Georgia report on Trump's possible election interference should be released-judge https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ge...rference-should-be-released-judge-2023-02-13/ Portions of a Georgia special grand jury's final report on Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the state's 2020 presidential election should be publicly released over the objection of prosecutors, a state judge ruled on Monday. The panel's findings, which have remained sealed since the existence of the report was disclosed in January, could potentially serve as the basis for criminal charges against Trump or his associates who attempted to reverse Democratic President Joe Biden's statewide victory. The decision on whether to file criminal charges ultimately lies with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. At a court hearing on Jan. 25, Willis told Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney that charging decisions were "imminent" and urged him to keep the grand jury report under wraps for now to ensure future defendants cannot cry foul. Willis is expected to appeal the decision, which would likely delay any release of the report until the appeal is resolved.
“Never seen anything like it”: "Aggressive" Trump special counsel hauls lawyers before grand jury Jack Smith is giving Trump's attorneys the "option of being codefendants or cooperating witnesses," expert says https://www.salon.com/2023/02/13/ne...cial-counsel-hauls-lawyers-before-grand-jury/
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/13/opinions/house-gop-kushner-trump-ivanka-obeidallah/index.html Opinion: The GOP can’t ignore the blockbuster report on Trump, Kushner and Saudi funds Opinion by Dean Obeidallah Published 7:18 PM EST, Mon February 13, 2023 CNN — James Comer, chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, has kicked off his committee’s investigation into whether President Joe Biden’s son Hunter, Biden’s brother James and others in the Biden orbit somehow profited financially from their connection to the President. Comer, a Kentucky Republican, alleged in a letter last week to Hunter Biden that he and his associates “peddled influence to generate millions of dollars for the Biden family.” He declared in his committee’s press release touting the investigation, “The American people deserve transparency and accountability about the Biden family’s influence peddling.” If Comer is sincere about transparency and accountability when it comes to influence peddling in politics, then he should be readying similar letters to Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump. All three may have personally profited from their time in the White House. When it comes to Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law who was his senior White House adviser, and the former President, we need look no further for evidence demanding an investigation than this weekend’s blockbuster Washington Post article titled “After helping prince’s rise, Trump and Kushner benefit from Saudi funds.” Asked whether his committee would investigate the Post’s reporting, Comer told ABC’s “This Week,” “I think everything’s on the table,” before he quickly turned to the current probe of the Biden family. If Comer reads this article, he will see red flag after red flag of how Kushner and Trump potentially pocketed money from recent business deals with the Saudi government after helping Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, widely known as MBS, while in the White House. (Representatives for the Trump Organization and Kushner did not respond to CNN’s request for comment about the Post report. The former President and his son-in-law also declined to comment to the newspaper.) Don Fox, former acting director of the Office of Government Ethics, told the Post that there was no requirement for Trump, a former commander in chief, or Kushner, a former senior White House official, to disclose financial ties to foreign governments. “He said their work has exposed a glaring shortfall in ethics laws that needs to be fixed by Congress,” the paper reported. As the Post details, Kushner and Trump both were facing “unprecedented business challenges” when they left the White House. Trump had seen revenue from his properties dramatically decline, plus the controversy surrounding the January 6, 2021, attack made him toxic, according to the Post. Kushner was facing his own challenges, with his family business needing a $1.2 billion bailout, the newspaper reported. Then came Saudi Arabia and MBS to the rescue. In Kushner’s case, a fund controlled by MBS invested $2 billion in Kushner’s newly formed private equity firm, Affinity Partners, six months after he left the White House, The New York Times reported last year. A panel that screens investments for the Saudis had raised concerns over this investment on a range of issues, including “the inexperience of the Affinity Fund management,” according to the Times. But the board headed by MBS overruled the panel and awarded the massive investment that will result in a payday to Kushner’s company of $25 million a year — not including profits earned from investments, the Times reported. This deal raises concerns about Kushner’s repeated lobbying in favor of MBS and Saudi Arabia while in the Trump White House. The relationship between the two men may have yielded benefits for MBS after a US intelligence report on the October 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi determined that the crown prince had approved the operation to capture or kill the Saudi journalist. “Kushner became the prince’s most important defender inside the White House,” the Times reported in 2018 after the killing. (MBS has denied involvement in the murder.) Beyond the Khashoggi controversy, Kushner used his influence in “persuading Trump to prioritize Saudi Arabia over the objections of top advisers,” the Post noted this weekend, citing Kushner’s own written account. The Post also laid out how Trump appears to be benefiting from his defense of MBS and Saudi Arabia while in the White House. After a CIA report concluded MBS had authorized Khashoggi’s killing, Trump publicly undermined the report’s conclusions and opposed releasing the report, according to the Post. He also vetoed a congressional attempt to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Trump wasn’t shy about what he did for MBS, stating in a recorded interview with Bob Woodward about the Saudi crown prince: “I saved his ass.” Now we see Trump hosting Saudi-backed LIV Golf tournaments at his golf courses — which typically pay the course owner in the case of PGA events $2 million to $3 million, as the Post reported. However, Trump has not revealed how much he’s pocketing from the Saudis — which is especially alarming given he is running for President in 2024. The Trump Organization also has recently secured an agreement with a Saudi real estate company that plans to build a Trump-branded hotel, villas and golf course in Oman as part of a $4 billion project, according to The New York Times. Then there’s Trump’s daughter Ivanka, who was also a White House adviser. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group, urged the Justice Department to investigate her four years ago over potentially violating conflict of interest laws by participating in the implementation of a program giving tax breaks for investors in so-called opportunity zones. (A spokesperson for Trump’s ethics attorney called the claim “politically motivated and meritless.”) CREW also had raised concerns over Ivanka Trump’s business receiving “registration” approval for trademarks from the Chinese government in 2018 around the time that her father lifted sanctions on Chinese telecommunications company ZTE — whose controlling shareholder is a Chinese state-owned corporation. Later in 2018, Ivanka Trump’s business received approval for 16 new trademarks from the Chinese government on a range of goods — from shoes and jewelry to voting machines. These approvals occurred while her father was negotiating a trade deal with China. In defense of the applications for trademark, Abigail Klem, then the president of the Ivanka Trump brand, said in 2017, “We have recently seen a surge in trademark filings by unrelated third parties trying to capitalize on the name and it is our responsibility to diligently protect our trademark.” Ivanka Trump’s lawyer at the time, Jamie Gorelick, said, “Ivanka has had no involvement with trademark applications submitted by the business” because she resigned from her position with the company. “The federal ethics rules do not require you to recuse from any matter concerning a foreign country just because a business that you have an ownership interest in has a trademark application pending there.” Comer is correct that the “American people deserve transparency and accountability” when it comes to anyone profiting off political connections — especially when the people officially served in our government. If Comer is sincere, we should be seeing letters demanding the same information from Kushner, Trump and daughter Ivanka as he sent to Hunter Biden. If not, then we know the congressman is doing nothing more than using our tax dollars to try to hurt the President and help the GOP.
Trump election probe grand jury believes some witnesses lied, recommends 'appropriate indictments' https://apnews.com/article/trump-ge...ry-documents-40535dd2b4401e804af515229c6c2d68
Trump and his lawyers are stupid as we think... possibly even more stupid than we think. Michael Cohen Calls Trump's Subpoena Of Him The 'Dumbest Move' He Can Imagine "As much as they think they’re going to bully me, it’s not going to happen. They’re not going to benefit from it,” Trump's former attorney told MSNBC. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-cohen-donald-trump-subpeona_n_63eec0dee4b0063ccb2bd4d7 Former President Donald Trump made a legal move on Thursday that his former attorney Michael Cohen called “one of the dumbest moves I could possibly imagine.” Cohen told MSNBC on Thursday that a process server hired by Trump’s legal team had served him a subpoena the day prior. The lawyer said that he initially thought that the subpoena came from New York Attorney General Letitia James, which he said he considered strange because “I’d be happy to come in and provide whatever testimony that they want.” But after reading the document, Cohen realized the subpoena was actually from Trump’s lawyers asking him to provide a deposition, which he called “one of the dumbest moves I could possibly imagine they would want.” He continued: “Clearly, the information that I am providing is predicated on documentation, you know, on documentary evidence, and as much as they think that they’re going to bully me, it’s not going to happen. They’re not going to benefit from it,” he said. Cohen did not specify exactly what Trump lawyers wanted to depose him on during his MSNBC interview. HuffPost reached out to him on social media, but he did not immediately respond. The attorney said he plans to see another lawyer to determine whether he wants to make a motion to quash the subpoena “and basically show Donald the same consideration he showed to the American people.” Cohen said he had his 15th interview with investigators at the Manhattan district attorney’s office last week as prosecutors present evidence to a grand jury about the former president’s alleged involvement in a hush-money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Daniels says she had an affair with Trump. You watch see Cohen discuss the subpoena at the 7:35 mark in the segment below. (Article has video)
Charges Against Trump Lawyer ‘Very Likely,’ Colleagues Warn Donald https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/mar-a-lago-trump-raid-legal-team-1234682771/
Georgia grand jury confirms no widespread fraud , recommends appropriate indictments Shortly before the deadly MAGA insurrection on Capitol Hill, 2020 election loser Donald Trump infamously ordered Georgia election overseer Brad Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes,” just enough votes to propel him to statewide victory over Joe Biden. A Georgia special grand jury, tasked with investigating whether Trump criminally interfered in the statewide election in a bid to overturn the free and fair results, has finally finished its work after hearing from 75 witnesses. Thursday, a Georgia judge released a few key excerpts of the report; it goes to the DA who may well recommend criminal charges. “We find by a unanimous vote that no widespread fraud took place in the Georgia 2020 presidential election that could result in overturning that election.” That doesn’t bode well for Trump. They’re flatly stating that his purported reasons for pressuring Raffensperger – in potential violation of Georgia law – were baldfaced lies. The Grand Jury recommends that the District Attorney seek appropriate indictments for such crimes when the evidence is compelling.”
How a New DOJ Memo Sets Up Two Potential Trump Indictments https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-a-new-doj-memo-sets-up-two-potential-donald-trump-indictments When the Department of Justice took the position this week that former President Donald Trump acted improperly by urging his followers to attack Congress in 2021, prosecutors did more than open the door to a potential flood of civil lawsuits from police officers who were injured on Jan. 6. What they actually did, according to legal scholars, is lay the groundwork for a potential criminal indictment against Trump for inciting the insurrection. “If they took the position that the president was absolutely immune, then they wouldn’t be able to bring a criminal prosecution,” said one person familiar with the DOJ’s ongoing investigation who spoke on condition of anonymity. Legal scholars have come to the same conclusion. “Had DOJ concluded that incitement unprotected by the First Amendment could nevertheless be within the president’s official functions, that could conceivably have impacted criminal charging decisions related to the same speech,” said Mary B. McCord, a former federal prosecutor now teaching at Georgetown University Law Center. At the behest of the District of Columbia’s federal appellate court, the DOJ last week submitted a legal memo weighing in on a civil dispute by injured police officers. The department clarified that Trump’s speech, full of vitriol and fury, was not protected by presidential immunity, nor was it protected by his own free speech rights under the First Amendment. “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 wrote. The department went out of its way to say it doesn’t necessarily support officer lawsuits against Trump, noting that it “expresses no view on that conclusion, or on the truth of the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaints.” But by making clear that Trump’s speech was outside the norms of his office, it stripped the former president of virtually any defense he could make. “If they’re saying it’s outside the scope of immunity of civil suits, and outside the scope of protected speech, there really isn’t anything else out there protecting Trump,” said one attorney, who asked to remain anonymous to avoid rattling DOJ leadership. The two indictments Trump could face are for his incitement of the Jan. 6 riot—a federal crime—and his attempts to overturn the election results in Georgia, a state case there. So far, the Justice Department has not indicated its legal analysis of the looming federal case against Trump, which concerns the effort his campaign led to undermine the electoral vote by Congress. However, its new legal memo draws a clear red line on his actions during the lead up to the actual attack on Congress. Trump’s defense lawyer, Jesse Binnall, did not reply to a request for comment. In the current lawsuit, leaving Trump without a viable defense could cost him millions. But the ongoing grand jury investigation in Washington could lead to the first criminal indictment of a former American head of state. Trump’s legal team is already gearing up for a fight over allegations that he broke the law by inciting a riot. However, sources briefed on DOJ special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal investigation say they're more concerned about potential charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States. That separate matter deals with the Trump campaign’s scheme to use fake state electors to usurp the official congressional tally of real votes. Still, these sources noted that Trump still faces potential criminal liability over the way he encouraged his MAGA devotees to march on the Capitol building on that early 2021 winter afternoon. The violent attack didn’t stop Congress from certifying the electoral college votes, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington has undertaken a historic effort to prosecute more than 985 insurrectionists for savagely beating police officers, stealing from congressional offices, and forcing their way into the Capitol. Stephen Saltzburg, a law professor at George Washington University, pointed out that the ongoing federal crackdown on insurrectionists could be interpreted as a buildup to a powerful case against the man who encouraged them to do it. That said, Saltzburg noted, a criminal charge for inciting the violence that took place on Jan. 6 would be a footnote compared to the difficulty of assembling a mob-like takedown. That takedown would center around a conspiracy case built upon Trump lying to the American public about nonexistent election fraud and trying to circumvent the democratic system itself. The District of Columbia appellate court still has to decide whether the police officers’ lawsuit can go forward, Saltzburg noted. And if the court is unconvinced by the DOJ’s position, the civil lawsuit would fail—but so would any criminal indictment for incitement. “A criminal case would have no chance because of the higher burden of proof,” Saltzburg said. By decisively planting a flag for the first time since Trump’s full-scale attack on efforts to stay in power, the Justice Department has also surprisingly handed some effective ammunition to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Her special purpose grand jury recently advised her office to seek indictments over Trump’s concerted effort to overturn Georgia’s election results and his intimidating phone call to the top elections official there. “It has profound implications for the Georgia case, and they are ominous for Trump,” said Norm Eisen, an attorney who previously advised the House Judiciary Committee and helped build the case for Trump’s first impeachment. By clarifying that some actions by a sitting president fall far outside legal behavior, the Justice Department has narrowly carved out just enough protection to leave Trump in the open. If encouraging an attack on Congress isn’t legal, neither is a ploy to band together fake electors and pressure an elections official into finding “11,780” Trump votes that didn’t exist, Eisen said. “Indeed, the Georgia conduct may be even more outrageous and unrelated to his official duties or his First Amendment rights than giving a speech on the Ellipse,” Eisen told The Daily Beast. “This brief is going to be utilized by the Fulton County prosecutor because it is so powerfully indicative of the only possible logical conclusion here: that an attempted coup cannot be part of the job description of a president under the United States Constitution.”
Manhattan prosecutors have signaled to Donald Trump that he could face criminal charges, an indication that they are nearing an indictment. Prosecutors Signal Criminal Charges for Trump Are Likely The former president was told that he could appear before a Manhattan grand jury next week if he wishes to testify, a strong indication that an indictment could soon follow. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/09/nyregion/trump-potential-criminal-charges-bragg.html The Manhattan district attorney’s office recently signaled to Donald J. Trump’s lawyers that he could face criminal charges for his role in the payment of hush money to a porn star, the strongest indication yet that prosecutors are nearing an indictment of the former president, according to four people with knowledge of the matter. The prosecutors offered Mr. Trump the chance to testify next week before the grand jury that has been hearing evidence in the potential case, the people said. Such offers almost always indicate an indictment is close; it would be unusual for the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, to notify a potential defendant without ultimately seeking charges against him. In New York, potential defendants have the right to answer questions in the grand jury before they are indicted, but they rarely testify, and Mr. Trump is likely to decline the offer. His lawyers could also meet privately with the prosecutors in hopes of fending off criminal charges. Any case would mark the first indictment of a former American president, and could upend the 2024 presidential race. It would also elevate Mr. Bragg to the national stage, though not without risk. Mr. Trump has faced an array of criminal investigations and special counsel inquiries over the years but has never been charged with a crime, underscoring the gravity of Mr. Bragg’s inquiry. Mr. Bragg could become the first prosecutor to charge Mr. Trump, but he might not be the last. In Georgia, the Fulton County District Attorney is investigating whether Mr. Trump interfered in the 2020 election, and at the federal level, a special counsel is scrutinizing Mr. Trump’s effort to overturn the election results, as well as his handling of classified documents. The Manhattan inquiry, which has spanned nearly five years, centers on a $130,000 payment to the porn star, Stormy Daniels, in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign. The payment was made by Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer, who was later reimbursed by Mr. Trump from the White House. Mr. Cohen is expected to testify in front of the grand jury, but has not yet done so. The district attorney’s office has already questioned at least six other people before the grand jury, according to several other people with knowledge of the inquiry. Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors have not finished the grand jury presentation and he could still decide against seeking an indictment. Mr. Trump has previously said that the prosecutors are engaged in a “witch hunt” against him that began before he became president, and has called Mr. Bragg, a Democrat who is Black, a politically motivated “racist.” A spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office declined to comment. Even if Mr. Trump is indicted, convicting him or sending him to prison will be challenging. The case against the former president hinges on an untested and therefore risky legal theory involving a complex interplay of laws, all amounting to a low-level felony. If Mr. Trump were ultimately convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of four years, though prison time would not be mandatory. Mr. Trump’s lawyers are also sure to attack Mr. Cohen, who in 2018 pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the hush money. The $130,000 payout came during the final stretch of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Ms. Daniels’s representatives contacted the National Enquirer to offer exclusive rights to her story about an affair with Mr. Trump. David Pecker, the tabloid’s publisher and a longtime ally of Mr. Trump, had agreed to look out for potentially damaging stories about him during the 2016 campaign, and at one point even agreed to buy the story of another woman’s affair with Mr. Trump and never publish it, a practice known as “catch and kill.” But Mr. Pecker didn’t bite at Ms. Daniels’s story. Instead, he and the tabloid’s top editor, Dylan Howard, helped broker a separate deal between Mr. Cohen and Ms. Daniels’s lawyer. Mr. Trump later reimbursed Mr. Cohen through monthly checks. In the federal case against Mr. Cohen, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump’s company “falsely accounted” for the monthly payments as legal expenses and that company records cited a retainer agreement with Mr. Cohen. Although Mr. Cohen was a lawyer, and became Mr. Trump’s personal attorney after he took office, there was no such retainer agreement and the reimbursement was unrelated to any legal services Mr. Cohen performed. In New York, falsifying business records can amount to a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. To elevate the crime to a felony charge, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime. In this case, that second crime could be a violation of New York State election law. While hush money is not inherently illegal, the prosecutors could argue that the $130,000 payout effectively became an improper donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign, under the theory that because the money silenced Ms. Daniels, it benefited his candidacy. Combining the criminal charge with a violation of state election law would be a novel legal theory for any criminal case, let alone one against the former president, raising the possibility that a judge or appellate court could throw it out or reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor. This is not the first Manhattan grand jury to hear evidence about Mr. Trump.Before leaving office at the end of 2021, Mr. Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., had directed prosecutors to begin presenting evidence to an earlier grand jury. That potential case focused on the former president’s business practices, in particular whether he fraudulently inflated his net worth by billions of dollars in order to secure favorable terms on loans and other benefits. But Mr. Bragg, soon after taking office last year, grew concerned about the strength of that case and halted the presentation, prompting two senior prosecutors leading the investigation to resign. Still, the portion of the investigation concerned with Mr. Trump’s net worth is continuing, people with knowledge of the matter said. Defendants rarely choose to testify before a grand jury and it is highly unlikely that Mr. Trump would do so. As a potential defendant, he would have to waive immunity, meaning that his testimony could be used against him if he were charged. Although he could have a lawyer present in the grand jury to advise him, the lawyer would be prohibited from speaking to the jurors, and there would be few limits on the questions prosecutors could ask the former president. In recent years, Mr. Trump has been wary of answering questions under oath, given the legal intrigue swirling around him. When the New York attorney general deposed him last year in a civil case, Mr. Trump refused to provide any information, availing himself of his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions more than 400 times over the course of four hours. If he testifies about the hush money to this grand jury, he will not have that option.
LOL. Trump lies continuously. Trump news – live: Trump says he ‘never had an affair’ with Stormy Daniels ahead of likely criminal charges https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...-ahead-of-likely-criminal-charges/ar-AA18rwJa