Thread: Legal Charges Against Trump

• E. Jean Carroll rape case against Trump prepares for trial

Donald Trump’s new lawyer vows no more delay tactics as E. Jean Carroll rape case heads for trial

Trying to smooth out a historically strained relationship with the presiding judge, former President Donald Trump‘s new lawyer vowed there would be no delay tactics pending trial on writer E. Jean Carroll’s rape case.

“If you say start tomorrow, I’ll be ready,” promised Trump’s new star lawyer Joe Tacopina, who previously represented former Yankees third basemen Alex Rodriguez, rapper Jay-Z, Fox News anchor Sean Hannity, New York State Senator Hiram Monserrate, and Kimberly Guilfoyle.

Despite that assertion, Tacopina did request an adjournment of “weeks, not months,” to be present for the birth of his first grandchild.

He also wanted more time to scrutinize Carroll’s claim of emotional damages, to assess the lawsuit’s claims that the “music had stopped” and the “light had gone out” after Trump allegedly sexually assaulted her in the dressing room of a Bergdorf Goodman in the mid-1990s.

Senior U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who repeatedly slammed Trump’s former counsel Alina Habba for what he described as stalling, indicated that he has confidence in Trump’s latest top attorney.

“To say we have no issues is a vast understatement,” Kaplan said.

But Kaplan added that the case has a history.

“But things keep happening in this case, the case involving your client, and I would have to take that into account too,” the judge added.

Shortly before Tuesday’s proceedings, changes were afoot in Trump’s legal team, but just what happened was disputed. Carroll’s lawyers wrote a letter to the court indicating that Trump lawyer Alina Habba decided to withdraw, shortly after facing a nearly $1 million sanctions order in another case. Habba denied that as “fake news” in a phone interview with Law&Crime, saying flatly: “I am not withdrawing.” She acknowledged in a letter, however, that Trump’s legal team was in “transition.”

Judge Kaplan didn’t immediately rule on whether to grant a postponement.

“So far as the contretemps of this morning, I’ll let you know what I decide soon,” he said.

_________

Update – Real soon

Adam Klasfeld - The judge presiding over E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit against Donald Trump bumped the trial date only roughly two weeks until April 25.

Trump's legal team wanted an adjournment until June. https://mobile.twitter.com/KlasfeldR...79812305936384

Special counsel subpoenas Pence in Trump investigation: reports

The special counsel leading the Justice Department’s investigations into former President Trump has subpoenaed former Vice President Mike Pence, multiple outlets reported on Thursday.

Special counsel Jack Smith — who was appointed in November to oversee the investigation into the former president’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and his handling of classified materials — is reportedly seeking documents and testimony from Pence, according to CNN.

The subpoena, which was first reported by ABC News, is seeking testimony from the former vice president about his interactions with Trump in the run up to the 2020 election, as well as on Jan. 6, 2021, itself, CNN reported.

The New York Times previously reported in November that the Justice Department was in talks with Pence’s representatives in an effort to obtain his testimony.

The former vice president played a central role in the events of Jan. 6 when he defied Trump’s requests to block the certification of the 2020 election.

As rioters broke into the Capitol, Trump fanned the flames, tweeting that “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.”

Several rioters could be heard chanting “Hang Mike Pence” amid the chaos that ensued.

a laptop belonging to a current aide of the former president was also provided to federal agents

it had been electronically copied to a laptop of a current Trump aide

"They will also seek to determine if classified material was transmitted electronically to other computers or devices via that computer."

• Trump team turns over items marked classified to DOJ, sources say

Former President Donald Trump's legal team turned over a folder with classification markings found last month at his Mar-a-Lago resort to federal agents, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.

It is unclear what type of classification markings the folder had or what material had previously been inside.

Additionally, sources tell ABC News that a laptop belonging to a current aide of the former president was also provided to federal agents.

Sources said the discovery occurred in mid-January as Trump's team was searching through additional boxes amid the Department of Justice's ongoing efforts to have Trump's attorneys verify that Trump no longer still has classified documents in his possession.

The material was discovered in the Mar-a-Lago complex, and not in a storage facility within the complex that housed hundreds of classified documents prior to them being seized in August 2022, the sources said.

During the August search, investigators seized 46 folders with classified banners that were empty.

Trump attorney James Trusty turned over the folder with classification markings to federal investigators, and also informed agents that it had been electronically copied to a laptop of a current Trump aide, the sources said.

ABC News has also learned that after the information was recovered, federal agents retrieved the laptop from the aide. The laptop was not retrieved on the Mar-a-Lago grounds, the sources said.

"It is customary in circumstances such as this for investigators to search the computer to see if classified material is still on that computer," said John Cohen, former acting undersecretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security and now an ABC News contributor. "They will also seek to determine if classified material was transmitted electronically to other computers or devices via that computer."

In a statement to ABC News, a spokesperson for Trump called the government's ongoing probe "nothing more than a targeted, politically motivated witch hunt against President Trump, concocted to try and prevent the American people from returning him to the White House."

"Just like all the other fake hoaxes thrown at President Trump, this corrupt effort will also fail," the spokesperson said. "The weaponized Department of Injustice [sic] has shown no regard for common decency and key rules that govern the legal system."

Neither Trusty nor the special counsel's office immediately responded to a request for comment from ABC News.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

a laptop belonging to a current aide of the former president was also provided to federal agents

it had been electronically copied to a laptop of a current Trump aide

I read this sentence a couple of time and still don't get it.

The laptop belonging to a current aid, was electronically copied to the current aid??

The classified document was copied on to one of trump’s aides.

The FBI wants to know if that aide sent the copied classified document to anyone.

'If You're Innocent, Why Are You Taking the 5th Amendment?'

• Trump lawyers to appeal DOJ subpoena of Pence, claiming executive privilege: reports

Attorneys for former President Trump plan to appeal the subpoena that Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith issued to former Vice President Mike Pence as part of his investigation into the former president’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, according to multiple reports.

CBS first reported Friday that a source close to Trump’s legal team said his lawyers would contest the subpoena for Pence to turn over documents and provide testimony about his interactions with Trump in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election and the insurrection. The challenge would be based on an argument of executive privilege.

A source familiar with the discussions members of Trump’s legal team are having also told NBC News of the plans.

Trump has on multiple occasions argued that executive privilege should shield him or former administration officials from having to provide documents or testimony for investigations involving him or an aspect of his administration.

He asserted executive privilege to try to prevent former administration officials from testifying before the House select committee that investigated the insurrection and to try to stop the National Archives from providing records about the attack to the committee. His arguments of executive privilege have been dismissed in many cases in the past following court battles.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

I read this sentence a couple of time and still don't get it.

the doc was scanned to a laptop

Originally Posted by baldrick

the doc was scanned to a laptop

Which means a copy of a classified document was intentionally made, which is a big no no.

^^Thank you, Rick. ^I guess Trump’s statement on social media about Mar-A-Lago being "Highly Secured" just flew out the window.

________

• Trump offers DNA to compare against accuser's dress

Former President Donald Trump is willing to provide a DNA sample to be compared against stains on the dress of a woman who accused him of rape, though only under certain conditions, his lawyer said Friday.

Attorney Joseph Tacopina told a Manhattan federal court judge in a letter that Trump will turn over the sample as long as lawyers for his accuser, columnist E. Jean Carroll, provide missing pages from a DNA report on the dress first.

Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, called that offer a disingenuous effort to delay an April trial and prejudice potential jurors.

She submitted a letter to the judge saying the sudden offer of DNA after Trump refused to provide it for three years was a “legally frivolous delay tactic.”

“The time has come for him to face a jury,” Kaplan wrote, noting that the period when new facts could be unearthed for trial expired in October.

According to a court filing Thursday, Trump and Carroll are both listed as their lawyers’ first possible witnesses at a trial scheduled to start April 24.

Carroll, 79, has sued Trump for defamation and for rape, saying Trump turned a friendly encounter at a luxury Manhattan department store in late 1995 or early 1996 into a violent rape.

She did not speak publicly about it until releasing a book in 2019: “What Do We Need Men For?”

Trump has insisted the meeting never happened, including during an October deposition, and his lawyer said the same in his latest court filing.

Tacopina said Carroll and her lawyers were trying to gain a publicity advantage by claiming Trump's DNA is on the dress she wore the night she said she was raped.

“Mr. Trump's DNA is either on the dress or it is not,” he said.

Tacopina said Carroll's lawyers have declined to produce a dozen pages of the DNA report they obtained because “she knows his DNA is not on the dress because the alleged sexual assault never occurred.”

Kaplan, though, said Carroll decided to proceed to trial without a protracted battle over DNA evidence after Trump's repeated refusals to provide a sample.

“There is no DNA evidence in this case, and none will be introduced at trial,” Kaplan wrote.

Her client instead “has amassed powerful proof that Trump sexually assaulted her” without the sample, Kaplan said.

The lawyer said a report by an expert showed there was unidentified male DNA present on the dress Carroll wore when she encountered Trump, but she said it was not an isolated sample of male DNA but rather a mix of DNA that would require complex analysis if the judge permitted the issue to be reopened prior to trial.

_______

Just for fun.

• Research Firm Hired By Trump To Prove 2020 Election Fraud Came Up Empty: Report

A research firm investigated Donald Trump’s assertion that the presidential election was fraudulent, but its findings were suppressed because they found nothing to support his claims, The Washington Post reported citing four sources familiar with the matter.

The Berkeley Research Group, hired by the former president’s 2020 campaign, gathered a team of around a dozen people to look into alleged voter fraud and irregularities in six states, according to the Post.

The team reportedly briefed Trump, his former chief of staff Mark Meadows and others on a conference call held in the last days of 2020 — before Trump held a rally urging his supporters to march on the Capitol preceding the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection. The call reportedly became contentious.

But the researchers had looked at “everything,” one source told the Post.

“Literally anything you could think of. Voter turnout anomalies, date of birth anomalies, whether dead people voted. If there was anything under the sun that could be thought of, they looked at it,” the source said.

As recently as Saturday morning, Trump has claimed that the 2020 presidential election was “rigged” or “stolen” from him, pushing various conspiracy theories about voting machines and election workers.

He has made these claims even as dozens of lawsuits filed by Trump’s campaign or his allies were tossed out for lack of evidence in the weeks after President Joe Biden’s victory.

Trump continued to make his claims throughout the House select committee’s monthslong investigation, which revealed that people close to Trump repeatedly tried to tell him there was no evidence of fraud.

And apparently, he made them despite knowing that a team of professional researchers he paid to try and find evidence of fraud came up empty-handed.

The Post’s source added: “Just like any election, there are always errors, omissions and irregularities.” But the person stressed that they were not nearly enough to sway the election.

“It was nowhere close enough to what they wanted to prove,” the source said, “and it actually went in both directions.”

Judge orders partial release of Georgia grand jury report on possible 2020 election crimes

A judge in Georgia has ordered public release on Thursday of a special grand jury’s report that focuses on whether former President Donald Trump broke state law by pressuring local officials to change the 2020 presidential election results.

However, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney said he doesn’t plan–for now–to release the bulk of the grand jury’s work, including the parts that address potential criminal liability for Trump or other individuals.

In an order released Monday morning responding to requests from media organizations for access to the special grand jury’s report, McBurney said he intends to put the introduction and conclusion to the summation on the public record this week, along with a portion of the report discussion about potential false statements made to the grand jury under oath.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis indicated last month that decisions on whether to charge any subjects of her investigation are “imminent.” Her year-long probe into whether Trump violated Georgia election law — in part by urging Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to reverse the outcome — featured extensive efforts to compel testimony form some of Trump’s top White House and campaign advisers, as well as his outside lawyers.

Dispite Willis’ preferences on timing, McBurney said he had to prioritize the public’s right to know about at least the general findings of the probe into alleged efforts to tamper with the 2020 election results.

“While publication may not be convenient for the pacing of the district attorney’s investigation, the compelling public interest in these proceedings and the unquestionable value and importance of transparency require their release,” McBurney wrote in his eight-page order.

A spokesperson for Willis did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the judge’s order and whether she will seek to appeal it.

McBurney ruled that aspects of the report that recommend whether to indict — or not indict — specific individuals should remain private for now in part because those individuals are not afforded the same due process rights during the grand jury process they would have in court if they’re charged.

While witnesses were permitted to have their lawyers nearby during the grand-jury proceedings, those lawyers were not permitted to sit in on the interviews to help mount a defense or rebut questions from prosecutors and grand jurors.

Willis’ office got court approval for the special grand jury investigation last January and impaneled the actual jury in May.

The probe stems in large part from a phone call Trump held with Raffensperger on Jan. 3, 2021, asking him to locate more than additional 11,000 votes for Trump so that he could be deemed the victor over Joe Biden in the state. Raffensperger and other state officials repeatedly told Trump they’d looked into allegations he’d made of fraud and hidden stashes ballots, but found nothing to support them.

While the Georgia officials stood firm, a recording of the call indicates Trump continued to press, largely ignoring their explanations.

But the probe significantly broadened over time to focus on Trump’s larger effort to subvert the 2020 election, in part by pushing allies in several states to deliver false sets of presidential electors to Washington. Among the witnesses Willis compelled to appear in Fulton County: Rudy Giuliani, Mike Flynn, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Mark Meadows, all of whom lost court battles to resist her summons.

Many legal analysts have said the call could amount to an illegal attempt to tamper with the election results, although Trump has described the call as “perfect.” The special grand jury also explored efforts other Trump supporters made to urge recounts or decertification of the election results in the days before Congress met to tally the electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump’s lawyers did not seek to intervene in the litigation over releasing the special grand jury’s report. The former president’s attorneys issued a statement last month saying they assumed the investigative body recommended no charges since it never subpoenaed him or sought a voluntary interview.

Trump’s attorneys did not immediately respond to a request Monday for comment on the judge’s new order.

Under Georgia law, special grand juries cannot return indictments, but their results can be used by prosecutors to take a case before a regular grand jury to seek criminal charges.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...nal-report.pdf

Is it today Dad?

^one wonderful daughter I know of and you ain’t her

indictments are coming

• Atlanta grand jury recommends perjury charges in Trump 2020 election probe

An Atlanta judge released part of a grand jury report Thursday saying jurors believe one or more witnesses committed perjury during their probe into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Why it matters: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' investigation remains a key venue in which former President Trump and his allies might face criminal charges for alleged election interference and other crimes.

The big picture: The released pages, which include the report's introduction and conclusion, didn't reveal any names or details on recommendations for charges of election interference.

• The 26-member grand jury also said that after hearing "extensive testimony" from poll workers, investigators, experts and state officials: "We find by unanimous vote that no widespread fraud took place in the Georgia 2020 presidential election that could result in overturning that election."

Zoom in: The judge decided earlier this week to release the introduction, conclusion and a section where the grand jury discusses concerns about witnesses lying under oath — after a hearing on the matter.

• The special grand jury asked to publicize the report, but Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis pushed to keep it secret for now, to protect her investigation. She has not made known any charging decisions.

Flashback: "[W]hile publication may not be convenient for the pacing of the District Attorney's investigation, the compelling public interest in these proceedings and the unquestionable value and importance of transparency require their release," Fulton County Judge Robert McBurney wrote.

By the numbers: 75 witnesses testified to the grand jury during the seven months it heard testimony, the vast majority of which happened in person and under oath, the grand jury wrote.

• Witnesses have included Trump's former lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Gov. Brian Kemp and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Yes, but: Trump himself has not been asked to participate, his lawyer said in a statement earlier this month.

What's next: The grand jurors confirmed that the complete report — which remains secret — includes their "recommendations on indictments and relevant statutes," as well as the grand jurors votes on each.

• They added that the District Attorney's office "had nothing to do with the recommendations contained herein."

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...023-report.pdf

___________

• NY appeals court upholds $110,000 sanction against Trump

Trump must pay $110,000 to New York AG for contempt in fraud probe, appellate court rules

A New York appellate court has upheld a $110,000 contempt order against former President Donald Trump for flouting discovery orders in the state attorney general’s fraud investigation.

“Once again, the courts have ruled that Donald Trump is not above the law. For years, he tried to stall and thwart our lawful investigation into his financial dealings, but today’s decision sends a clear message that there are consequences for abusing the legal system. We will not be bullied or dissuaded from pursuing justice,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement applauding the decision.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron imposed the contempt order before James formally filed her lawsuit. The judge eventually purged the order and capped the fine after Trump’s lawyers filed affidavits attesting that they performed a complete search.

A five-judge panel of New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously upheld the ruling.

The appeals court found that James determined by “clear and convincing evidence” that Trump’s insufficient response to the subpoena “prejudicially violated the lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge.”

“The court correctly found, and adequately recited, that that violation was calculated to, and actually did, impair [the New York attorney general]’s rights or remedies,” the ruling states.

• Judge denies Trump’s offer to give DNA in E. Jean Carroll case, calling it delay tactic

A federal judge on Wednesday denied former President Trump’s “quid pro quo” offer to provide his DNA in a case accusing him of sexual assault, slamming it as a delay tactic.

Trump previously repelled efforts by author E. Jean Carroll — who accused Trump of raping her in the mid-1990s — to secure a DNA sample from the former president. Trump vehemently denies the assault, and Carroll wanted to test it against samples from the dress she said she wore that day.

But Trump’s attorney, Joseph Tacopina, offered last week to provide the DNA sample if Carroll agreed to provide a missing appendix from the DNA report on the dress in exchange. Carroll’s attorneys rebuffed the offer.

“There is no justification for any such deal,” ruled Judge Lewis Kaplan. “Either Ms. Carroll is obliged to supply the omitted appendix or she is not. Either Mr. Trump is obliged to provide a DNA sample or he is not. Neither is a quid pro quo for the other.”

“And the short answer to Mr Trump’s request is clear,” Kaplan added. “Mr. Trump is not entitled to the undisclosed appendix. The time for pretrial discovery in both cases is over, and Mr. Trump never previously asked for it.”

Trump’s team had argued that producing the appendix was needed for due process reasons, suggesting he needed it to prepare for trial.

Tacopina declined to comment on the ruling.

________

• Trump seeks to block past accusers from testifying in defamation trial

Former President Donald Trump is asking the Southern District Court of New York to block two women who previously accused him of sexual assault from testifying in a defamation trial this spring.

Author E. Jean Carroll, who alleges Trump raped her in the 1990s, filed a defamation suit against the former president after he denied her allegation. The case is scheduled to go to trial in April.

Carroll intends to call Natasha Stoynoff and Jessica Leeds for the trial to testify against Trump. Both women came forward with allegations against him in 2016.

Stoynoff alleges that Trump sexually assaulted her while she was attempting to interview Trump and his wife for People Magazine in 2005. Leeds accused Trump of kissing and groping her while on a flight in the 1980s.

Trump’s lawyers argue that the witnesses should not be brought to trial because their allegations — which Trump denies — are unrelated to Carroll’s case.

The motion from Trump’s lawyers also seeks to prevent the use of the “Access Hollywood” tape from the trial, in which Trump was captured on a hot mic bragging about groping women.

Carroll’s lawyers say the two women’s testimony should be allowed because it “evidences Trump’s modus operandi of forcing himself on nonconsenting women.”

__________

• Trump wants no Access Hollywood tape in E. Jean Carroll trial

E. Jean Carroll wants ‘Access Hollywood’ tape, testimony from Trump accusers at upcoming defamation trial

Former President Donald Trump is trying to keep the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape out of evidence at his upcoming defamation trial, despite defending his own words in an October deposition last year.

A pretrial motion filed by Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan on Thursday argues that testimony from other Trump accusers, including Natasha Stoynoff and Jessica Leeds, should be admitted at trial.

Stoynoff alleges that Trump assaulted her at his Florida Mar-a-Lago compound in 2005, and Leeds has accused Trump of assaulting her on a plane in the 1980s. Excerpts from their testimony attached to Kaplan’s motion describe the alleged assaults in disturbing detail.

Trump’s lawyers say that it is “plainly evident” that “the contents of the Access Hollywood Tape, and Defendant’s comments concerning them, do not even tangentially relate to the core of Plaintiff’s claim.”

Habba and Madaio also want to keep out evidence of Carroll’s claims of emotional damages.

The trial is set to start on April 10.

• Trump special investigation shows signs of ramping up

The Justice Department probes into Donald Trump’s conduct appear to be ramping up, as special counsel Jack Smith approaches key allies of the former president with knowledge of his activities surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and classified documents discovered at Mar-a-Lago in Florida.

In recent weeks, Smith has subpoenaed both former Vice President Mike Pence and then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, two figures with strong visibility into Trump’s actions leading up to and on the day of the deadly riot.

The Justice Department has also sought to pierce the attorney-client privilege connected to Trump’s lawyer in the Mar-a-Lago probe, Evan Corcoran, alleging he may have given legal advice in furtherance of a crime.

Approaching high-level targets is often a late-stage move for prosecutors, a sign the investigative stage of Smith’s Jan. 6 work could be winding down.

Meanwhile, the approach with Corcoran relays that the team will take an aggressive posture with anyone involved in the probe they believe may have committed criminal activity.

“We can draw a few conclusions from it that are fairly apparent. One is that Jack Smith is conducting a very aggressive investigation. Issuing a subpoena to an attorney is itself an aggressive step that requires high levels of supervisory approval of the United States Department of Justice,” said Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor.

“I don’t think a prosecutor subpoenas Mike Pence unless they are far along in speaking to a number of other witnesses.”

The tactics are not without their challenges.

Pence has said he will challenge the subpoena, and it’s up to a federal judge to compel testimony from Corcoran.

Still, it’s a sign of progress in the dual probes, including with the Jan. 6 investigation, which has been perceived as presenting a much more complex case for any possible prosecution of Trump.

The documents case largely relies on showing willful retention of national defense information, something observers see as more straightforward given the lengthy battle to secure the return of classified records from Mar-a-Lago. The warrant to search the property also cited potential obstruction of justice.

Trump’s culpability for Jan. 6, however, is more complex, with possible statutes for prosecution requiring the demonstration of Trump’s intent.

“A lot of people believed that because the Mar-a-Lago case would be an easier case to prove that [Smith would] focus attention there and put the January 6 investigation on the back burner or put that second in line, and that has not been the case,” Mariotti said.

“I think it’s evidence that his investigation — at least to this Jan. 6 piece — is fairly far along.”

Danya Perry, a former federal prosecutor, said the moves also show the Mar-a-Lago probe into Trump has not been sidelined by the discovery of classified documents among the belongings of other former presidents.

“Obviously the special counsel has not decided to hang it up, which I think some people thought [he might] when news came out about a number of other former White House officials having classified documents,” Perry said.

“That side of the ledger, the classified documents side, it does seem to be focused on the potential obstruction issues given that he’s been trying to get testimony out of Corcoran.”

________

Just because

• ‘It’s not a short list’: Grand jury recommended multiple charges in Trump Georgia probe, foreperson reveals

The Georgia special grand jury investigating the attempt by former President Donald Trump and his associates to overturn the 2020 election results in the state has recommended indictments against several individuals on multiple charges in its report, only part of which has been released, the jury’s forewoman has said.

“It is not a short list,” Emily Kohrs told The New York Times. She said the jury appended eight pages of legal code “that we cited at various points in the report”.

She chose not to comment on who the grand jury has recommended for indictment as the judge chose to not release that information when publishing parts of the report last week.

Ms Kohrs told the paper that seven sections of the report that haven’t been released handle recommendations for indictment.

She was asked if Mr Trump had been recommended for indictment.

“You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science,” she told The Times. “You won’t be too surprised.”

Amidst Mr Trump’s 2024 campaign for the White House, the Atlanta probe is viewed as one of the top legal threats against him.

The Department of Justice appointed special counsel Jack Smith in November to be in charge of two criminal investigations connected to the former president.

In January, the office of the Manhattan DA started presenting evidence to a grand jury on if Mr Trump made hush money payments during the 2016 campaign to Stormy Daniels, a port star who alleged they had had an affair.

One of the main issues of the Atlanta probe is a 2 January 2021 call that Mr Trump made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, during which he pushed him to “find” 11,780 votes for him – just enough to overcome President Joe Biden’s lead.

“We definitely started with the first phone call, the call to Secretary Raffensperger that was so publicized,” Ms Kohrs told The Times.

The forewoman first spoke to The Associated Press on Tuesday.

“I will tell you that if the judge releases the recommendations, it is not going to be some giant plot twist,” she said. “You probably have a fair idea of what may be in there. I’m trying very hard to say that delicately.”

The special grand jury convened for almost seven months, meeting in a courthouse in downtown Atlanta, hearing testimony from 70 witnesses. Mr Trump didn’t appear as a witness, and his legal team has argued that he’s not guilty of any wrongdoing.

The Fulton County District Attorney, Fani Willis, was in charge of the investigation and will have the final say on who will be charged.

Georgia grand jury on Trump interference recommended multiple indictments

Foreperson reacts to Trump's claim that he gets total exoneration in GA probe

• Trump daughter Ivanka, son-in-law Jared Kushner subpoenaed in Jan. 6 criminal probe: report

The special counsel overseeing a criminal investigation of former President Donald Trump has issued subpoenas to Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner, according to a new report.

The subpoenas by special counsel Jack Smith, which demand the couple’s testimony before a grand jury, are related to his probe of Trump’s efforts to remain in the White House after losing the 2020 election to President Joe Biden and the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, The New York Times reported.

Both Ivanka Trump and Kushner served as senior White House advisors to the former president.

Smith previously issued a subpoena to former Vice President Mike Pence, who has said he will oppose the demand for his testimony.

A spokesman for Smith and an attorney for Kushner did not immediately respond to CNBC’s requests for comment on the Times report.

_______

• Judge says Trump, Wray can be deposed in suits from former FBI officials

A federal judge on Thursday greenlighted the depositions of former President Trump and FBI Director Christopher Wray in suits from two former employees of the bureau who argue they were unfairly targeted due to their work investigating the former president’s ties to Russia during the 2016 election.

Text messages between former FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page, who were engaged in an affair, show the two discussing the investigation into Trump and making critical comments about him.

Strzok, who was fired from the bureau, is challenging his dismissal, while Page, who resigned, similarly asserts that Trump and his appointees targeted her out of a political vendetta.

An order from U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, allows a two-hour deposition of each figure — if President Biden makes no executive privilege claims over any aspect of the testimony.

The Department of Justice sought to quash Strzok’s requests to depose Trump and Wray, contending that he had not shown their testimony was needed.

But Jackson said the testimony can move forward under the “apex doctrine,” which only permits depositions of high-ranking government officials when they have some personal knowledge about the matter and the information cannot be obtained elsewhere.

Her order, however, limits the depositions to “the narrow set of topics” specified at a sealed court hearing on Thursday.

Strzok filed his suit in 2019 after being fired the year prior. It came after a series of August 2016 text messages surfaced that showed Strzok telling Page that people had to “stop” then-candidate Trump from becoming president.

_______

Extra

• Steve Bannon’s ex-lawyers sue for nearly $500,000 in unpaid legal fees

Former Trump strategist Steve Bannon’s ex-lawyers are suing him for nearly half a million in unpaid legal fees, according to a complaint filed on Saturday.

Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP (DHC) represented Bannon in his fight against responding to a subpoena from the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attacks as well as other cases over a two year period, according to the complaint. The firm said in the complaint that in total, Bannon owed the firm $855,487.87, despite him agreeing to pay the firm for its legal services.

The complaint stated that he had only paid $375,000, which left the $480,487.87 that the firm is suing for.

The complaint stated that DHC represented Bannon from November 2020 to November 2022. The firm said in the complaint that it issued regular invoices to Bannon, to which he “never raised any objection” to.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Foreperson reacts to Trump's claim that he gets total exoneration in GA probe

How in the heck did this goofy woman get to be foreman of the grand jury? I am hoping her shooting off her mouth before any indictment is not going to damage the case. She is literally scary to me. Just does not seem right in the head?

I like her.

There could be a little trouble, but in the end some will be indicted and hopefully serve time after they are convicted.

Fulton County Judge Robert McBurney disbanded the jury after it submitted its report last month. He did not bar jurors from speaking publicly about the excerpts of the report that were made public, but restricted them from sharing details about their deliberations, leaving Kohrs' remarks a matter of bad optics, experts said.

"Not smart but not illegal," Harry Litman, a former senior Justice Department official wrote on Twitter. "Of course, her 15 minute [public relations] tour could be bad for the case and give rise to defense motions."

• Classified Trump schedules were moved to Mar-a-Lago after FBI search – sources

Donald Trump’s lawyers found a box of White House schedules, including some that were marked classified, at his Mar-a-Lago resort in December because a junior aide to the former president had transported it from another office in Florida after the FBI completed its search of the property.

The former president does not appear to have played a direct role in the mishandling of the box, though he remains under investigation for the possible improper retention of national security documents and obstruction of justice. This previously unreported account of the retrieval was revealed by two sources familiar with the matter.

Known internally as ROTUS, short for Receptionist of the United States, the junior aide initially kept the box at a converted guest bungalow at Mar-a-Lago called the “tennis cottage” after Trump left office, and she soon took it with her to a government-leased office in the Palm Beach area.

The box remained at the government-leased office from where the junior aide worked through most of 2022, explaining why neither Trump’s lawyer who searched Mar-a-Lago in June for any classified-marked papers nor the FBI agents who searched the property in August found the documents.

Around the time that Trump returned to Mar-a-Lago from his Bedminster golf club in New Jersey at the end of the summer, the junior aide was told that she was being relocated to a desk in the anteroom of Trump’s own office at Mar-a-Lago that was previously assigned to top aide Molly Michael.

The junior aide retrieved her work belongings – including the box – from the government-leased office and took them to her new Mar-a-Lago workspace around September. At that time, the justice department’s criminal investigation into Trump’s retention of national security documents was intensifying.

Several weeks after the junior aide moved into her new workspace, federal prosecutors told Trump’s lawyers in October that they suspected the former president was still in possession of additional documents with classified markings despite the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago on 8 August.

The Trump legal team subsequently hired two private contractors with security clearances to search Trump properties around Thanksgiving: Trump Tower in New York, Trump Bedminster and an external storage unit that turned up two additional documents marked as classified, the Guardian has reported.

But the justice department was not satisfied, and it pressed the Trump legal team to get the contractors to conduct the third known search of Mar-a-Lago in early December – at which point the contractors discovered the box of presidential schedules, some with classified markings.

The Trump legal team alerted the FBI, which sent federal agents down to collect the box and its contents the following day.

A few weeks later, Trump’s lawyers started exploring whether they could get a better understanding of the sensitivity of the small number of schedules marked as classified, for the junior aide had kept sole custody of the box throughout that period.

It was at that point that the junior aide revealed for the first time that she could find out exactly what they were, because Michael – who left the Trump political team at the end of the summer – had told her to scan all of the schedules to her laptop.

A lawyer for the junior aide declined to comment on Thursday night. A lawyer for Michael did not respond to a request for comment.

When the Trump legal team told the justice department about the uploads, federal prosecutors demanded the laptop and its password, warning that they would otherwise move to obtain a grand jury subpoena summoning the junior aide to Washington to grant them access to the computer.

To avoid a subpoena, the Trump legal team agreed to turn over the laptop in its entirety last month, though they did not allow federal prosecutors to collect it from Mar-a-Lago and handed it over just outside the gates of the property.

It was later in January – as the justice department retrieved the laptop – that federal prosecutors in the office of the Trump investigation special counsel Jack Smith issued a grand jury subpoena for a Manila folder marked “Classified Evening Briefing” observed in the former president’s bedroom, the Guardian first reported.

__________

Extra

• Judge Reveals Rep. Scott Perry's Bid To Shield Thousands Of Files From Jan. 6 Committee

The legal battle over Rep. Scott Perry’s (R-Pa.) phone has become clearer.

In a December 51-page decision unsealed Friday, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell revealed Perry had requested to shield 2,219 files from the Jan. 6 committee investigating former President Donald Trump — and his attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

“The powerful public interest in accessing these judicial records cannot be understated,” wrote Howell in her memorandum on Friday.

Perry’s phone was seized one day after the FBI raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home to recover classified documents in August. Perry claimed it merely held personal or work-related files that were “none of…the government’s business,” which Howell has since refuted.

Perry, a close ally of the former president, sued the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prevent his phone from being accessed. However, he quietly dropped that suit in October while continuing to assert that the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause should shield it from investigators.

While Howell allowed Perry to keep 161 of his records from investigators, she ordered him to disclose 2,055 files, which included 960 of his contacts with the executive branch.

“What is plain is the clause does not shield Rep. Perry’s…political discussions…with state legislators concerning hearings before them about possible election fraud or actions they could take to challenge election results in Pennsylvania,” she wrote in December.

The Washington, D.C., judge added this “astonishing view of the scope of the legislative privilege” Perry claimed to be protected by “would truly cloak Members of Congress with a powerful dual non-disclosure and immunity shield for virtually any of their activities.”

Perry not only served as a liaison between the White House and DOJ official Jeffrey Clark in the days after Trump’s election loss but was also named as one of at least five Republicans who sought preemptive pardons before the end of Trump’s term.

Perry was previously subpoenaed to testify by the Jan. 6 committee but refused to show.

Howell’s ruling that the files warrant investigation is still being debated by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to Politico.

Should they reject Perry’s argument that the “speech or debate” clause should protect his communications, he would have to request the full bench of D.C. Circuit Court judges — or the Supreme Court itself — to reconsider.

Georgia judge: Trump grand jury panelists ‘can talk about the final report’

The Georgia judge who oversaw the Fulton County grand jury investigation into former President Trump’s efforts to overturn the state’s 2020 election results said on Monday that the grand jury panelists “can talk about the final report.”

Judge Robert McBurney told ABC News that the panelists are only formally barred from speaking about the grand jury’s deliberations but can talk about witness testimony and the final report.

His comments come as the grand jury’s forewoman, Emily Kohrs, has faced backlash from Trump and his lawyers in recent days after she discussed the group’s report in a series of interviews with reporters last week.

In a “farewell session” with the grand jury panelists, McBurney said he “reminded them of their oath, which is a statutory obligation that they not discuss with anyone outside their group their deliberations.”

“I explained you don’t talk about what the group discussed about the witnesses’ testimony, but you can talk about witness testimony,” he added, per ABC News. “You could talk about things that the assistant district attorneys told you. … And then finally, you can talk about the final report because that is the product of your deliberations, but it’s not your deliberations.”

McBurney added that it can become an issue if jurors “synthesize the testimony” and the grand jury’s thoughts on it.

Kohrs told The New York Times that the individuals and crimes listed in the report are “not a short list.”

“I will tell you that if the judge releases the recommendations, it is not going to be some giant plot twist,” she added. “You probably have a fair idea of what may be on there. I’m trying very hard to say that delicately.”

• DOJ rejects Trump claim of ‘categorical’ immunity from Jan. 6 lawsuits

The Justice Department urged a federal appeals court Thursday to reject former President Donald Trump’s sweeping claim of immunity from a slew of civil suits stemming from his actions and statements on Jan. 6, 2021.

“The United States respectfully submits that the Court should reject that categorical argument,” DOJ lawyers wrote in a 32-page brief submitted by acting Civil Division chief Brian Boynton.

It was a rare nod by the department to the limits of presidential immunity from lawsuits.

Longstanding court precedents protect presidents from civil litigation related to actions they take in their “official” capacity. But determining when presidents toggle between their official duties and their political ones — which are often blended and unclear — is complicated, and courts have typically avoided drawing bright lines.

DOJ on Thursday similarly urged a three-judge appeals court panel to avoid drawing such distinctions, even as it asked the court to dismiss Trump’s sweeping interpretation of his own immunity.

“Those are sensitive questions of fundamental importance to the Executive Branch, and this unusual case would be a poor vehicle for resolving them,” Justice Department attorney Sean R. Janda wrote.

Notably, in a footnote, the department seemed to allude to an ongoing criminal special counsel investigation of Trump, emphasizing that the agency’s opinion about Trump’s potential civil liability had no bearing on pending criminal matters related to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

“The United States does not express any view regarding the potential criminal liability of any person for the events of January 6, 2021, or acts connected with those events,” according to the department.

The department’s brief is a notable benchmark in the long-running lawsuits that arose from the Capitol attack. Several members of Congress and Capitol Police officers sued Trump and his allies for damages, contending that they helped incite Trump’s rally crowd to violence that day.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled last year that they had made a plausible case, permitting the suit to move forward. He noted that while presidents typically enjoy sweeping immunity from lawsuits for their public remarks, Trump’s speech arguably crossed a line into incitement of violence that would not be protected.

Trump, during his rally on Jan. 6, 2021, urged backers to “fight like hell” to prevent President Joe Biden from taking office in a speech laden with heated rhetoric. Though he urged supporters to march “peacefully and patriotically” to the Capitol, Mehta noted that it was a swift aside in a speech otherwise loaded with apocalyptic language. Even as Trump spoke, members of the rally crowd marched on the Capitol — at Trump’s urging — to pressure Republican lawmakers to oppose certification of the election. Many members of that crowd eventually joined a mob that battered its way past police lines and into the Capitol, forcing lawmakers and then-Vice President Mike Pence to flee for safety.

The U.S. government is not a party to the civil suits, but the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel weighing Trump’s effort to reverse Mehta’s ruling solicited DOJ’s views on the matter in December. That request from Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, and Judges Gregory Katsas and Judith Rogers, followed oral arguments in December between an attorney for Trump and a lawyer for lawmakers and police officers claiming damages from the riot and ransacking of the Capitol two years ago.

The appeals court’s request also put the department — which typically defends the broad scope of executive power — in a tricky spot, particularly as special counsel Jack Smith continues to probe whether Trump bears criminal responsibility for his efforts to subvert the 2020 election. Many defendants charged for their actions at the Capitol on Jan. 6 have pointed to Trump’s conduct and remarks as a key influence and suggested that they took their cues from him.

Department lawyers stressed that they were not endorsing the legal theories or factual claims made in the various suits, but the government’s brief says that if a president issued an urgent call for private citizens to commit an attack that would or should be beyond the broad immunity traditionally afforded to occupants of the Oval Office.

“In the United States’ view, such incitement of imminent private violence would not be within the outer perimeter of the Office of the President of the United States,” the DOJ brief says.

The Justice Department said a president’s remarks of a purely personal or political nature might in theory be a potential trigger for civil liability, but that the courts need to take extraordinary care when trying to distinguish the official from the political.

“That principle … must be understood and applied with the greatest sensitivity to the complex and unremitting nature of the President’s Office and role, which are not amenable to neat dichotomies. The Supreme Court has emphasized, for example, that ‘there is not always a clear line’ between the President’s ‘personal and official affairs.”

In other news........

• Supreme Court will not hear case to oust Biden, reinstate Trump

Trump’s former national security adviser subpoenaed in special counsel probe: report

Former national security adviser Robert O’Brien has been subpoenaed by the special counsel investigating former President Trump, CNN reported on Thursday.

O’Brien, who served under Trump from September 2019 through the end of his presidency, was reportedly asked for information in connection with both the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump’s handling of classified materials and its probe into the former president’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, according to CNN.

Reports also emerged Thursday that special counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed in November to head up the investigations into Trump, had subpoenaed former Vice President Mike Pence.

O’Brien reportedly considered resigning in the wake of the Jan. 6 riot, as several other members of the national security team stepped down. However, he ultimately stayed on for the final weeks of the Trump administration.

In the immediate aftermath of the event, O’Brien defended Pence, who notably refused Trump’s requests to block the certification of the 2020 election.

“I just spoke with Vice President Pence. He is a genuinely fine and decent man,” O’Brien tweeted at the time. “He exhibited courage today as he did at the Capitol on 9/11 as a Congressman. I am proud to serve with him.”

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment.