339 search results for "certification"

If you want to understand what Trump might be charged with I recommend reading Just Security’s possible prosecution memo. We don’t know at this moment what Trump might be facing but we do know that he’s facing indictment in the January 6th case now that he’s received a target letter.

This tweet thread from Norm Eisen, one of the authors, offers a succinct summary:

The memo is unique bc ours is the first in-depth application of the relevant criminal law to the facts, building on the more concise criminal referrals the committee offered in its report

We look at that report w/ skeptical eyes as prosecutors do 

We narrow the case to what can confidently be proven to a jury, and for the first time anywhere we consider at length, and of course in good faith, Trump’s defenses and how they will fare

We can do that because of our all-star coauthors @NoahBookbinder, @DonaldAyer6, @StantonLaw, @EDanyaPerry, @DebraPerlin and Kayvan Farchadi, and our amazing editor @RGoodlaw. (4/x)

Moreover, we can now assess prosecution because the public record has grown a great deal since the Select Committee report’s publication in December 2022, and we update it with the information released after the report

We consider the depositions & documents that the Committee itself released after the report came out, as well as a substantial amount of other reported new evidence

& as @JRubinBlogger noted in her write-up: the key is simplicity!

OK now for those three (relatively) simple acts

ACT ONE. Trump knew he lost the election but did not want to give up power, so he worked with his lawyers and others on a wide variety of schemes to change the outcome. 

Those schemes included creating fraudulent electoral certificates that were submitted to Congress, implicating statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States in the administration of elections

ACT TWO. When all the other schemes failed, Trump and his lawyers ultimately concentrated on using the false electoral slates to obstruct the constitutionally mandated congressional certification of the election on January 6

This implicates 18 U.S.C. § 1512, which prohibits obstruction of an official proceeding

Their primary goal: have VP Pence in his presiding role either block Congress from recognizing Joe Biden’s win at all–or at least delay the electoral count

ACT THREE. When Pence refused, Trump went to his last resort: triggering an insurrection in the hope that it would throw Congress off course, delaying the transfer of power for the first time in American history

This implicates statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 2383, which prohibits inciting an insurrection and giving aid or comfort to insurrectionists

Prosecutors rarely charge § 2383. As we discuss below, they only do so with extreme caution

We believe there is sufficient evidence to pursue it—as did the Select Committee in making a criminal referral of Trump under that statute—but prosecutors may make different choices. Much will depend on the evidence the Special Counsel develops.

Throughout this memo, we urge a FOCUSED approach to charging and trying the case that can be done using our three-part structure or another simplifying approach that would allow the case to come to trial within a year

Now let’s dig into each of those three offenses

First is 18 USC § 371, conspiracy to defraud the US

This statute has two different “prongs,” and Trump likely violated both of them

Trump likely violated both the “offense prong” & the “defraud prong”

This means he likely agreed to 1) do something illegal & 2) do something to prohibit a lawful govt function 

Submitting false electoral slates likely constitutes the crime of making a false statement to Congress & interfering with the count of of genuine electoral ballots disrupts a lawful govt function Trump drove both, ergo his potential liability under 18 U.S.C. 371

By the way, it doesn’t matter if the object of the conspiracy is completed or not–a defendant can still be convicted just for attempt 

Trump could also be charged for attempting to obstruct counting of electors via § 1512(c)(2)

The law doesn’t require proof of conscious wrongdoing–but Trump & collaborators likely knew their conduct was wrong anyways

Trump seemingly knew he lost election & court battles 

Counting the electoral votes is an official proceeding–and what counts as impeding one is “expansive,” according to at least one federal judge

When Trump pressured Pence to reject electors, and unleashed a mob on the proceedings, he apparently impeded them

Trump also apparently gave aid to insurrection, which is a crime under 18 USC § 2383

Bipartisan majorities have called the attack on the Capitol an “insurrection” 

Trump’s comments leading up to & on Jan 6 may have incited the insurrection

He told them “fight like hell” and “you’ll never take back our country with weakness”

His tweet at 2:24pm targeted the VP–followed by 187 minutes of inaction

Trump has offered many explanations, denials, and defenses over the last two years

We explain why these defenses will likely fail

Trump claims his Jan 6 speech is protected by the 1st Amendment–it’s not

His speech passes the Brandenburg test, which says that provoking imminent lawless action is not protected speech

By his supporters’ own words, Trump’s speech encouraged them to storm the Capitol

Here’s one of the unique things we do in the report:

We did a deep dive into all Trump’s defenses, factually and legally 

Trump will surely argue (as he has elsewhere) that he has immunity from criminal prosecution for acts he took as president

But that immunity does not apply to criminal acts taken well outside the scope of the presidency like trying to overthrow an election

Trump has also raised an advice of counsel defense

For as many attorneys like Giuliani and Eastman who told him “yes,” many told him “no”

Either way, Trump likely believed in his false election claims long before any attorney convinced him they were true

In any false statements case, like this one, the prosecution has to prove that the false statements were made in bad faith

So, Trump will certainly argue that is not the case

HOWEVER, this defense is likely FACTUALLY & LEGALLY unsustainable

There is ample evidence that Giuliani, Eastman, and the main perpetrators of the fake electors scheme KNEW it was unlawful

We know this because they said as much behind closed doors 

Lastly, Trump and some of his allies claimed that he authorized 10k Nat’l Guard troops for Jan 6 which were rejected by the Mayor of DC

This is likely false based on all available evidence from military leaders’ testimony

So, as you can see, there is a path to prosecuting Trump, and we think that is coming

It’s coming.

Keeping women’s mistreatment in the headlines

It may be a stunt, but one with a point (New York Times):

Democrats in Congress are making a fresh push for the nearly century-old Equal Rights Amendment to be enshrined in the Constitution, rallying around a creative legal theory in a bid to revive an amendment that would explicitly guarantee sex equality as a way to protect reproductive rights in post-Roe America.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Representative Cori Bush of Missouri are set to introduce a joint resolution on Thursday stating that the measure has already been ratified and is enforceable as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. The resolution states that the national archivist, who is responsible for the certification and publication of constitutional amendments, must immediately do so.

[…]

“In light of Dobbs, we’re seeing vast discrimination across the country,” Ms. Gillibrand said in an interview. “Women are being treated as second-class citizens. This is more timely than ever.”

If the GOP can conduct sham investigations into Hunter Biden and the FBI for their frothing base, why shouldn’t Democrats remind half the population that the authoritarian right considers them no more than birthing vessels?

The measure is unlikely to garner the 60 votes necessary to advance in the Senate, but could remind the almost “80 percent of Americans” who support the Equal Rights Amendment which party is and is not on their side. Senate Republicans in April blocked a different Democratic attempt to extend the expiration date for ratification.

Given enough oxygen by the press, of course. That’s the problem. The press falls all over itself to cover GOP clown shows from the likes of Jim Jordan and Marjorie Taylor Greene while yawning at Democrats’ attempts at, you know, governing.

At issue is the complex procedure for adding an amendment to the Constitution, which requires passage by both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states, in this case, within a seven-year deadline. Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972, and subsequently enacted a law extending that deadline to 10 years. But by 1982, only 35 states had ratified. Since then, three more states — Nevada, Illinois and Virginia — have ratified the amendment, surpassing the threshold, but some others have rescinded their ratifications.

That has left the amendment in a legal and political limbo, its fate left in the hands of Congress and the courts.

Russ Feingold, the former Wisconsin senator who serves as president of the American Constitution Society, said he supported the Democrats’ new strategy.

“For the institution that actually put this limitation of the deadline on to say, ‘Actually, it doesn’t matter’ really is significant,” Mr. Feingold said. “The White House and members of Congress are beginning to see that credible legal scholars are saying this is already part of the Constitution.”

Since the reference to the deadline is in the amendment’s preamble, not the text itself, Gillibrand now argues, “President Biden can just do this. I’m going to make the legal and political argument over the next several months that this is something he can do.”

Whatever she/they do, it had best be splashy or the press will dismiss the effort as another boring, inside-the-Beltway process issue.

Bush contends that the amendment’s core “is packed with potential to protect access to abortion care nationwide, defeat bans on gender-affirming health care, shore up marriage equality, eliminate the gender wage gap, help end the epidemic of violence against women and girls, and so much more.”

Make it an issue. And don’t let up.

I should hope so

The Wall St Journal reports:

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team in recent weeks has taken a growing interest in the role of lawyers and other figures involved in legal efforts aimed at reversing Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 election, people familiar with the matter said.

Prosecutors from Smith’s team have issued subpoenas and asked questions centered on several key figures in those postelection efforts, including Sidney Powell, a pro-Trump lawyer who spread baseless claims of widespread voter fraud. The subpoenas have also requested communications with Emily Newman, a lawyer who worked with Powell, and Mike Roman, a Republican operative who headed Election Day operations for the Trump campaign and dispatched lawyers to swing states before November 2020.

Federal prosecutors also recently interviewed Rudy Giuliani, who served as Trump’s personal lawyer at the time, for roughly eight hours on topics including Powell, people familiar with the testimony said. They were interested, among other things, in a December 2020 meeting in the Oval Office, during which Powell pitched a plan to have the U.S. military seize control of the voting machines. 

The meeting erupted into a shouting match between White House lawyers and Powell and her associates, prompting Trump to call Giuliani, who left a dinner in Georgetown to referee the dispute. Giuliani recounted some details of the episode in his testimony before the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Following the meeting, in the early morning hours of Dec. 19, Trump tweeted: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

Powell and her defense lawyer didn’t return requests for comment. Giuliani and a spokesman for Smith didn’t return calls seeking comment.

Smith’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election is unfolding as his office prosecutes Trump on separate charges that he retained classified government documents and obstructed efforts to retrieve them.

Giuliani, whose interview was reported earlier by CNN, and others voluntarily spoke with investigators under a so-called proffer agreement, the people said—known colloquially as a “queen for a day” deal—in which a witness provides information to prosecutors, who in turn promise not to use it against them in potential criminal proceedings unless they determine the witness was untruthful.

Roman spoke with prosecutors under a similar agreement for a voluntary interview, a person familiar with the proffer said. In a previous interview with the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, Roman invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when asked about his interactions with Giuliani following the 2020 election. He and his lawyer didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Prosecutors have also been asking other witnesses about the involvement of Giuliani and other Trump lawyers, including Jenna Ellis and Kenneth Chesebro, people familiar with the matter said. 

Ellis, who once described herself as part of an elite strike force representing Trump, was formally disciplined by a judge earlier this year after admitting to falsely claiming the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. Powell, too, was sanctioned by a federal judge for widely promoting conspiracy theories that voting machines were hacked by foreign governments or otherwise rigged in now-President Biden’s favor. 

Prosecutors questioned Giuliani about the role of another lawyer, John Eastman, who was the architect of strategies to stop Congress from certifying Biden’s victory and sought to persuade then-Vice President Mike Pence to interfere in the certification of the election results. Giuliani and Eastman were central figures in the so-called war room at the Willard hotel in downtown Washington, where some of Trump’s most loyal advisers worked to overturn the 2020 election results.

Smith’s probe has been focused on whether anyone in Trump’s orbit committed crimes by sending fake slates of electors to Congress. The grand jury has issued subpoenas to local officials in several battleground states seeking communication between election officials and Trump, his campaign and a broad group of his allies.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger was questioned recently by Smith’s team in Atlanta. Trump in a 2021 phone call pressured Raffensperger to find 12,000 votes so he could reverse Biden’s victory in that state. An official in Raffensperger’s office confirmed the visit and added that one of the people the team asked about was Giuliani.

Prosecutors on Smith’s team have also scrutinized efforts to fundraise off of false claims of election fraud. Like the inquiry in the fake-elector scheme, the focus on fundraising has raised questions about where political activity might be so detached from the truth that it crosses the line from First Amendment-protected speech to potentially criminal conduct.

I could easily see Rudy taking the fall for Trump. But if he doesn’t he certainly has a lot to share…

Weaponization for dummies?

The Trump-hating deep state was asleep at the wheel. How weird:

A new Senate committee reportsharply criticizes the FBI and Department of Homeland Security for what it says were failures to believe the intelligence tips they were receiving in the run-up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol — offering fresh examples, nearly 2½ years later, of warnings and information that went unheeded.

The report by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee’s majority staff, titled “Planned in Plain Sight,” expands on previous findings, including reporting by The Washington Post, about red flags missed in the weeks leading up to the pro-Trump riot that delayed Joe Biden’s certification as president.

It also contains additional instances and context for what the authors describeas a failure by federal intelligence officials to believe the many warnings they received.

The 105-page report said the FBI and DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis “failed to fully and accurately assess the severity of the threat identified by that intelligence, and formally disseminate guidance to their law enforcement partners with sufficient urgency and alarm to enable those partners to prepare for the violence that ultimately occurred on January 6th.”

The document sheds new light on the many different types of warnings the FBI received — from nongovernmental organizations tracking extremism online, from the public, and from its own field offices. Days after the riot, The Post revealed the existence of a Jan. 5 report from the FBI’s Norfolk office warning of online discussion of attacking Congress. But the Senate report includes a similar, previously unknown written warning issued that same evening by the New Orleans FBI office.

That New Orleans warning noted that some participants in the planned “stop the steal” protest had decided to establish an armed, so-called Quick Reaction Force in Northern Virginia.

One person in an online discussion among militia members said “people should bring mace, flash lights, body armor, and head protection,” according to the report. “Participants were aware of the prohibition on firearms in Washington, District of Columbia, so they planned to establish an armed presence outside the city to respond to ‘calls for help.’”

That description matches actions taken by members of the Oath Keepers, a number of whom have since been found guilty of seditious conspiracy for their roles in preparing and planning for the Jan. 6 chaos.

The report by the New Orleans field office was sent to all FBI field offices, as well as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, DHS, Justice Department, National Security Agency and State Department. Still, the Senate committee criticized the FBI for what it said was a lack of urgency or alarm in its direct conversations with officials before Jan. 6, and said the written reports did not convey a sense of the overall volume of threat information agents were receiving at the time.

They blew it off. We don’t know why, maybe they just assumed they were a bunch of yahoos blowing off steam. Would they have done that if they happened to be Muslim?

But still, you would think that if they were so virulently anti-Trump that they would have rolled up this plot before they could do anything to help him stay in office, wouldn’t you? Where’s the weaponization?

We have news that the head of the DOJ counter-espionage department is asking the questions at this Florida Grand Jury which seems … odd. They questioned Tayler Budowich, former a spokesman for Trump now running one of his Super Pacs today, so who knows what it all means?

This informative piece by Andrew Weissman and Ryan Goodman sheds some light on what we might expect:

If special counsel Jack Smith hands down an indictment, we will be keeping an eye on many open issues that might indicate how strong a case the government believes it has. Here is what is on our checklist of things to note:

Retention vs. dissemination

Look to see whether the charges include not just illegal “retention” of national defense information, but also a separate allegation of “dissemination.” Both charges are violations of the Espionage Act and are central to U.S. national security law and protecting the country’s most sensitive secrets. But a dissemination case is particularly egregious, as an illegal retention case deals only with the risk of improper dissemination, not the actuality. To date, what is in the public record does not indicate that charges for dissemination are warranted, but an indictment may be revelatory.

Obstruction only

Examine whether Smith decides to jettison all Espionage Act-related offenses and charge only obstruction offenses. Such a slimmed-down approach could be aimed at differentiating the Trump prosecution from the apparent facts in the Biden and now-closed Pence investigations. All three involve improper possession of government documents, but only Trump’s case raises the issue of obstruction of justice.

Wild card: If the Justice Department alleges that Trump or his aides were involved in tampering with Mar-a-Lago video surveillance footage, that is as acute a form of obstruction of justice as the allegedly false June certification that represented that a diligent search for responsive documents had been performed and all such documents returned.

A “speaking indictment”

An indictment does not have to spell out the alleged facts; it just needs to track the legal elements of a criminal charge. However, to explain to the American public why this is a righteous case, this indictment could (and should) be what is known as a “speaking indictment” and lay out specific obstruction evidence, such as former White House counsel and personal Trump lawyers advising the former president to return the documents; Trump’s reported efforts to hide documents at Mar-a-Lago (and elsewhere); and any specific lies Trump told or caused to be told to the National Archives and Records Administration, the Justice Department and even his own lawyers.

Strength of the evidence

Prosecutors often use a speaking indictment to show the strength of their case, sometimes to provoke a guilty plea, other times to induce people to cooperate and, in this instance, to gain public support for such a historic indictment. Look to see whether the indictment references “hard” evidence — such as audio recordings and written documents (e.g. emails, letters, and contemporaneous notes) — evidence from firsthand witnesses, and even co-conspirators who might have admitted their guilt already (as in a plea agreement).

Information already made public suggests this may be an overwhelming case, but a speaking indictment should provide chapter and verse on any alleged obstructive conduct.

Content of classified information

We will be keeping a close eye for how highly sensitive the information in the government documents Trump kept was. What subjects do the documents concern — Iran’s missile program, possible war plans, a foreign country’s nuclear capabilities, U.S. intelligence on China, etc.? Do they reveal information about U.S. surveillance capabilities, sources and other intelligence methods?

Recall that there are various levels of classification, up to top secret, with subcategories for particularly sensitive information. The government sometimes deliberately avoids basing charges on the most sensitive documents, so as not to have to reveal those publicly in court. For the information to be publicly charged, the intelligence community will presumably need to have agreed to its use in open court.

In the weeds: If highly sensitive documents do appear, it may be because the intelligence community believes that information has already been compromised, because the information was highly sensitive at the time but has lost significance — or because the government is prepared to risk exposure of some highly sensitive information to secure a conviction in such a serious case.

Motive

Although the government need not usually prove why a defendant committed a crime, motive evidence can be powerful to a jury. It helps jurors understand why a defendant would engage in unlawful conduct, producing a persuasive narrative — and can foreclose routes for defense counsel to raise reasonable doubt. Evidence of especially crass or illicit motives can also shape how jurors consider the case.

Does the indictment allege Trump used the classified information as a means of settling scores with perceived enemies (e.g. the audiotape about a potential Iran attack and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley), had a narcissistic belief that laws simply do not apply to him in or out of office (Trump’s statement to Sean Hannity) or something even more pernicious, such as potentially using them to court financial favor (Saudi Arabia financial deals).

Of course, Trump could have several motives, and different ones for different documents. Does the special counsel spell out his theory?

Conspiracy

Will Trump be the sole defendant or will others be charged? There are several implications if the special counsel charges a conspiracy. First, a coordinated scheme would make this case more egregious than the average case in which the DOJ has pursued charges under these national security statutes. Second, charging others would raise the prospect of flipping them into government cooperators. Finally, conspiracy charges can expand the choice of venue where the government can try the case.

Venue

Look for where the DOJ files charges — the District of Columbia, Florida or New Jersey. What’s at stake in this decision is the jury pool, with Florida being the most favorable turf for Trump. The Justice Department, by contrast, is likely to want to bring the case in the District.

Several of the issues identified above implicate where the prosecutors can file the case. If the charges included conspiracy, illegal removal of government records from the White House or obstructive activity that occurred in the District, the prosecutors’ hand would be strengthened in claiming that the nation’s capital is the appropriate jurisdiction.

If the case were one solely of illegal retention, then Trump has the best argument that such charges must be brought in Florida (or wherever else he kept the documents).

Classified documents charges

As many legal experts have been saying for months, the potential criminal law violations at the heart of the case — including the three crimes alleged in the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago — do not require proof that the documents were classified.

However, several important national security crimes do address only classified documents — 18 USC 798 and 1924. Look for whether the special counsel brings such charges. If he does, it is a show of force implying that prosecutors have a strong hand and won’t blink in the face of Trump’s and his attorneys’ implausible claims of “declassification.”

Bedminster

Look for whether the alleged facts include documents at Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, N.J. The presence of documents at that location would probably drive a hole through some of Trump’s main public defenses — especially his claim that the National Archives-Government Accountability Office is responsible for having brought the classified records to Mar-a-Lago. If Trump is alleged to have personally handled documents at Bedminster, it’s difficult to conceive how his claims about how the documents were brought to Florida have any relevance.

A key question is how fast the case will move toward a trial and verdict. That will turn a lot on the particular judge assigned to the case. Many judges will want to permit the electorate to know the outcome of this criminal case before casting a vote. And, of course, to afford the defendant his day in court in advance of the election.

The case against Trump involves alleged violations of national security laws that are core to keeping national secrets and our country safe. To win public acceptance for such charges, the Justice Department should do everything possible to be transparent about its proof — and about why Trump is being treated the same way anyone else would be who had behaved this way.

It’s called the rule of law.

I have no idea if this is going to happen. Everyone seems to think it’s a slam dunk but you never know. Trump has a habit of slipping the noose. But as we await the news, one way or the other, this seems like a good guide.

Update: Lots and lots of rumors and some reporting that the DOJ told Trump that he’s likely to be indicted under the Espionage Act. This is from John Solomon, right winger with a direct line to Trump:

Smith’s prosecutorial team informed Trump’s legal team in recent days that the charges against the former president could include a violation of 18 U.S. Code Chapter 37 Section 793 that outlaws the “gathering, transmitting or losing” of national defense information. Other charges being considered involve alleged false statements and obstruction of justice, all claims the president and his team have robustly contested in public and in private.

Trump’s reaction:

Stay tuned.

There are a lot of legal cases against Trump pending right now and you would think that a billionaire front runner for the Republican nomination would have the very best legal talent that money can buy. But, as we know, he is the worst client in the world because he doesn’t pay and won’t shut his pie hole so his legal bench is D-list at best.

Here’s a rundown:

[Y]ou would think a client facing that amount of legal peril would have a top-notch team of lawyers in place to defend him. But when you have a client like Trump, normal expectations don’t apply.

Just recently attorney Tim Parlatore announced — very publicly, via voluntarily testifying for the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation — that he was resigning from the Trump legal team, allegedly because of his inability to provide the right kind of counsel to Trump due to obstacles created by fellow Trump lawyer Boris Epshteyn. Parlatore claims that Epshteyn was keeping him and other lawyers from being able to speak to Trump and that Epshteyn was not being honest with their client.

Interestingly, it was just a few months ago that Parlatore was singing Epshteyn’s praises, according to the New York Times, whom he told, “It’s good to have someone who’s a lawyer who is also inside the palace gates.” It doesn’t bode well that only a few months after that, Parlatore publicly derided Epshteyn and said Epshteyn was gatekeeping the rest of the legal team from accessing their one client (Trump.) 

Parlatore isn’t the only attorney on Trump’s Keystone Cops legal team to throw up the white flag.

Parlatore also went after fellow Trump attorney Joe Tacopina for what Parlatore said was a “potential conflict of interest” in Tacopina representing Trump in the New York District Attorney’s Office Stormy Daniels hush money criminal case. At one time, Daniels had contacted Tacopina about possibly representing her and Parlatore questioned openly on cable news whether Tacopina was the “right” attorney to represent Trump at trial. 

Although Epshteyn has been referred to as Trump’s in-house counsel, Parlatore told the New York Times he has reportedly little documented legal experience, including none in the criminal defense arena. Epshteyn has created a name for himself in MAGA circles for being a political strategist, for his combative style and for his access to Trump. Trump also has apparently given Epshteyn the ability to hire and fire attorneys. 

Parlatore isn’t the only attorney on Trump’s Keystone Cops legal team to throw up the white flag. Evan Corcoran, who was Trump’s lead attorney regarding the Mar-a-Lago classified documents investigation, resigned from that role after being subpoenaed by the Justice Department to testify before a federal grand jury. Granted, Corcoran remains on the global legal team as counsel for Trump, but it isn’t a commonplace occurrence for an attorney to end up being compelled by way of court order to testify before a grand jury regarding conduct committed by a client. Lest Corcoran feel lonely, though, Parlatore has also provided testimony before Jack Smith’s federal grand jury for his role in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. However, Parlatore chose to appear voluntarily before the grand jury without the need for a subpoena to give testimony about how additional document searches were conducted at other Trump properties. 

Pat A. Cipollone, former Trump White House counsel and deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin have also testified before a federal grand jury about  Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Oh, and Epshteyn? He has testified before Fani Willis’ Fulton County special grand jury regarding Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Corcoran also has the dubious honor of being the subject of piercing attorney-client privilege because of the crime-fraud exception for his communications — both written and verbal — with Trump. The successful application of the crime-fraud exception is rare. A few federal judges, as well as some appellate court judges, have found that there was sufficient evidence of criminal activity afoot. If I was Corcoran, I would vacate the premises of Trump World in its entirety. I am of course not counsel to Corcoran, although to be clear, several Trump lawyers have had to retain their own lawyers due to their representation of Trump. The newest iteration of “MAGA” might as well now stand for “Making Attorneys Get Attorneys.”

Notable examples include Christina Bobb, who was interviewed by the FBI for her role in signing off on the certification representing that there were no more classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, despite further evidence proving that certification was not true. Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal counsel, has had to retain several lawyers because of his own exposure, both criminal and civil, after representing Trump over the years.

Let’s also not forget other former Trump lawyers like Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, and John Eastman, all of whom are facing ethics complaints affecting their ability to practice law in various jurisdictions, as well as several investigations for their roles as Trump’s counsel. In some instances and depending upon the findings by various referees and judges in these different jurisdictions that are investigating former Trump  lawyers, these attorneys could lose their licenses to practice law. 

Trump runs his mouth unfettered and unedited and uncontrolled. He spent considerable time during a recent town hall on CNN stating for all to hear, including prosecutors far and wide, that he took classified documents from the White House, and also took the opportunity to potentially defame Carroll further.

If he’s being given legal advice not to talk, he is clearly not listening or he doesn’t respect the counsel being dispensed. Historically, Trump has done and said whatever he wants, presumably regardless of the legal advice being provided by his dozens of attorneys. And oftentimes that has occurred to his legal peril. When facing multiple cases and multiple investigations, some of which could result in years of incarceration in prison, a client like Trump should not be speaking publicly about the facts of a case or the circumstances underlying the basis of an investigation. But Trump? He’ll go on national TV and do it anyway.

It’s interesting that throughout all of the dirty laundry airing of the inner turmoil regarding his legal team, Trump has remained unusually quiet. Trump himself has not come forward to voice his support for any one attorney. So the public continues, with a combination of fascination and disgust, to watch the train wreck that is Trump Legal World unfold like a political iteration of The Hunger Games. Which attorney will be left standing at the end?  

Trumps believes that he can change reality just by saying it. And it works on many members of the public, obviously. He’s also manages to slither out of one legal and financial scrape after another over the course of many decades so he believes that he’s invulnerable, especially now that he has tens of millions of followers and the threat of violence to use as an implicit threat. (And that is a formidable threat, it’s true.) It’s entirely possible that it will work for him again. If he has to pay civil damages or settle claims that’s fine. He’s done that many times. These criminal cases are more daunting, but I suspect he feels he could prevail in the end through appeals. I don’t think he really fears that he will ever see the inside of a jail cell.

So maybe he doesn’t think he needs good legal counsel.All he wants is his Roy Cohn who will go to the mat for him publicly and fight ruthlessly. I think he might believe that Boris Epshteyn is that guy.

Every single day he rolls out another one. Here’s the latest:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) said Tuesday that he signed a major piece of legislation aimed at weakening public sector unions by making it harder for them to collect dues from members.

Senate Bill 256 forbids most unions representing government employees from having dues deducted directly from workers’ paychecks. It also requires that affected unions maintain at least 60% membership in their bargaining units, or else they could face decertification and lose their contracts.

The new law will force public sector unions to develop new ways of getting dues from members — such as setting up electronic bank transfers — and will also imperil the existence of those unions that don’t meet the 60% threshold.

Although DeSantis and other Republicans have cast the bill as “paycheck protection” for workers, they excluded unions representing police, firefighters and corrections officers — i.e., the unions that are typically more likely to support Republicans. The unions that are subject to the law tend to represent teachers, sanitation workers and other government employees.

He does these things in the most blatantly partisan way possible for a reason. And it’s not just because he’s trying to avoid pissing off the base. He’s openly appealing to authoritarians who want a strong man to mercilessly kick the shit out of their enemies. He thinks he is that guy.

I don’t know that there are enough people in this country who want that sort of thing to put him in the White House. And I don’t think he has the personality or physical presence to convey that even to the people who are looking for it. But that’s his message and he’s sticking to it.

One of the Georgia fake electors says he was just doing what Trump’s lawyers told him to do:

Lawyers representing David Shafer, the embattled chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, are arguing their client should not be charged with any crimes for his actions following the 2020 election because he was following advice provided by attorneys working for former President Donald Trump, according to a letter sent to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis last week.

Specifically, Shafer’s attorneys say their client was relying on “repeated and detailed advice of legal counsel” when he organized a group of “contingent” electors from Georgia and served as one himself, thus “eliminating any possibility of criminal intent or liability,” according to a copy of the May 5 letter.

The letter, which was first reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, comes as Willis and her team of prosecutors investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia are planning to make an announcement on possible charges against Trump or his allies later this summer.

Shafer, who sources previously told CNN could be among those indicted when Willis makes her charging announcements, has come under scrutiny for his role in the effort to put forward alternate slates of electors to block the certification of the 2020 presidential vote.

In their letter to Willis’s office, Shafer’s lawyers say he was “given very direct, detailed legal advice on the procedure he should follow, and he followed those instructions to the letter.”

“I believe that any fair-minded person, with possession of all the facts, would conclude that Mr. Shafer and the other presidential elector nominees acted lawfully and appropriately,” the letter adds.

I suppose that doesn’t implicate Trump specifically, but we know he was heavily involved in Georgia, don’t we? I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest this really does implicate Rudy Giuliani who ran the Georgia legal gambit. Bring popcorn.

BtW, they’re still nuts:

Even though Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp romped to an easy reelection victory last fall, a faction of Georgia Republicans loyal to former President Donald Trump are still trying to give him the boot.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that the Georgia Republican Assembly is proposing a new plan that would give the state party the right to block candidates from running for office as Republicans if they are deemed insufficiently loyal.

What’s more, the group has made clear that its targets include not only Kemp, but also Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who refused former President Donald Trump’s pleas to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

“If the candidate has shown himself to be a traitor to the principles of the party, then the party can vote to exclude him from qualifying at the next election,” Nathaniel Darnell, a GRA leader, said in justifying the new rule.

Tarrio’s going away along with his cohorts:

Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and three other members of the far-right extremist group were convicted Thursday of a plot to attack the U.S. Capitol in a desperate bid to keep Donald Trump in power after the Republican lost the 2020 presidential election.

A jury in Washington, D.C., found Tarrio guilty of seditious conspiracy after hearing from dozens of witnesses over more than three months in one of the most serious cases brought in the stunning attack that unfolded on Jan. 6, 2021, as the world watched on live TV.

It’s a significant milestone for the Justice Department, which has now secured seditious conspiracy convictions against the leaders of two major extremist groups prosecutors say were intent on keeping Democratic President Joe Biden out of the White House at all costs. The charge carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years.

Tarrio, behind bars since his March 2022 arrest, didn’t appear to show any emotion as the verdict was read. He hugged one of his lawyers and shook the hand of the other before leaving the courtroom. A few of the people sitting among the defendants’ relatives wiped away tears as the verdict was read.

The verdict comes after a trial that took more than twice as long as originally expected, slowed by bickering, mistrial motions and revelations of government informants in the group. Securing the conviction of Tarrio, a high-profile leader who wasn’t at the riot itself, could embolden the Justice Department as a special counsel investigates Trump, including key aspects of the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Special Counsel Jack Smith in recent weeks has sought the testimony of many people close to Trump. They include former Vice President Mike Pence, who testified before a grand jury last week, likely giving prosecutors a key first-person account about certain conversations and events in the weeks preceding the riot.

Tarrio was a top target of what has become the largest Justice Department investigation in American history. He led the neo-fascist group — known for street fights with left-wing activists — when Trump infamously told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” during his first debate with Biden.

Tarrio wasn’t in Washington on Jan. 6, because he had been arrested two days earlier in a separate case and ordered out of the capital city. But prosecutors said he organized and directed the attack by Proud Boys who stormed the Capitol that day.

In addition to Tarrio, a Miami resident, three other Proud Boys were convicted of seditious conspiracy: Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl.

Jurors have not yet reached a unanimous verdict on the sedition charge for fifth defendant: Dominic Pezzola, a new member who hadn’t spoken to the other defendants until after the charges were filed. Pezzola, however, was convicted of other serious charges.

Tarrio, Nordean, Biggs and Rehl were also convicted of obstructing Congress’ certification of Biden’s electoral victory and obstructing law enforcement as well as two other conspiracy charges. The four were cleared of an assault charge stemming from Pezzola, who stole an officer’s riot shield.

The judge told jurors to keep deliberating on a few remaining counts where they haven’t reached agreement.

Rehl’s attorney, Carmen Hernandez, said her client “continues to maintain his innocence.” Lawyers for Biggs and Pezzola declined to comment. An attorney for Tarrio declined to comment.

Prosecutors told jurors the group viewed itself as “Trump’s army” and was prepared for “all-out war” to stop Biden from becoming president.

The Proud Boys were “lined up behind Donald Trump and willing to commit violence on his behalf,” prosecutor Conor Mulroe said in his closing argument.

The backbone of the government’s case was hundreds of messages exchanged by Proud Boys in the days leading up to Jan. 6 that show the far-right extremist group peddling Trump’s false claims of a stolen election and trading fears over what would happen when Biden took office.

Here’s the latest for Thursday May 4th: Suspect caught after Atlanta shooting; North Carolina House passes new abortion ban; Trump taped deposition played in court; Bipartisan group of Senators trying to keep children away from social media.

0 seconds of 58 secondsVolume 90%

As Proud Boys swarmed the Capitol, Tarrio cheered them on from afar, writing on social media: “Do what must be done.” In a Proud Boys encrypted group chat later that day someone asked what they should do next. Tarrio responded: “Do it again.”

“Make no mistake,” Tarrio wrote in another message. “We did this.”

Defense lawyers denied there was any plot to attack the Capitol or stop Congress’ certification of Biden’s win. A lawyer for Tarrio sought to push the blame onto Trump, arguing the former president incited the pro-Trump mob’s attack when he urged the crowd near the White House to “fight like hell.”

Who’s their ultimate leader? It would be the guy who recorded a song with them and promised to pardon the whole group if he becomes president.

The obvious bottom line gets lost: The President of the United States spurred on multiple extremist groups to undertake sedition against the country. And he's running to be president again.

— Todd Zwillich (@toddzwillich) May 4, 2023

By supporting Trump they are signing away any chances they have to win. Ron Brownstein lays it out:

The dilemma for the Republican Party is that Donald Trump’s mounting legal troubles may be simultaneously strengthening him as a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination and weakening him as a potential general-election nominee.

In the days leading up to the indictment of the former president, which Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg announced two days ago, a succession of polls showed that Trump has significantly increased his lead over Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, his closest competitor in the race for the Republican nomination.

Yet recent surveys have also signaled that this criminal charge—and other potential indictments from ongoing investigations—could deepen the doubts about Trump among the suburban swing voters who decisively rejected him in the 2020 presidential race, and powered surprisingly strong performances by Democrats in the 2018 and 2022 midterms.

“It is definitely a conundrum that this potentially helps him in the primary yet sinks the party’s chances to win the general,” says Mike DuHaime, a GOP strategist who advises former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a potential candidate for the 2024 Republican nomination. “This better positions [in the primary] our worst candidate for the general election.”

That conundrum will only intensify for Republicans because it is highly likely that this is merely the beginning of Trump’s legal troubles. As the first indictment against a former president, the New York proceeding has thrust the U.S. into uncharted waters. But the country today is not nearly as far from shore as it may be in just a few months. Trump faces multiple additional potential indictments. Those include possible charges from Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis, who has been examining his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in that state, as well as the twin federal probes led by Special Counsel Jack Smith into Trump’s mishandling of classified documents and his efforts to block congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s victory.

“I think I had a pretty good track record on my predictions and my strong belief is that there will be additional criminal charges coming in other places,” says Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “I think you are going to see them in Georgia and possibly [at the] federal” level.

The multiple legal nets tightening around Trump create the possibility that he could be going through one or even multiple trials by the time of next year’s general election, and conceivably even when the GOP primaries begin in the winter of 2024. In other words, Trump might bounce back and forth between campaign rallies in Iowa or New Hampshire and court appearances in New York City, Atlanta, or Washington, D.C. And such jarring images could change the public perceptions that polls are recording now.

“You are just looking at a snapshot of how people feel today,” Dave Wilson, a conservative strategist, told me.

Yet even these initial reactions show how Trump’s legal troubles may place his party in a vise.

Polls consistently show that Trump, over the past several weeks, has widened his lead over DeSantis and the rest of the potential 2024 field. That may be partly because Trump has intensified his attacks on DeSantis, and because the Florida governor has at times seemed unsteady in his debut on the national stage.

But most Republicans think Trump is also benefiting from an impulse among GOP voters to lock arms around him as the Manhattan investigation has proceeded. In an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist College poll released this week, four-fifths of Republicans described the various investigations targeting Trump as a “witch hunt,” echoing his own denunciation of them. “There’s going to be some level of emotional response to someone being quote-unquote attacked,” Wilson said. “That’s going to get some sympathy points that will probably bolster poll numbers.”

Republican leaders, as so many times before, have tightened their own straitjacket by defending Trump on these allegations so unreservedly. House GOP leaders have launched unprecedented attempts to impede Bragg’s investigation by demanding documents and testimony, and even Trump’s potential 2024 rivals have condemned the indictment as a politically motivated hit job; DeSantis may have had the most extreme reaction by not only calling the indictment “un-American” but even insisting he would not cooperate with extraditing Trump from Florida if it came to that (a pledge that is moot because Trump has indicated he plans to turn himself in on Tuesday).

As during the procession of outrages and controversies during Trump’s presidency, most Republicans skeptical of him have been unwilling to do anything more than remain silent. (Former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, a long-shot potential 2024 candidate, has been the most conspicuous exception, issuing a statement that urged Americans “to wait on the facts” before judging the case.) The refusal of party leaders to confront Trump is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy: Because GOP voters hear no other arguments from voices they trust, they fall in line behind the assertion from Trump and the leading conservative media sources that the probes are groundless persecution. Republican elected officials then cite that dominant opinion as the justification for remaining silent.

But while the investigations may be bolstering Trump’s position inside the GOP in the near term, they also appear to be highlighting all the aspects of his political identity that have alienated so many swing voters, especially those with college degrees. In that same NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey, 56 percent of Americans rejected Trump’s “witch hunt” characterization and described the investigations as “fair”; 60 percent of college-educated white adults, the key constituency that abandoned the GOP in the Trump years, said the probes were fair. So did a slight majority of independent voters.

In new national results released yesterday morning, the Navigator project, a Democratic polling initiative, similarly found that 57 percent of Americans, including 51 percent of independents, agreed that Trump should be indicted when they read a description of the hush-money allegations against him.

The Manhattan indictment “may keep his people with him, it may fire them up, but he’s starting from well under 50 percent of the vote,” Mike DuHaime told me. “Somebody like that must figure out how to get new voters. And he is not gaining new voters with a controversial new indictment, whether he beats it or not.” Swing voters following the case in New York, DuHaime continued, “may not like it, they may think Democrats have gone too far, and that might be fair.” But it’s wishful thinking, he argues, to believe that voters previously resistant to Trump will conclude they need to give him another look because he’s facing criminal charges for paying off a porn star, even if they view the charges themselves as questionable.

The NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist survey underlines DuHaime’s point about the limits of Trump’s existing support: In that survey, a 61 percent majority of Americans—including 64 percent of independents and 70 percent of college-educated white adults—said they did not want him to be president again. That result was similar to the latest Quinnipiac University national poll, which found that 60 percent of Americans do not consider themselves supporters of Trump’s “Make America great again” movement. The challenge for the GOP is that about four-fifths of Republicans said they did consider themselves part of that movement, and about three-fourths said they wanted him back in the White House.

[…]

Given Trump’s hold on a big portion of the GOP coalition, no one should discount his capacity to win the party nomination next year, no matter how many criminal cases ensnare him. And given the persistent public dissatisfaction with the economy and lackluster job-approval ratings for Biden, no one dismisses the capacity of whoever captures the Republican nomination to win the general election.

The best-case scenario sketched by Trump supporters is that a succession of indictments will allow him to inspire even higher turnout among the predominantly non-college-educated and nonurban white voters who accept his argument that “liberal elites” and the “deep state” are targeting him to silence them. But even the heroic levels of turnout Trump inspired from those voters in 2020 weren’t enough to win. For the GOP to bet that Trump could overcome swing-voter revulsion over his legal troubles and win a general election by mobilizing even more of his base voters, Bennett said, “seems to me the highest risk proposition that I can imagine.”

The GOP racing to support him has they’ve done in the last couple of days shows they are still as self-destructive as ever. They didn’t need to do it. They could have just said, “let the justice system do its work and let the voters decide” and leave it at that. Instead they had to go full MAGA and screech about the system being rigged and the case political even though they haven’t even seen the charges much less the evidence. They reacted reflexively with “Witch Hunt!” without caring what this was going to mean for them and the party — or the country. That says everything about them.