident actually occurred?” Deputy Attorney General Attorney Don Zelenka asked Harvey.

    “Yes sir, that’s true,” Harvey said.

    The defense has also tried to portray the investigation into the case as shoddy, arguing that the crime scene was not secure or handled carefully. One witness, Mark Ball, one of Murdaugh’s former law firm colleagues, testified no barricades or police tape were set up to block several visitors from entering the property the night of the killings.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rupert Murdoch acknowledged that Fox News hosts endorsed false stolen election claims | CNN Business

    Rupert Murdoch acknowledged that Fox News hosts endorsed false stolen election claims | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of Fox Corporation, acknowledged in a deposition taken by Dominion Voting Systems that some Fox News hosts endorsed false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

    Murdoch’s remarks in a deposition were made public in a legal filing as part of Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion lawsuit against Fox News.

    “Some of our commentators were endorsing it,” Murdoch said, singling out Fox hosts Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro as Fox hosts who promoted the false stolen election claims on air, according to a transcript of his deposition. Murdoch acknowledged the hosts frequently invited guests who made similar claims.

    But Murdoch pushed back against Dominion’s lawyers who claimed that Fox was endorsing “this false notion of a stolen election?”

    “Not Fox. But maybe Lou Dobbs, maybe Maria, as commentators,” Murdoch said in his deposition.

    In another filing made public earlier this month, a trove of messages and emails from the most prominent stars and highest-ranking executives at Fox News showed they had privately ridiculed claims of election fraud in the 2020 election, despite the right-wing channel promoting lies about the presidential contest on its air.

    The messages showed that Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham brutally mocked lies being pushed by former President Donald Trump’s camp asserting that the election was rigged.

    The court filings have offered the most vivid picture to date of the chaos that transpired behind the scenes at Fox News after Trump lost the election and viewers rebelled against the right-wing channel for accurately calling the contest in Biden’s favor.

    Fox News has not only vigorously denied Dominion’s claims, it has insisted it is “proud” of its 2020 election coverage.

    The network argued that the court filing contained cherry-picked quotes lacking context.

    “There will be a lot of noise and confusion generated by Dominion and their opportunistic private equity owners, but the core of this case remains about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution and protected by New York Times v. Sullivan,” Fox News said in a statement.

    – This is breaking news and will be updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Does that mean that I am a suspect?’ Footage shows investigator asking Alex Murdaugh if he killed his wife and son | CNN

    ‘Does that mean that I am a suspect?’ Footage shows investigator asking Alex Murdaugh if he killed his wife and son | CNN

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: The HBO docuseries “Low Country: The Murdaugh Dynasty” chronicles the family’s influence in South Carolina. It airs on CNN Sunday, February 19, at 8 p.m. ET.



    CNN
     — 

    The jury in Alex Murdaugh’s double murder trial saw footage Wednesday from a crucial interview he had with state investigators where he was asked for the first time if he killed his wife and son.

    The interview on August 11, 2021, was the third Murdaugh had with the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, which was investigating the murders of his wife, Margaret “Maggie” Murdaugh, and grown son, Paul Murdaugh, two months earlier, according to testimony Wednesday by SLED agent Lt. David Owen.

    The interview was about to end when Owen told Murdaugh he had “a few more questions.”

    “Did you kill Maggie?” Owen asked, according to the footage played in court.

    “No,” Murdaugh said. “Did I kill my wife? No, David.”

    “Do you know who did?”

    “No, I do not know who did,” Murdaugh said.

    “Did you kill Paul?”

    “No, I did not kill Paul,” Murdaugh said.

    “Do you know who did?”

    “No, sir, I do not know who did,” Murdaugh said. “Do you think I killed Maggie?”

    “I have to go where the evidence and the facts take me,” Owen said.

    “I understand that. And you think I killed Paul?”

    “I have to go where the evidence and the facts take me,” Owen said again. “And I don’t have anything that points to anybody else at this time.”

    “So does that mean that I am a suspect?”

    Owen told Murdaugh he was “still in this,” adding, “I have to put my beliefs aside, and go with the facts.”

    Owen’s testimony Wednesday comes as the state nears the end of its case, in which prosecutors contend Murdaugh killed his wife and son to distract from a mountain of alleged financial crimes he had committed and to stave off a “day of reckoning” when those crimes might come to light.

    The defense maintains Murdaugh – who has pleaded not guilty to two counts of murder and two weapons charges in the killings – was a loving father and husband who called 911 the night of the killings after he found his wife and son shot at the family’s estate in Islandton, South Carolina, a property known as Moselle.

    At the time of the August 11, 2021, interview, Murdaugh was “the only known suspect” in the murders, Owen testified Wednesday.

    The case was transferred that same day from the local solicitor to the Attorney General’s Office, which has been prosecuting the case due to the Murdaugh family’s long ties with the local solicitor: Three generations of Murdaughs served as the 14th Circuit Solicitor over about 87 years.

    Murdaugh’s statements during the August 2021 interview were voluntary, Owen testified Wednesday. Murdaugh wanted to ask SLED agents questions about the investigation, Owen said, and the agent told him he wanted to ask Murdaugh some questions, too. Murdaugh indicated he was comfortable answering the agents’ questions.

    Murdaugh claimed to law enforcement he last saw Maggie and Paul earlier in the evening of the murders. They ate dinner together before Murdaugh took a nap and then drove to Almeda to visit his mother. He discovered the bodies of his wife and son, he said, when he returned home and called 911 at 10:07 p.m.

    The footage played in court Wednesday showed SLED agents confronting Murdaugh about evidence that appeared to contradict his earlier statements to law enforcement.

    It was the first time, Owen testified, that Murdaugh was confronted with the fact that Paul’s friend, Rogan Gibson, said he heard Murdaugh’s voice in the background of a phone call he had with Paul that night, shortly before the murders took place.

    “You were heard in the background, and that was prior to 9 p.m. … Was it you?” Owen asked Murdaugh, per the footage shown in court Tuesday.

    “At nine o’clock? No, sir,” Murdaugh said, “not if my times are right.”

    “Who do you think it could have been?”

    “I have no idea.”

    “And Rogan’s been around your family for pretty much all his life,” Owen said, something Murdaugh agreed with. “And he recognizes your voice, and you have a distinct voice. Can you think of anybody else that has a voice similar to yours that he may have misinterpreted?”

    “No, sir.”

    Months later, investigators discovered a video on Paul’s phone that he filmed immediately after that call, at 8:44 p.m. in the area of the family’s dog kennels, near where the bodies were found. Multiple witnesses at trial have identified Murdaugh’s voice, along with Maggie’s and Paul’s, in that video, contradicting Murdaugh’s statements to investigators he had not gone to the kennels before finding the bodies.

    The footage played Wednesday also showed the agents confront Murdaugh about another piece of footage filmed by Paul the night of the killings: A Snapchat video showing Murdaugh looking at a sapling on the family’s property. In it, Murdaugh is seen wearing pants and a blue shirt. But later, he was wearing shorts and a white T-shirt.

    “There’s a video on Paul’s phone of you and him on the farm that night. You’re wearing khaki pants and a dress shirt … When I met you that night, you were in shorts and a T-shirt,” Owen said. “At what point in the evening did you change clothes?”

    “I’m not sure,” Murdaugh said. “What time of day was that? I would have thought I would have already changed.”

    Testimony in recent days similarly undermined statements Murdaugh made to SLED during the August 2021 interview – namely, that Maggie decided to go to Moselle the night of the killings because she was worried about him and his father, whose health was deteriorating.

    Two witnesses disagree: On Tuesday, Maggie’s sister testified it was Murdaugh who wanted Maggie to come to Moselle. Maggie was staying in the family’s Edisto Beach property and did not want to go to Islandton, Marian Proctor said, recalling a conversation they had the day of the murders.

    Proctor encouraged Maggie to go, she said, breaking down in court.

    Blanca Simpson, a family housekeeper, similarly testified last week that Maggie told her the day of the murders that Alex had asked both Maggie and Paul to come to Moselle that night.

    During cross-examination, defense attorney Jim Griffin noted that investigators had the Snapchat video in July, but did not ask Murdaugh about the whereabouts of the blue shirt and pants he was seen wearing in that footage. Owen testified that he never asked Murdaugh for those clothes.

    “And the reason you didn’t, (was because) you weren’t concerned about those clothes. Your investigation had been focused since early June on the T-shirt he was wearing, the shorts he was wearing and shoes he was wearing at the time he called 911,” Griffin said.

    “Yes,” Owen replied.

    Owen testified that he had told a county grand jury that an expert found multiple particles of blood spatter on the front of the T-shirt, and it was sent to a lab for testing. The test, however, found no blood on the shirt.

    “Y’all completely overlooked the fact that when you did a HemaTrace test to confirm whether there’s blood, it came up negative. Wasn’t that overlooked?” asked Griffin.

    “I had never seen that report,” responded Owen, who admitted he did not see it until November 2022, just months before the trial began.

    “Whoever killed Maggie and Paul would likely have biological material on them from the blasts that killed the two victims, right?,” Griffin asked Owen.

    “They would have some, yes,” Owen answered.

    Griffin established that Murdaugh’s mother’s property in Almeda was not searched until months after the killings, in September 2021. No weapons were found on that property, Owen testified.

    Owen also testified that nearby waterways and the route from Moselle to Almeda was “driven several times,” but not walked over.

    At one point Wednesday, Judge Clifton Newman ruled against allowing testimony about a roadside shooting that injured Murdaugh in September 2021. Authorities have alleged that Murdaugh arranged for another man, Curtis Edward Smith, to shoot him so his surviving son could obtain millions of dollars in life insurance.

    But the judge later Wednesday decided to allow that testimony after Smith was brought up during Owen’s cross-examination.

    Griffin seemed to suggest the killings could have been related to a money dispute with a drug gang, telling the court that Murdaugh was buying $50,000 worth of drugs each week from Smith. Owen agreed, testifying that he has been told the same.

    Griffin said Smith owed a lot of money to a drug gang, and Owen testified that he was told the gang was not worried about the money because it knew it was going to get paid.

    Owen testified that Smith was brought into the investigation on September 4, 2021, the day of the roadside incident. Before that, Murdaugh had never mentioned his involvement with Smith in relation to Maggie’s and Paul’s killings, according to Owen.

    “Prior to that day, had Alex Murdaugh ever mentioned to you Curtis Edward Smith or anyone else that might have been involved in his son’s or his wife’s murder?” prosecutor John Meadors asked.

    “No, sir,” responded Owen.

    Asked if a cell phone analysis had been performed to see if any of the drug gang members were in the area the night of the killings, Owen said drug gang members typically use burner phones, and he didn’t have their phone numbers. But state investigators performed an analysis around Moselle and had identified only first responders as coming to the scene, Owen said.

    The defense attorney also asked Owen if any DNA analysis had been done to match a small amount of unknown male DNA found under Maggie Murdaugh’s fingernail. Owen said no.

    The drug investigation is ongoing, Owen testified.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pence says he’s willing to take fight against DOJ subpoena in Trump probe to Supreme Court | CNN Politics

    Pence says he’s willing to take fight against DOJ subpoena in Trump probe to Supreme Court | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former Vice President Mike Pence said Wednesday that he is willing to take his fight against a subpoena for his testimony in the Justice Department’s 2020 election subversion investigation all the way to the Supreme Court.

    “I am going to fight the Biden DOJ subpoena for me to appear before the grand jury because I believe it’s unconstitutional and unprecedented,” Pence told reporters after making a speech in Iowa.

    He said he expects former President Donald Trump to bring his own challenge to the subpoena that will raise executive privilege claims. Pence, however, intends to fight the subpoena under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which shields legislators from certain law enforcement actions targeting conduct related to their legislative duties.

    While other witnesses have raised Speech or Debate Clause argument in efforts to resist subpoenas in the DOJ probe and in the other investigations into January 6, 2021, Pence plans to invoke the clause in relation to his role as president of the Senate – which is believed to be untrod legal ground.

    In that role, he presided over Congress’ certification of the 2020 election results on January 6, 2021.

    “On the day of January 6, I was acting as President of the Senate, presiding over a Joint Session, described in the Constitution itself,” Pence said. “And so, I believe that that Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution actually prohibits the executive branch from compelling me to appear in a court, as the Constitution says, or in any other place. And we’ll stand on that principle and we’ll take that case as far as it needs to go, if need be to the Supreme Court of the United States, because to me, it’s – it’s an issue of the separation of powers.”

    He said that over the last “several months,” his team had made it clear to the Justice Department that he believed the Speech or Debate Clause precluded a subpoena for his testimony.

    CNN previously reported on Pence’s plans to raise claims under the Speech or Debate Clause.

    Pence also noted that he has written and spoken publicly about the events leading up to the January 6 certification vote. But, he said, “if we were to accede to accept a subpoena for appearance before a grand jury or a trial, I believe that would diminish the privileges enjoyed by any future vice president, either Democrat or Republican. I simply will not do that.”

    Pence first spoke publicly about his plans to fight the subpoena at an event in Minneapolis earlier Wednesday, saying that his fight was about ” separation of powers” and “defending the prerogatives that I had as president of the Senate.”

    “My fight is on the separation of powers. My fight against the DOJ subpoena very simply is on defending the prerogatives that I had as president of the Senate to preside over the Joint Session of Congress on January 6,” Pence told reporters in Minneapolis.

    “For me this is a moment where you have to decide where you stand and I stand on the Constitution of the United States,” he added.

    Pence is one of several former members of Trump’s inner circle whose testimony federal investigators have sought, as they scrutinize the events leading up to and during the January 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. That probe, as well as the federal investigation into Trump’s handling of documents from his White House that were found at Mar-a-Lago, have taken a more aggressive tack since special counsel Jack Smith took over both investigations.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pence subpoenaed by special counsel investigating Trump | CNN Politics

    Pence subpoenaed by special counsel investigating Trump | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former Vice President Mike Pence has been subpoenaed by the special counsel investigating Donald Trump and his role in January 6, 2021, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.

    Special counsel Jack Smith’s office is seeking documents and testimony related to January 6, the source said. They want the former vice president to testify about his interactions with Trump leading up to the 2020 election and the day of the attack on the US Capitol.

    The subpoena marks an important milestone in the Justice Department’s two-year criminal investigation, now led by the special counsel, into the efforts by Trump and allies to impede the transfer of power after he lost the 2020 election. Pence is an important witness who has detailed in a memoir some of his interactions with Trump in the weeks after the election, a move that likely opens the door for the Justice Department to override at least some of Trump’s claims of executive privilege.

    Pence’s attorney Emmet Flood is known as a hawk on executive privilege, and people familiar with the discussions have said Pence was expected to claim at least some limits on providing details of his direct conversations with Trump. Depending on his responses, prosecutors have the option to ask a judge to compel him to answer additional questions and override Trump’s executive privilege claims.

    ABC News first reported on the subpoena.

    Pence’s office declined to confirm he had been subpoenaed. A spokesman for the special counsel declined to comment to CNN on the matter.

    Months of negotiations preceded the subpoena to the former vice president, CNN has reported.

    Justice Department prosecutors had reached out to Pence’s representatives to seek his testimony in the criminal investigation, according to people familiar with the matter. Pence’s team had indicated he was open to discussing a possible agreement with DOJ to provide some testimony, one person said.

    That request occurred before the department appointed Smith to oversee two Trump-related investigations, the January 6-related probe and another into alleged mishandling of classified materials found at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago residence.

    In November, Pence published his memoir that detailed some of his interactions with Trump as the former president sought to overturn the results of his election loss to President Joe Biden. Pence and his team knew that the book’s publication would raise the prospect that the Justice Department would likely seek information about those interactions as part of its criminal investigation, people briefed on the matter told CNN.

    Pence rebuffed an interview request from the House select committee that investigated the January 6 insurrection, but allowed top aides to provide testimony in the House’s probe, as well as in the Justice Department’s criminal investigation. The DOJ successfully secured answers from top Pence advisers Greg Jacob and Marc Short in significant court victories that could make it more likely the criminal investigation reaches further into Trump’s inner circle.

    There are no plans for Trump’s team to challenge the grand jury subpoena of Pence at this time, according to a source familiar with its thinking. But it would still be possible for Trump to attempt to assert executive privilege over some conversations they had, if Pence declines to detail those conversations to the grand jury.

    So far, Trump’s team has lost those challenges when Pence’s deputies and two White House counsel’s office attorneys testified, following Chief Judge Beryl Howell’s rulings that they must answer questions they initially refused to because of confidentiality around the presidency.

    Howell’s tenure as chief judge of the DC District Court ends in mid-March, meaning a different federal judge, James Boasberg, could be the one to field privilege disputes in the continuing grand jury investigation.

    CNN reported earlier Thursday that Smith had also subpoenaed former Trump national security adviser Robert O’Brien in both of the Trump-related probes, according to a source familiar with the matter. O’Brien has been asserting executive privilege in declining to provide some of the information that prosecutors are seeking from him, the source said.

    Trump’s former acting Department of Homeland Security secretary was separately interviewed by Justice Department lawyers in recent weeks as part of the probe into 2020 election interference, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

    Rather than appearing before a federal grand jury, former acting secretary Chad Wolf was interviewed under oath by Justice Department lawyers and FBI officials, something one of the sources characterized as a “standard” first step for prosecutors.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Forensic expert testifies she found gunshot primer residue particles on Alex Murdaugh’s shirt and hands, and on a jacket | CNN

    Forensic expert testifies she found gunshot primer residue particles on Alex Murdaugh’s shirt and hands, and on a jacket | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A forensic scientist testified in Alex Murdaugh’s murder trial Tuesday she found gunshot primer residue particles on clothes the now-disbarred South Carolina attorney was wearing the night his wife and son were killed – and on a blue jacket that has drawn increasing attention in the proceedings.

    The particles were found on samples taken from Murdaugh’s hands, as well as the shirt and shorts he was wearing the night the two were fatally shot in 2021, Megan Fletcher, a forensic scientist who analyzes gunshot residue for the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, testified.

    The findings could mean those items were close to a firearm that was discharged, or the particles could have been transferred to those items from an object with gunshot primer residue on it, she said.

    In the case of a person’s hands, the particles could indicate the person fired a gun, Fletcher testified. She could not say when those particles would have been deposited. The Murdaughs owned firearms and had a shooting range on their property.

    Primer is one of the elements – along with the powder, the bullet and the casing – that make up an ammunition cartridge, often referred to as a round.

    Fletcher also examined a blue rain jacket that investigators found in a closet at the home of Murdaugh’s mother several months after the killings, she said. She found 38 particles of gunshot primer residue inside the jacket, which she described as a “significant number,” as well as 14 particles on the outside, she testified.

    “If a recently fired firearm were wrapped up inside that jacket, would that be consistent with your findings?” prosecutor John Meadors asked.

    “There is a possibility of that, yes,” Fletcher responded. The prosecution has said the murder weapon has yet to be found.

    The court heard about that blue rain jacket a day earlier, when defense attorneys argued to keep it out of evidence. A caregiver for Murdaugh’s mother, Mushell Smith, first testified Monday that Murdaugh went to his mother’s home early one morning after the killings and headed upstairs with something blue – which she described as a tarp – in his hands.

    South Carolina Law Enforcement Division Agent Kristin Moore told the court later on Monday. agent Kristin Moore told the court later on Monday investigators found both a blue tarp and a blue rain jacket on the second floor of the mother’s home.

    Without the jury present, the defense on Monday asked the judge to rule that the jacket shouldn’t be considered evidence. They argued the caregiver testified she saw Murdaugh carrying only a tarp – not a jacket – and said nothing connected Murdaugh to the jacket. The judge on Tuesday denied the defense’s request.

    Under cross-examination Wednesday, Fletcher acknowledged there were myriad possibilities for how the particles could have ended up on Murdaugh’s hands or the jacket, including if he had simply held a firearm or if the jacket made contact with the weapon.

    First responders testified early in the prosecution’s case that Murdaugh had a shotgun when they arrived at the scene. It was entered into evidence and is not believed to be a murder weapon.

    “When I analyzed the evidence, I did not know that he had a firearm in his hand,” Fletcher said under questioning by defense attorney Jim Griffin. “But that would be consistent with somebody who had a firearm in his hand prior to collection.”

    Griffin posited there were “just a whole lot of possibilities what could have happened, right?”

    “That’s correct,” Fletcher said.

    “And all you can tell us is what you saw under a microscope.”

    “Yes, sir.”

    “You can’t tell us how it got there, or when it got there.”

    “That’s correct.”

    But on re-direct, Fletcher underscored that the number of gunshot residue particles found on the interior of the jacket was unusual.

    “Typically, people wear their clothing right side out,” she said. “And so, if they’re in the vicinity to the discharge of a shooting, that’s where the particles are going to land.

    “On the outside?” Meadors asked.

    “Yes, sir,” Fletcher said.

    Murdaugh has pleaded not guilty to two counts of murder and two counts of possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime in the killings of his wife Margaret “Maggie” Murdaugh and his 22-year-old son Paul on June 7, 2021.

    Murdaugh called 911 the night of the killings to report he’d found his wife and son shot dead at the family’s home in Islandton, South Carolina – a property known as Moselle.

    Prosecutors accuse Murdaugh of committing the murders to distract attention from a series of alleged illicit schemes he was running to avoid “personal legal and financial ruin,” per court filings. Separate from the murder charges, Murdaugh faces 99 charges stemming from alleged financial crimes, per the state attorney general. Opening statements were delivered January 25.

    Jurors on Tuesday also heard from Murdaugh’s longtime friend and former law partner, who became the third witness to identify the disgraced former attorney’s voice on a video clip that authorities say was recorded shortly before the killings.

    The video, just short of a minute long, was filmed on Paul Murdaugh’s phone starting at 8:44 p.m. the night of the killings, a law enforcement witness testified earlier in the trial. Three different voices could be heard in the footage, which appeared to have been recorded around the Murdaugh family’s kennels, according to that earlier testimony.

    Prosecutors believe one of those voices – the only other on the video besides the victims’ – belongs to Alex Murdaugh, placing him at the scene at the time of the killings. Murdaugh has maintained in interviews with law enforcement he was not there.

    On Tuesday, the friend and former law partner, Ronnie Crosby, testified that after the killings, Murdaugh shared he had dinner with Maggie and Paul, and then fell asleep on the couch while the two went to the kennels on the Murdaugh property.

    Murdaugh told Crosby that after he woke up, Murdaugh drove to his parents’ house – roughly 20 minutes away – to see his mother, and when he returned home, discovered Maggie and Paul had been fatally shot, Crosby testified.

    “He specifically said he did not (go to the kennels),” Crosby testified.

    When the prosecution on Tuesday played the video from Paul’s phone, Crosby said he identified three voices: Paul’s, Maggie’s and Alex’s. When asked if he was certain that’s who he heard, Crosby replied, “I’m 100% sure that’s whose voices are on that audio.”

    Two other witnesses told the court last week they were certain they heard Alex Murdaugh’s voice in that footage.

    Smith, the caregiver, testified Monday that Murdaugh visited his mother for about 15 or 20 minutes the night of the killings.

    Also Tuesday, jurors heard from Jeanne Seckinger, the chief financial officer of Alex Murdaugh’s former law firm who testified last week without the jury present. At the time, the judge still was weighing whether to allow the admission of evidence about the alleged financial schemes. He decided Monday to allow it.

    Seckinger testified Tuesday – this time in front of jurors – that she confronted Murdaugh about missing funds from the firm on the morning of June 7, 2021 – hours before his wife and son would be killed.

    She looked for Alex that morning and found him standing outside his office, she testified. He “looked at me with a pretty dirty look – one I’ve not seen before – and said, ‘What do you need now?’ Clearly disgusted with me.” she testified.

    Seckinger told Murdaugh she had reason to believe he personally received legal fees from a settlement – amounting to about $792,000 – that should have been made payable to the law firm, she testified.

    “He assured me again that money was in there,” Seckinger said Tuesday. “I told him I still needed to see ledgers or proof that it was.”

    Jeanne Seckinger speaks about Alex Murdaugh's alleged financial crimes during his double murder trial at the Colleton County Courthouse on Tuesday.

    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’ pretrial motion contended “the murders served as Murdaugh’s means to shift the focus away from himself and buy 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.” According to that filing, the missing money had already been spent.

    But the June 10 hearing was canceled after Maggie’s and Paul’s deaths, Seckinger said last week.

    Immediately after the killings, no one at the firm was concerned about finding the missing money, “because we were concerned about Alex,” Seckinger testified Tuesday.

    Yet Seckinger dug into more of Murdaugh’s records in the weeks ahead and found more impropriety, she testified. In September 2021, the firm’s partners confronted Murdaugh about the money and informed him they were forcing him to resign, she told the court.

    To cover the cost of the misappropriated money, “Each partner put up money and we refunded the money to the clients,” Seckinger told the court. When asked why, she said that Murdaugh “stole it.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge rules to allow evidence of Alex Murdaugh’s alleged financial crimes in double murder trial | CNN

    Judge rules to allow evidence of Alex Murdaugh’s alleged financial crimes in double murder trial | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The judge in Alex Murdaugh’s double murder trial on Monday ruled to allow the state to present evidence of the now-disbarred South Carolina attorney’s alleged financial crimes, which the prosecution contends were about to be revealed and provided him a motive to kill his wife and son.

    The decision came after days of testimony from witnesses who were heard without the jury present as Judge Clifton Newman weighed the admissibility of the evidence of the alleged schemes, for which Murdaugh faces 99 charges separate from the murder case.

    “I find that the jury is entitled to consider whether the apparent desperation of Mr. Murdaugh, because of his dire financial situation, threat of being exposed for committing the crimes for which he was later charged with, resulted in the commission of the alleged crimes,” Newman 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 those alleged crimes, which the state asserts were about to come to light when they were killed on June 7, 2021.

    Newman’s ruling is a blow to the defense, who fought the admissibility of the evidence in the murder case, claiming the fraud cases are irrelevant to the question of Murdaugh’s guilt in the murders of his wife and son.

    While proving motive is not necessary, “the state must prove malice, and evidence of motive may be used to prove it,” Newman said in explaining his decision.

    “In this case, since the identity of the perpetrator is a critical element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence of motive may be used in an attempt to meet that burden,” he said, adding the evidence was “so intimately connected” with the explanation of the state’s theory of the case “that proof of it is essential to complete the story.”

    Over the last several days, the state called a parade of witnesses who testified in camera, or outside the jury’s presence, about the allegations against Murdaugh and the state of his finances when his wife and son were fatally shot on the family’s property in Islandton, South Carolina, known as Moselle.

    That included testimony Monday from attorney Mark Tinsley, who was suing Murdaugh at the time of the killings on behalf of the family of Mallory Beach, the 19-year-old killed when a boat – owned by Murdaugh and allegedly driven by Paul Murdaugh – crashed in February 2019.

    At the time of his death, Paul Murdaugh was facing charges of boating under the influence causing great bodily harm and causing death. He had pleaded not guilty, and court records show the charges were dropped after his death.

    Tinsley was seeking a settlement in the civil case but had been told by Murdaugh’s defense attorneys he was broke and could only “cobble together a million dollars” for a settlement. Tinsley didn’t believe that, he said, testifying he knew Murdaugh was handling a lot of cases.

    “I know that he’s actively making money, and you just can’t possibly be broke, not the way he was making money,” he said. “Beyond that, I mean my clients have known Alex and his family forever, and so their perspective is that there’s generational wealth as well.”

    Tinsley offered a payment plan, he said, but the defense objected and Tinsley filed a motion to compel that, were the judge to rule in Tinsley’s favor, would have forced Murdaugh to reveal his accounts, he testified.

    A hearing on that matter and others was scheduled for June 10, 2021 – three days after the murders – Tinsley said Monday. But it was delayed when Maggie and Paul were killed, something the attorney framed as a deathblow to his civil case against Murdaugh, telling the court, “I recognized that the case against Alex, if he were a victim of some vigilante, would in fact be over.”

    “When you’re asking for a money judgment, people have to be motivated to give you that money judgment,” Tinsley said. “If you represent Attila the Hun versus some sweet old grandmother, nobody’s gonna give Attila the Hun money, but they would give money to some sweet grandmother.”

    “So if Alex had been victimized by a vigilante, nobody would have brought a verdict back against Alex … so I would have ended the case against Alex,” he said.

    The prosecution has pointed to June 10, 2021, as a “day of reckoning,” when the hearing might lead to Murdaugh’s alleged misdeeds being exposed. But in their cross-examination of Tinsley Monday, Murdaugh’s attorneys sought to undermine that argument, suggesting June 10, 2021, did not herald that reckoning.

    The motion to compel just one of a “pile of motions” that would be heard that day ahead of a potential trial that might be weeks or months down the road, defense attorney Phillip Barber said.

    “The gist of this is that there was perhaps going to be this Judgment Day, I think is the term the state used,” Barber said. “But that was going to be trial, right? That was going to be the verdict. That was going to be Judgment Day.

    Tinsley disagreed: “That’s the Judgment Day … and there were a lot of threads that were being pulled and it was subject to unraveling at any moment.”

    Prosecutor Creighton Waters drove his point home in his re-direct, asking Tinsley, “If the hearing takes place on June 10, 2021, what is the net effect of everything that could happen at that point?”

    “The discovery,” Tinsley said, “of everything he’s done.”

    After the judge’s ruling the jury heard from Mushell Smith, a caregiver for Alex Murdaugh’s mother, who testified she saw Murdaugh at his parents’ home in Almeda the night of the killings.

    That evening, Murdaugh called the house phone, told Smith he was outside and to let him in, said Smith, who was at times emotional during her testimony. Murdaugh then went into the room with his mother, who was suffering from Alzheimer’s, sat on the bed, looked at his phone and left about 20 minutes later, Smith testified. Asked to describe his behavior, Smith said Murdaugh was “fidgety.”

    Murdaugh’s father passed away days later, and following the funeral, the family hosted a meal at the Almeda home, she said. During the gathering, Murdaugh came into his mother’s room and spoke to Smith, she said, telling her, “I was here 30 to 40 minutes” the night of the murders.

    The conversation upset Smith, she testified, adding she called her brother afterward to tell him about it.

    The next day, Smith said, Murdaugh asked her about her upcoming wedding, commented that it would be expensive and offered to help. Murdaugh had never before asked her about her wedding, Smith said.

    Three days after the funeral, Murdaugh showed up at the house again, Smith said, this time around 6:30 a.m., which was unusually early. But unlike his last unannounced visit, Murdaugh did not call the house phone to let Smith know he’d arrived. Instead, he knocked on the exterior wall by the bedroom window, she said.

    When she let him inside, Murdaugh was carrying something in his arms, Smith said, describing it as a blue tarp. He said nothing to her, Smith said, and went upstairs. He left soon after, she said, and while Smith later saw the blue item unfolded on a chair in a room upstairs, it was gone when she returned the next day.

    Under cross examination by defense attorney Jim Griffin, Smith told the court Murdaugh did not have blood on his clothes, shoes or in his hair when she saw him the night of the killings, also conceding that his “fidgety” behavior was normal for Murdaugh. She also acknowledged that Murdaugh’s offer to help with her wedding was something a “good person” would do.

    Additionally, Smith conceded she did not mention the blue, tarp-like item in her interview with state investigators, on June 16, 2021. It wasn’t until she had been in a car accident in September that she mentioned the tarp to a police officer working the wreck. The officer apparently reported Smith said Murdaugh had come over the night of the murders with a blue tarp that looked like it had a gun wrapped inside, but Smith insisted she did not say that.

    “So, you didn’t tell (the officer) that he came over and you couldn’t tell, but stated, ‘It looked like a rifle,’” Griffin asked.

    “No, I said it looked like he was holding something, I did not say it was a rifle,” Smith said.

    “And if (the officer) wrote a report saying that, he was incorrect?”

    “Yes,” Smith said.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link