Statement of Facts Re Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsifying New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election. by Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney The People of the State of NY, County of NY against Donald J. Trump April 4, 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK -against- DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant.
STATEMENT OF FACTS IND-71543-23
INTRODUCTION
1. The defendant DONALD J. TRUMP repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.
2. From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects. In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York. The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme.
3. One component of this scheme was that, at the Defendant’s request, a lawyer who then worked for the Trump Organization as Special Counsel to Defendant (“Lawyer A”), covertly paid $130,000 to an adult film actress shortly before the election to prevent her from publicizing a sexual encounter with the Defendant. Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution and served time in prison. Further, false entries were made in New York business records to effectuate this payment, separate and apart from the New York business records used to conceal the payment.
4. After the election, the Defendant reimbursed Lawyer A for the illegal payment through a series of monthly checks, first from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust (the “Defendant’s Trust”)—a Trust created under the laws of New York which held the Trump Organization entity assets after the Defendant was elected President—and then from the Defendant’s bank account. Each check was processed by the Trump Organization, and each check was disguised as a payment for legal services rendered in a given month of 2017 pursuant to a retainer agreement. The payment records, kept and maintained by the Trump Organization, were false New York business records. In truth, there was no retainer agreement, and Lawyer A was not being paid for legal services rendered in 2017. The Defendant caused his entities’ business records to be falsified to disguise his and others’ criminal conduct.
BACKGROUND
5. The Defendant is the beneficial owner of a collection of business entities known by the trade name the Trump Organization. The Trump Organization comprises approximately 500 separate entities that, among other business activities, own and manage hotels, golf courses, commercial real estate, condominium developments, and other properties. The Trump Organization is headquartered at 725 Fifth Avenue in New York County.
6. From approximately June 2015 to November 2016, the Defendant was a candidate for the office of President of the United States. On January 20, 2017, he became President of the United States.
THE SCHEME
I. The Catch and Kill Scheme to Suppress Negative Information
7. During and in furtherance of his candidacy for President, the Defendant and others agreed to identify and suppress negative stories about him. Two parties to this agreement have admitted to committing illegal conduct in connection with the scheme. In August 2018, Lawyer A pleaded guilty to two federal crimes involving illegal campaign contributions, and subsequently served time in prison. In addition, in August 2018, American Media, Inc. (“AMI”), a media company that owned and published magazines and supermarket tabloids including the National Enquirer, admitted in a non-prosecution agreement that it made a payment to a source of a story to ensure that the source “did not publicize damaging allegations” about the Defendant “before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence that election.”
A. The 2015 Trump Tower Meeting
8. In June 2015, the Defendant announced his candidacy for President of the United States.
9. Soon after, in August 2015, the Defendant met with Lawyer A and AMI’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (the “AMI CEO”) at Trump Tower in New York County. At the meeting, the AMI CEO agreed to help with the Defendant’s campaign, saying that he would act as the “eyes and ears” for the campaign by looking out for negative stories about the Defendant and alerting Lawyer A before the stories were published. The AMI CEO also agreed to publish negative stories about the Defendant’s competitors for the election.
B. Suppressing the Doorman’s Story
10. A few months later, in or about October or November 2015, the AMI CEO learned that a former Trump Tower doorman (the “Doorman”) was trying to sell information regarding a child that the Defendant had allegedly fathered out of wedlock. At the AMI CEO’s direction, AMI negotiated and signed an agreement to pay the Doorman $30,000 to acquire exclusive rights to the story. AMI falsely characterized this payment in AMI’s books and records, including in its general ledger. AMI purchased the information from the Doorman without fully investigating his claims, but the AMI CEO directed that the deal take place because of his agreement with the Defendant and Lawyer A. 11. When AMI later concluded that the story was not true, the AMI CEO wanted to release the Doorman from the agreement. However, Lawyer A instructed the AMI CEO not to release the Doorman until after the presidential election, and the AMI CEO complied with that instruction because of his agreement with the Defendant and Lawyer A.
C. Suppressing Woman 1’s Account
12. About five months before the presidential election, in or about June 2016, the editor-in-chief of the National Enquirer and AMI’s Chief Content Officer (the “AMI Editor-in-Chief”) contacted Lawyer A about a woman (“Woman 1”) who alleged she had a sexual relationship with the Defendant while he was married. The AMI Editor-in-Chief updated Lawyer A regularly about the matter over text message and by telephone. The Defendant did not want this information to become public because he was concerned about the effect it could have on his candidacy. Thereafter, the Defendant, the AMI CEO, and Lawyer A had a series of discussions about who should pay off Woman 1 to secure her silence.
13. AMI ultimately paid $150,000 to Woman 1 in exchange for her agreement not to speak out about the alleged sexual relationship, as well as for two magazine cover features of Woman 1 and a series of articles that would be published under her byline. AMI falsely characterized this payment in AMI’s books and records, including in its general ledger. The AMI CEO agreed to the deal after discussing it with both the Defendant and Lawyer A, and on the understanding from Lawyer A that the Defendant or the Trump Organization would reimburse AMI.
14. In a conversation captured in an audio recording in approximately September 2016 concerning Woman 1’s account, the Defendant and Lawyer A discussed how to obtain the rights to Woman 1’s account from AMI and how to reimburse AMI for its payment. Lawyer A told the Defendant he would open up a company for the transfer of Woman 1’s account and other information, and stated that he had spoken to the Chief Financial Officer for the Trump Organization (the “TO CFO”) about “how to set the whole thing up.” The Defendant asked, “So what do we got to pay for this? One fifty?” and suggested paying by cash. When Lawyer A disagreed, the Defendant then mentioned payment by check. After the conversation, Lawyer A created a shell company called Resolution Consultants, LLC on or about September 30, 2016.
15. Less than two months before the election, on or about September 30, 2016, the AMI CEO signed an agreement in which AMI agreed to transfer its rights to Woman 1’s account to Lawyer A’s shell company for $125,000. However, after the assignment agreement was signed but before the reimbursement took place, the AMI CEO consulted with AMI’s general counsel and then told Lawyer A that the deal to transfer the rights to Lawyer A’s shell company was off.
D. Suppressing Woman 2’s Account
16. About one month before the election, on or about October 7, 2016, news broke that the Defendant had been caught on tape saying to the host of Access Hollywood: “I just start kissing them [women]. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. . . . Grab ’em by the [genitals]. You can do anything.” The evidence shows that both the Defendant and his campaign staff were concerned that the tape would harm his viability as a candidate and reduce his standing with female voters in particular.
17. Shortly after the Access Hollywood tape became public, the AMI Editor-in-Chief contacted the AMI CEO about another woman (“Woman 2”) who alleged she had a sexual encounter with the Defendant while he was married. The AMI CEO told the AMI Editor-in-Chief to notify Lawyer A.
18. On or about October 10, 2016, the AMI Editor-in-Chief connected Lawyer A with Woman 2’s lawyer (“Lawyer B”). Lawyer A then negotiated a deal with Lawyer B to secure Woman 2’s silence and prevent disclosure of the damaging information in the final weeks before the presidential election. Under the deal that Lawyer B negotiated, Woman 2 would be paid $130,000 for the rights to her account.
19. The Defendant directed Lawyer A to delay making a payment to Woman 2 as long as possible. He instructed Lawyer A that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public. As reflected in emails and text messages between and among Lawyer A, Lawyer B, and the AMI Editor-in-Chief, Lawyer A attempted to delay making payment as long as possible.
20. Ultimately, with pressure mounting and the election approaching, the Defendant agreed to the payoff and directed Lawyer A to proceed. Lawyer A discussed the deal with the Defendant and the TO CFO. The Defendant did not want to make the $130,000 payment himself, and asked Lawyer A and the TO CFO to find a way to make the payment. After discussing various payment options with the TO CFO, Lawyer A agreed he would make the payment. Before making the payment, Lawyer A confirmed with the Defendant that Defendant would pay him back.
21. On or about October 26, shortly after speaking with the Defendant on the phone, Lawyer A opened a bank account in Manhattan in the name of Essential Consultants LLC, a new shell company he had created to effectuate the payment. He then transferred $131,000 from his personal home equity line of credit (“HELOC”) into that account. On or about October 27, Lawyer A wired $130,000 from his Essential Consultants LLC account in New York to Lawyer B to suppress Woman 2’s account.
E. Post-Election Communications with AMI CEO
22. On November 8, 2016, the Defendant won the presidential election and became the President-Elect. Thereafter, AMI released both the doorman and Woman 1 from their non-disclosure agreements.
23. The Defendant was inaugurated as President on January 20, 2017. Between Election Day and Inauguration Day, during the period of the Defendant’s transition to his role as President, the Defendant met with the AMI CEO privately in Trump Tower in Manhattan. The Defendant thanked the AMI CEO for handling the stories of the Doorman and Woman 1, and invited the AMI CEO to the Inauguration. In the summer of 2017, the Defendant invited the AMI CEO to the White House for a dinner to thank him for his help during the campaign.
II. The Defendant Falsified Business Records
24. Shortly after being elected President, the Defendant arranged to reimburse Lawyer A for the payoff he made on the Defendant’s behalf. In or around January 2017, the TO CFO and Lawyer A met to discuss how Lawyer A would be reimbursed for the money he paid to ensure Woman 2’s silence. The TO CFO asked Lawyer A to bring a copy of a bank statement for the Essential Consultants account showing the $130,000 payment.
25. The TO CFO and Lawyer A agreed to a total repayment amount of $420,000. They reached that figure by adding the $130,000 payment to a $50,000 payment for another expense for which Lawyer A also claimed reimbursement, for a total of $180,000. The TO CFO then doubled that amount to $360,000 so that Lawyer A could characterize the payment as income on his tax returns, instead of a reimbursement, and Lawyer A would be left with $180,000 after paying approximately 50% in income taxes. Finally, the TO CFO added an additional $60,000 as a supplemental year-end bonus. Together, these amounts totaled $420,000. The TO CFO memorialized these calculations in handwritten notes on the copy of the bank statement that Lawyer A had provided.
26. The Defendant, the TO CFO, and Lawyer A then agreed that Lawyer A would be paid the $420,000 through twelve monthly payments of $35,000 over the course of 2017. Each month, Lawyer A was to send an invoice to the Defendant through Trump Organization employees, falsely requesting payment of $35,000 for legal services rendered in a given month of 2017 pursuant to a retainer agreement. At no point did Lawyer A have a retainer agreement with the Defendant or the Trump Organization.
27. In early February 2017, the Defendant and Lawyer A met in the Oval Office at the White House and confirmed this repayment arrangement.
28. On or about February 14, 2017, Lawyer A emailed the Controller of the Trump Organization (the “TO Controller”) the first monthly invoice, which stated: “Pursuant to the retainer agreement, kindly remit payment for services rendered for the months of January and February, 2017.” The invoice requested payment in the amount of $35,000 for each of those two months. The TO CFO approved the payment, and, in turn, the TO Controller sent the invoice to the Trump Organization Accounts Payable Supervisor (the “TO Accounts Payable Supervisor”) with the following instructions: “Post to legal expenses. Put ‘retainer for the months of January and February 2017’ in the description.”
29. Lawyer A submitted ten similar monthly invoices by email to the Trump Organization for the remaining months in 2017. Each invoice falsely stated that it was being submitted “[p]ursuant to the retainer agreement,” and falsely requested “payment for services rendered” for a month of 2017. In fact, there was no such retainer agreement and Lawyer A was not being paid for services rendered in any month of 2017.
30. The TO Controller forwarded each invoice to the TO Accounts Payable Supervisor. Consistent with the TO Controller’s initial instructions, the TO Accounts Payable Supervisor printed out each invoice and marked it with an accounts payable stamp and the general ledger code “51505” for legal expenses. The Trump Organization maintained the invoices as records of expenses paid.
31. As instructed, the TO Accounts Payable Supervisor recorded each payment in the Trump Organization’s electronic accounting system, falsely describing it as a “legal expense” pursuant to a retainer agreement for a month of 2017. The Trump Organization maintained a digital entry for each expense, called a “voucher,” and these vouchers, like vouchers for other expenses, became part of the Trump Organization’s general ledgers.
32. The TO Accounts Payable Supervisor then prepared checks with attached check stubs for approval and signature. The first check was paid from the Defendant’s Trust and signed by the TO CFO and the Defendant’s son, as trustees. The check stub falsely recorded the payment as “Retainer for 1/1-1/31/17” and “Retainer for 2/1-2/28/17.” The second check, for March 2017, was also paid from the Trust and signed by two trustees. The check stub falsely recorded the payment as “Retainer for 3/1-3/31/17.”
33. The remaining nine checks, corresponding to the months of April through December of 2017, were paid by the Defendant personally. Each of the checks was cut from the Defendant’s bank account and sent, along with the corresponding invoices from Lawyer A, from the Trump Organization in New York County to the Defendant in Washington, D.C. The checks and stubs bearing the false statements were stapled to the invoices also bearing false statements. The Defendant signed each of the checks personally and had them sent back to the Trump Organization in New York County. There, the checks, the stubs, and the invoices were scanned and maintained in the Trump Organization’s data system before the checks themselves were detached and mailed to Lawyer A for payment.
34. The $35,000 payments stopped after the December 2017 payment.
III. The Investigation into Lawyer A and the Defendant’s Pressure Campaign
35. On or about April 9, 2018, the FBI executed a search warrant on Lawyer A’s residences and office. In the months that followed, the Defendant and others engaged in a public and private pressure campaign to ensure that Lawyer A did not cooperate with law enforcement in the federal investigation.
36. On the day of the FBI searches, Lawyer A called to speak with the Defendant to let him know what had occurred. In a return call, the Defendant told Lawyer A to “stay strong.”
37. On or about April 21, 2018, the Defendant publicly commented on Twitter encouraging Lawyer A not to “flip,” stating, “Most people will flip if the Government lets them out of trouble, even if . . . it means lying or making up stories. Sorry, I don’t see [Lawyer A] doing that . . . .”
38. In mid-April 2018, Lawyer A was also approached by an attorney (“Lawyer C”), who offered to represent him in the interest of maintaining a “back channel of communication” to the Defendant. On or about April 21, 2018, Lawyer C emailed Lawyer A, highlighting that he had a close relationship with the Defendant’s personal attorney (“Lawyer D”) and stating, “[T]his could not be a better situation for the President or you.” Later that day, Lawyer C emailed Lawyer A again, writing, “I spoke with [Lawyer D]. Very Very Positive. You are ‘loved.’ . . . [Lawyer D] said this communication channel must be maintained. . . . Sleep well tonight, you have friends in high places.”
39. On or about June 14, 2018, Lawyer C emailed Lawyer A a news clip discussing the possibility of Lawyer A cooperating, and continued to urge him not to cooperate with law enforcement, writing, “The whole objective of this exercise by the [federal prosecutors] is to drain you, emotionally and financially, until you reach a point that you see them as your only means to salvation.” In the same email , Lawyer C, wrote, “You are making a very big mistake if you believe the stories these ‘journalists’ are writing about you. They want you to cave. They want you to fail. They do not want you to persevere and succeed.”
40. On August 21, 2018, Lawyer A pleaded guilty in the federal investigation. The next day, on or about August 22, 2018, the Defendant commented on Twitter, “If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you don’t retain the services of [Lawyer A]!” Later that day, the Defendant posted to Twitter again, stating, “I feel very badly for” one of his former campaign managers who had been criminally charged, saying, “[U]nlike [Lawyer A], he refused to ‘break’ – make up stories in order to get a ‘deal.’”
IV. Lawyer A and AMI Admit Guilt in Connection with Payoffs of Woman 1 and Woman 2
41. Ultimately, other participants in the scheme admitted that the payoffs were unlawful.
42. In or about September 2018, AMI entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York in connection with AMI’s payoff of Woman 1, admitting that “[a]t no time during the negotiation or acquisition of [Woman 1’s] story did AMI intend to publish the story or disseminate information about it publicly.” Rather, AMI admitted that it made the payment to ensure that Woman 1 “did not publicize damaging allegations” about the Defendant “before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence that election.”
43. In August 21, 2018, Lawyer A pleaded guilty to a felony in connection with his role in AMI’s payoff to Woman 1, admitting in his guilty plea that he had done so at the Defendant’s direction:
[O]n or about the summer of 2016, in coordination with, and at the direction of, a candidate for federal office, I and the CEO of a media company at the request of the candidate worked together to keep an individual with information that would be harmful to the candidate and to the campaign from publicly disclosing this information. After a number of discussions, we eventually accomplished the goal by the media company entering into a contract with the individual under which she received compensation of $150,000. I participated in this conduct, which on my part took place in Manhattan, for the principal purpose of influencing the election.
(emphasis added).
44. Lawyer A also pleaded guilty to a felony in connection with his payoff of Woman 2 to secure her silence, again at the Defendant’s direction. Lawyer A admitted as part of his guilty plea:
[O]n or about October of 2016, in coordination with, and at the direction of, the same candidate, I arranged to make a payment to a second individual with information that would be harmful to the candidate and to the campaign to keep the individual from disclosing the information. To accomplish this, I used a company that was under my control to make a payment in the sum of $130,000. The monies I advanced through my company were later repaid to me by the candidate. I participated in this conduct, which on my part took place in Manhattan, for the principal purpose of influencing the election.
(emphasis added).1
DATED: New York, New York April 4, 2023 ALVIN L. BRAGG, JR. District Attorney New York County
_______________
Notes:
1 This Statement of Facts contains certain of the information that is relevant to the events described herein, and does not contain all facts relevant to the charged conduct.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK -against- DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant.
THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
SECOND COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842457, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
THIRD COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842460, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
FOURTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account check and check stub dated February 14, 2017, bearing check number 000138, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
FIFTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about March 16, 2017 through March 17, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 16, 2017 and transmitted on or about March 16, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
SIXTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about March 17, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 846907, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
SEVENTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about March 17, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account check and check stub dated March 17, 2017, bearing check number 000147, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
EIGHTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about April 13, 2017 through June 19, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated April 13, 2017, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
NINTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about June 19, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 858770, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
TENTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about June 19, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated June 19, 2017, bearing check number 002740, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
ELEVENTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about May 22, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated May 22, 2017, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
TWELFTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about May 22, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 855331, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
THIRTEENTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about May 23, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated May 23, 2017, bearing check number 002700, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
FOURTEENTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about June 16, 2017 through June 19, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated June 16, 2017, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
FIFTEENTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about June 19, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 858772, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
SIXTEENTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about June 19, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated June 19, 2017, bearing check number 002741, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
SEVENTEENTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about July 11, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated July 11, 2017, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
EIGHTEENTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about July 11, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 861096, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
NINETEENTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about July 11, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated July 11, 2017, bearing check number 002781, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
TWENTIETH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about August 1, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated August 1, 2017, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
TWENTY-FIRST COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about August 1, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 863641, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
TWENTY-SECOND COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about August 1, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated August 1, 2017, bearing check number 002821, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
TWENTY-THIRD COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about September 11, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated September 11, 2017, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
TWENTY-FOURTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about September 11, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 868174, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
TWENTY-FIFTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about September 12, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated September 12, 2017, bearing check number 002908, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
TWENTY-SIXTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about October 18, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated October 18, 2017, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
TWENTY-SEVENTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about October 18, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 872654, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
TWENTY-EIGHTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about October 18, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated October 18, 2017, bearing check number 002944, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
TWENTY-NINTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about November 20, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated November 20, 2017, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
THIRTIETH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about November 20, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 876511, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
THIRTY-FIRST COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about November 21, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated November 21, 2017, bearing check number 002980, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
THIRTY-SECOND COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about December 1, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated December 1, 2017, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
THIRTY-THIRD COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about December 1, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 877785, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
THIRTY-FOURTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about December 5, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated December 5, 2017, bearing check number 003006, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
ALVIN L. BRAGG, JR. District Attorney
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK -against- DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant.
INDICTMENT
FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, P.L. §175.10, 34 Cts
ALVIN L. BRAGG JR., District Attorney A True Bill Foreperson ADJOURNED TO PART _______ ON ________
Donald Trump addresses the United States from Mar-a-Lago home by Donald Trump 4/4/23
Transcript
[Donald J. Trump] we have to save our country God bless you all God bless you all thought anything like this like this could happen in America never thought it could happen the only crime that I have committed is to fearlessly defend our nation from those who seek to destroy it from the beginning the Democrats spied on my campaign remember that they attacked me with an onslaught of fraudulent investigations Russia Russia Russia Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine impeachment hoax number one impeachment hoax number two the illegal and unconstitutional raid on Mar-A-Lago right here the line to the fisa courts the FBI and doj relentlessly pursuing Republicans the unconstitutional changes to election laws by not getting approvals from state legislators the millions of votes illegally stuffed into ballot boxes and all caught on government cameras and just recently the FBI and doj in collusion with Twitter and Facebook in order not to say anything bad about the hunter Biden laptop from hell which exposes the Biden family as criminals in which according to the pollsters would have made a 17-point difference in the election result and we needed a lot less than that like about 16.9 it would have been in our favor not my favor our favor because our country is going to hell and we remember the 51 intelligence agents who said Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation it didn't exist it was Russian disinformation remember that and that was all confirmed strongly by the FBI when they all knew that it wasn't Russian disinformation and so much more our elections were like those of a third world country and now this massive election interference at a scale never seen before in our country beginning with the radical left George Soros back prosecutor Alvin Bragg of New York he would get president Trump I gotta get him I'm going to get him this is a guy campaigning you want to get president Trump at any cost and this before he knew anything about me didn't know a thing about me he was campaigning as it turns out virtually everybody that has looked at this case including rhinos and even hardcore Democrats say there is no crime and that it should never have been brought even people that aren't big fans have said it they said this is not the right thing to do it's an insult to our country as the world is already laughing at us for so many other reasons like our open borders are incompetent withdrawal from Afghanistan Where We Left Behind American citizens 85 billion dollars worth of the best military equipment in the world lost 13 magnificent young lives and far too many to mention that are so badly hurt with the loss of arms and legs and facial obliteration the most embarrassing time in our country's history in my opinion then our give up on energy Independence and even energy dominant we're going to be dominant within six months more than any other Nation times two we had this all just three years ago our raging crime statistics if you look in democrat-run cities numbers the likes of which we have never seen before the open threats by various countries of the use of nuclear weapons something never mentioned or discussed by outside Nations during the Trump Administration in which could very well lead under the Biden administration's leadership to an all-out nuclear world war three can happen we're not very far away from it believe it or not an economy that has been crippled by the biggest inflation we have seen in more than 60 years and a military that I use to defeat Isis in four weeks they said it would take four years four weeks to kill al-baghdadi and solomonie that has now gone woke at the top Levels by trying to indoctrinate everyone down to the lowest ranking Patriot but now they have really stepped up their reference by indicting the 45th president of the United States who received 75 million votes which is more than any sitting president in the history of our country foreign and in the wings they've got a local racist Democrat district attorney in Atlanta who is doing everything in her power to indict me over an absolutely perfect phone call even more perfect than the one I made with the president of Ukraine remember a kid kept saying that's a perfect call this one was more perfect nobody said sir you shouldn't say that many people on the phone or hung up in disgust because of something I inappropriately said because nothing was said wrong in fact at the end of the call we agreed to continue our conversation about election fraud and election fraud specifically in Georgia at a later time many people on the phone including lots of lawyers nobody found anything wrong with that perfect call until a book promotion to her many months later all of a sudden they say you know I remember Trump making a call let's look at that this fake case was brought only to interfere with the upcoming 2024 election and it should be dropped immediately foreign then you have a radical left lunatic known as a bomb thrower who is harassing hundreds of my people day after day over the boxes hoax you know the boxes out as we call it just so everyone knows I come under what's known as the presidential records act which was designed and approved by Congress long ago just for this reason under the ACT I'm supposed to negotiate with Nara the National Archives and Records Administration which as of this date is a radical left trouble making organization that red flags the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights is dangerous and triggering can you imagine this is what we have to deal with but there is no criminality under the presidential records Act that is not what it's all about we were negotiating in very good faith proper way in order to return some or all of the documents that I openly and in very plain sight brought with me to Mar-A-Lago from our beautiful white house just as virtually every other president has done in the past when FBI and doj officials with narrow with here I told my lawyer to show them the very secure storage room in which they were locked the FBI still request in writing was could you please put another lock on the door we immediately complied it's a lot different than the Biden situation isn't it the next thing I know we were rated by many gun toting FBI agents who took whatever they wanted including my passports and medical records everybody was in shock nobody had ever heard of such a raid before can't even believe it who would think that that could happen today I immediately thought of the fourth amendment that protects against unreasonable search and seizure but they did it anyway because our justice system has become Lawless they're using it now in addition to everything else to win elections apparently they're not looking at me through the view of the non-criminal presidential records act they came up with a new one this is a new one and they're looking at me through the Espionage Act because of 1917 where the penalty is death even though that is absolutely nothing to do with openly taking boxes of documents and mostly clothing and other things to my home which President Obama has done the bushes have done Jimmy Carter has done Ronald Reagan has done everybody's done in fact Hillary Clinton got rid of 33 000 emails that was okay nobody's done it like Joe Biden this lunatic special prosecutor named Jack Smith I wonder what it was prior to a change hey he is even worse than they are is only looking at Trump against Joe Biden took massive amounts more documents even removed many boxes to Chinatown you believe that it's got 10 million dollars from China where did that come from I guess they were banking on Hunter's expertise and had others stored in unsecured offices in Pennsylvania and screwed all over his garage floor where his now very famous Corvette is also stored all over the floor including classified documents but that's okay perhaps most importantly he has 1850 boxes in Delaware which he is refusing to give up but isn't that real obstruction as president I have the right to declassify documents and the process is automatic if I take them with me it's automatic Declassified Biden was vice president he had absolutely no right to deglassify as vice president he doesn't come under the non-criminal presidential records act he comes under the very criminal Federal records act unfortunately for him but it's not going to matter because they don't follow the law which has very severe penalties he had classified documents that he took while he was a senator which is absolutely inexcusable and other Senators including Democrats are outraged but he's not being harassed and hounded like the people who work for me are in fact they seem to have forgotten about his documents entirely so many thousands and thousands okay with him they like to say that I'm obstructing which I'm not because I was working with Nara very nicely until the raid on my home but Biden is obstructing by making it impossible to get the 1800 and 50 boxes or explain why many documents were located in Chinatown can't explain it why were they agenda that I don't know lastly I'm under investigation this time a civil investigation by another racist in reverse who also campaigned on I will get Trump I will get them this was your campaign never ran for office I will get him her name is Leticia James he proclaimed while camping quote I look forward the Attorney General every single day suing him and then going home before she knew me she announced what is purely my soul right now is Trump and that she had her eyes on Trump Tower those eyes are focused on jump down didn't know the young lady she even assured her supporters in an election promised that we're going to definitely sue him we're going to be a real pain in the ass he's going to know my name personally and then she claimed that I was an illegitimate president think of it with all with all we did on the military or taxes because tax cuts in history biggest regulation Cuts in history right to try people able to get drugs now that aren't approved Leticia James vowed to use every area of the law to quote investigate president Trump and his business transactions those transactions are going to be investigated she said and that of her family and his family because we're going after his family and we're going after them hard this is all before entering office and all before knowing anything at all about me but you're gonna get me this is why along with unrelenting crime so many people and companies are leaving New York she said that I falsified my financial statements but in fact we're proving and we'll prove that my financial statements were substantially more than we submitted not less and in all cases have a strong disclaimer clause in them which tells the institutions that may look at that if they want to not to rely on the statement but they've got a problem with their case because number one I'm very under leverage they can't believe it all the stuff they read and gave and have very little debt relative to the value of assets and importantly not One bank has lost even one dollar she was investigatingly to save they have very good lawyers but they didn't lose a dollar with us during this period of time in fact the banks were talking about made almost 200 million dollars off Donald Trump and they like me very much we never missed a payment never got a default notice had a great relationship with I don't need Banks I have a lot of cash built a great business with my family built a fantastic person I have a son here who's done a great job and I have another son here he's done a great job and baron will be great Sundays tall and smart but I have a great family and they've done a fantastic job and we appreciate it very much so she's suing me over banks that weren't defraud when she should be focused on violent crime that's driving people out of the state this is a persecution not an investigation she's put our family through hell it's cost hundreds of millions of dollars to defend but our heads are held very very high they want to settle the case but I want no part of that where we were today in a city that was so gracious four or five years ago but now we're there spend time there today as you possibly with a local failed district attorney charging a former president of the United States for the first time in history on a basis that every single pundit and legal analyst said there is no case there's no case they kept saying there's no case virtually everyone but it's far worse than that because he knew there was no case that's why last week he delayed for a month and then immediately took that back and through this ridiculous indictment together came out today everybody said this is not really an indictment there's nothing here my lawyers came to me and they said there's nothing here they're not even saying what you did the criminal is the dish the district attorney because he illegally leaked massive amounts of grand jury for which he should be prosecuted or at a minimum he should resign and Alvin Bragg's wife confirmed a report that claimed her husband has Trump nailed on felonies she has since locked down her Twitter account his chief prosecutor who represented the Democrats and crooked Hillary Clinton and a firm run by Chuck Schumer's brother Robert he quit the firm in order to go to work in the D.A office in order to get Trump can you imagine that Hillary Clinton's lawyer Democrat lawyer Democrat firm ultimately he quit as Chief prosecutor because Bragg didn't think he had a case I think of the same guy that brought this ridiculous thing today yeah during his investigation this prosecutor named Mark pomeranz wrote and published a book saying also it's a privileged things has been very strongly reprimanded he was reprimanded so strongly I've never seen anything like it that's probably the end of it but what he did was probably very illegal but he was very very strongly reprimanded even district attorney Bragg was furious with him they were having a tremendous fight in the office because but hope is never lost because various prosecutors in the DA's office also quit because they thought president Trump was being treated very unfairly how about that oh I love them I'd like them I'd like to meet them thank you the DA's office even had a web page meet the team of Executives who have done this to president Trump that was the title isn't that nice they immediately had to take it down meanwhile overall crime in New York was up 30 percent last year much more than that the year before with felony assaults robberies and burglaries all up by massive massive numbers not the same place that I know not the same place that you know and this is where we are right now I have a trump-hating judge with a trump-hating wife and family whose daughter worked for Kamala Harris and now receives money from the Biden Harris campaign and a lot of men we recently had another trial and the same judge told the fine man who worked for me for many many years that if you admit your guilt you will be in jail for 90 days but if you don't if we go through a trial and you're found guilty you're going away for 10 years and maybe longer which for 75 year old man with a great family really means life what the prosecutors and judge did to that man I will never forget because it's right out of the old Soviet Union that's where we are they said you say anything about Trump meaning that's bad and you won't even have to serve the 90 days you'll want free and they say that to many of my employees we have this Jack Smith lunatic threatening people every single day through his Representatives they're threatening jail terms but talk about Trump and you'll go free this is where we are as a nation who would have thought they can't beat us at The Ballot Box so they try and beat us through the law that's the country in which we live however right now the USA is a mess our economy is crashing inflation is out of control Russia has joined with China can you believe that Saudi Arabia has joined with Iran China Russia Iran and North Korea have formed together as a menacing and destructive Coalition would have never happened if I were your president would never have happened nor would Russia attacking Ukraine have happened all of those lives would be saved all of those beautiful cities would be standing our currency is crashing and will soon no longer be the world standard which will be our greatest defeat frankly in 200 years there will be no defeat like that that will take us away from being even a great power if you took the five worst Presidents in the history of the United and added them up they would not have done near the destruction to our country as Joe Biden and the Biden Administration have done incredibly we are now a failing Nation we are a nation in Decline and now these radical left lunatics want to interfere with our elections by using law enforcement we can't let that happen King said and with a very dark cloud over our Beloved Country I have no doubt nevertheless that we will make America great again God bless you and God bless America thank you very much
The Arraignment of Donald J. Trump: A Detailed Summary by Anna Bower, Benjamin Wittes Lawfare Wednesday, April 5, 2023, 12:33 AM
Judge Juan Merchan of the Supreme Court of New York opens the hearing by asking both the government and counsel for former President Donald J. Trump whether there’s anything they need “to address before we conduct the arraignment.”
Christopher Conroy for the prosecution and Todd Blanche for the defense agree that there is nothing.
“Let’s arraign Mr. Trump,” says the judge.
And the court proceeds to arraign the 45th President of the United States—the first president ever to face criminal charges:
THE CLERK: Donald J. Trump, the grand jury of New York County has filed indictment 71543 of 2023 charging you with the crimes of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. How do you plead to this indictment, guilty or not guilty?
MR. TRUMP: Not guilty.
Judge Merchan quickly turns things over to Conroy, who in a businesslike fashion thanks the judge and declares that the state is “filing with the Court and handing to counsel copies of the indictment and a statement of facts.” He also declares that he is giving defendant’s counsel a copy of Trump’s fingerprint report. And he says that the indictment was unsealed at 1:30 pm and given to defendant’s lawyers in advance of the hearing.
He notes that the grand jury “listened to the evidence and carefully considered the charges [and] has voted an indictment against the defendant, Donald J. Trump, charging him with 34 separate felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree in violation of New York State Penal Law section 175.10.” He says that his colleague in the district attorney’s office, Catherine McCaw, will address discovery issues, motions, and a possible trial date. But he wants first to address “what this case is about, the defendant’s recent public statements, conditions of release, and the conflict matter [we] believe the Court should be aware of.”
Judge Merchan allows him to proceed.
In Conroy’s telling, this case is about the fact that Trump “falsified New York business records in order to conceal an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the 2016 presidential election and other violations of election laws.” Beginning in August 2015, he argues, Trump “agreed with others to carry out an unlawful plan to identify and suppress negative information that could have undermined his candidacy for President.” He then summarizes the allegations in the indictment and statement of facts. “Defendant falsified these New York business records with the intent to defraud, including the intent to commit another crime, and to aid and conceal the commission of another crime,” he argues.
He emphasizes that, “This office has long prioritized protecting the integrity of business records maintained here in New York County. When those records are falsified in service of another crime, it is a felony.”
He then turns to what he terms Trump’s “recent public statements threatening our city, our justice system, our courts, and our office.” Over the past few weeks, he says, Trump “has made a series of threatening and escalating communications,” a series that has included “irresponsible social media posts that target various individuals involved in this matter, and even their families.” These statements, he alleges, have “threatened potential death and destruction . . ., and World War III . . . if these charges were brought and he was indicted.” Trump’s statements directly addressed the grand jury itself and ”disparaged witnesses” who had reportedly participated in the investigation. Trump has also threated the district attorney’s office, “including posting a picture that depicts Mr. Trump wielding a baseball bat at the head of the district attorney.”
Trump’s comments have required “extensive public safety measures” by “a number of law enforcement agencies” starting weeks ago.
He turns over to the court and to Trump’s counsel what he terms “several of the defendant's recent online posts as an example” of “this kind of threatening rhetoric.” And he expresses “significant concern” about the danger Trump’s rhetoric poses “to our city, to potential jurors and witnesses, and to the judicial process.”
He insists, however, the district attorney’s office will not be deterred.
One way, he suggests, of addressing Trump’s conduct would be for the court to issue “an appropriately restrictive protective order concerning discovery materials, so that his lawyers can access the information they need to prepare a defense, while at the same time, making sure the defendant does not disseminate any information provided as discovery through threatening online posts.” McCaw, he says, will address this further. Of course, “the terms of any protective order the Court enters can . . . be carefully policed through contempt proceedings and other sanctions as necessary.”
While the government is only seeking a protective order regarding discovery materials, Conroy notes that Trump’s rhetoric directed at individuals and their families “may also raise concerns about the fair and orderly administration of justice, the risks that pre-trial publicity will taint the jury pool and prejudice a fair trial, and individual and public safety concerns.” And the district attorney’s office is thus considering seeking other possible relief as well and “would be prepared to submit briefing if the Court requests.”
He then turns to the question of conditions of Trump’s release. He notes that under New York law these charges are not eligible for bail and that Trump surrendered voluntarily for processing and arraignment. He asks Judge Merchan “to give the defendant Parker warnings”—advising him of his right to be present at trial and of the consequences of his non-appearance. “Should the defendant decide not to return to court from out of state, these warnings would help mitigate potential issues around any extradition proceeding.” He says that if circumstances change and the prosecution believes it needs modifications to the these conditions, it will bring the matter to the court’s attention.
Finally, he raises the issue of a possible conflict of interest on the part of Joseph Tacopina, one of the lawyers for Trump. “Our understanding [is that] he previously had privileged communications with Stormy Daniels, who we expect to be a witness in this case,” he says. He consequently asks for the judge to “conduct an inquiry at an appropriate time” of both Tacopina and Trump about potential conflicts arising out of this prior relationship. He says he received a letter sent by Daniels’s current counsel on Monday and would happily share it with the court and Trump’s lawyers.
And then he tries to turn things over to McCaw.
But McCaw doesn’t get her turn just yet. Todd Blanche, the former federal prosecutor whom Trump added to his defense team only yesterday pipes up. “Your Honor, thank you,” he begins. “I didn't realize we were going to give opening statements today. I would appreciate the opportunity to respond.”
Blanche complains that the prosecution had “ten minutes” to talk about “the strength of their case.” Yet, he continues, “this is no trial” and the defense has not had an opportunity to view discovery yet.
Then he shifts to the subject of the prosecution’s key witness: the President’s former fixer, Michael Cohen. Cohen, he complains, stood on the courthouse steps every time he met with prosecutors or the grand jury and announced exactly what he did and why he did it.
It’s true, Blanche acknowledges, that Trump has responded “forcefully” to the events of the past several weeks, and that he’s “absolutely frustrated, upset, and believes that there is a grave injustice happening.” Still, Blanche says, the prosecution’s efforts to give “their version” of the indictment today has “exacerbated” the problem.
Before Blanche can continue, Judge Merchan interjects. The prosecutors, he clarifies, are merely “complaining about the rhetoric and the charged nature of the language that is being used” by the former President. In response, Blanche contends that Trump has free speech rights to talk about his view of what is happening in this case. And, he continues, it’s important to “step back” and realize this case has been investigated for several years. He adds that Mark Pomerantz, a former special assistant district attorney with the Manhattan district attorney’s office, wrote a whole book about the investigation, which he has publicly discussed.
Meanwhile, Blanche points out, “the President” is running for reelection as President of the United States. “I mean, imagine anybody in this courtroom that was in that position,” he urges before reiterating that this was a three-year investigation plagued by “leaks galore.” As one example, he points out that Trump only received a copy of the indictment 40 minutes before the hearing, while the media “apparently” received a copy of the indictment last night. “That is a grave injustice,” he proclaims.
Clearly, Trump is “frustrated” by all of this, Blanche continues. But his posts, he says, “are not threats, they are not harassment.” While the prosecutors may disagree with the “rhetoric,” Blanche saysit is “patently unfair”to frustrate the freedom of speech of a man who is running for President of the United States.
In reply, Judge Merchan acknowledges that Trump “does have rights.” But, he says, “I don’t believe the People are asking the Court to impose any kind of gag order.” When Blanche agrees that is correct, Judge Merchan continues: “Certainly, the Court would not impose a gag order at this time even if it were requested.” He observes that such restraints “are the most serious and . . . intolerable on First Amendment rights,” which applies “doubly” to Trump because he is a candidate for the presidency of the United States. Still, Judge Merchan says that he doesn’t share Blanche’s view “that certain language and certain rhetoric is just by frustration.” So though Judge Merchan won’t enter a gag order, he “would encourage counsel on both sides to speak to their witnesses and the defendant” and “remind them” to “please refrain from making comments or engaging in conduct that has the potential to incite violence, create civil unrest, or jeopardize the safety or well-being of any individuals.” Additionally, “please do not engage in words or conduct which jeopardizes the rule of law, particularly as it applies to these proceedings in this courtroom.” If this request isn’t taken seriously, Judge Merchan warns that he would “have to take a closer look” at the option of issuing an order to restrict such speech.
McCaw now gets her turn to speak. She has three matters to address. First up is the protective order she describes herself as “in the process of working out with defense counsel.” The second issue is discovery. And the final one is scheduling.
On the protective order, she argues, “especially in light of the defendant's public comments, that a protective order is vital to insure the sanctity of the proceedings as well as the sanctity of the discovery materials.” She says the prosecution has had “a number of very productive conversations” with defense counsel on the subject and that she believes “we are very close to agreement and finalizing the language.” When “we do reach an agreement, we should be able to submit that language to the Court within the next few days, hopefully.”
The proposed order, she notes “would have terms that would be binding not solely on defense counsel, but also on the defendant himself, and that should the defendant fail to abide by these terms, it could have the effect of being in contempt of court.” She says she wants to highlight three terms on which the defense and the prosecution have already agreed:
• Trump “may not use any of the materials the prosecution produces for any purpose other than to prepare a defense.” • Trump “will be permitted to review certain sensitive materials only in his attorney's office, and he may not take copies of the documents” or notes on them away from his lawyers’ offices. • Trump “may not provide the materials he receives through the discovery process to any third party, including the press, and he may not post them to social media.” She describes this third provision as perhaps the most important one.
She emphasizes that violations of these provisions would put Trump in contempt of court.
Judge Merchan pauses at this point and asks defense counsel to weigh in on the protective order matter. Susan Necheles handles this matter for the defense. She confirms that the defense and prosecution are working on the matter and hope to reach agreement.
That said, she notes that the prosecution “in their statement of facts here have laid out what they, I assume, contend the grand jury evidence and the testimony showed.” She says it seems fundamentally wrong to her that the prosecution is “able to put out into the public a statement of what they believe the facts are and for the defense and someone who is defending his career, his reputation, everything that he's built in his entire life for him not to be able to respond in the same manner.” So there need to be “further discussions,” but she hopes to do that “promptly.”
Judge Merchan expresses his hope that the two sides can agree on the order “so all I have to do is sign it.”
But now Tacopina has a protective order problem. “I know the D.A said the review by the defendant would have to be in the attorney's office,” he says. But “that will not happen. I thought it was in the attorney's presence. We would meet most likely at the office of President Trump.”
Judge Merchan sees that perhaps the two sides are not that close to agreement after all. “All right,” he says. “Since you are still negotiating, I will not weigh in at this time. If you reach an impasse and you need my help in resolving anything, let me know and I'll try to help out.”
And with that, we are on to discovery.
McCaw says that once the protective order is in place, the prosecution will begin “rolling productions of discovery.” This will take place in three phases.
• The first stage will involve grand jury minutes and exhibits, witness statements and the like. This will take about a week after a protective order is in place. • The second stage “will consist of subpoena compliance, other witness materials, as well as some police documents and other odds and ends.” She says this will take place within the statutorily allocated 65 days. • The third stage will include materials like district attorney’s office email messages. She doesn’t know how long this will take.
She says the most important materials will be produced in the first and second stages, particularly the first.
As the government intends to seek a trial date of Jan. 5, 2024 and there is intense public interest in “moving this case along as expeditiously as possible,” she says the government wants to produce these materials quickly to allow ample time for trial preparation before January.
Judge Merchan turns to Blanche, who starts by emphasizing again that this has been a long investigation and the defense has not seen any discovery so far. Trump certainly wants this whole matter behind him, Blanche says, “But to sit here and say January of 2024 is good with us when we have not seen a piece of paper yet, is I think patently unfair for us given everything that I think we know about the case from the media and from witnesses talking.” The January 2024 date is “a little bit aggressive.” The spring of 2024 might be “a more realistic plan at this point.” But Blanche admits that he’s “speculating a bit because we have not seen anything yet.”
The court agrees that it’s difficult to anticipate being ready in January having not received any discovery yet. “The message I would like to deliver is we would like to move ahead as expeditiously as possible, without undue delay. Of course, you are entitled to the discovery. You are entitled to review the discovery and make determinations there.”
McCaw next turns to the schedule. “I believe that the next step would be to set an appropriate motion schedule,” she said. She says she has a schedule of dates she is ready to propose but suspects Judge Merchan will want to hear from the defense. And he does.
Ordinarily, Judge Merchan tells Blanche, he would get 45 days to file its motions. But the judge knows this is a “much more complex case,” and in recent complex cases, he has extended the motion schedule. He asks Blanche what he’s thinking. Blanche responds that “we strongly believe there will be substantive motions addressing the substantive facts of the indictment that could be dispositive.” These motions may happen only after discovery, because they may depend on material received from the government. But “to move the case along expeditiously,” he says, “there may be other motions that do not need to wait for the substantive motions several months from now after the conclusion of discovery.” For example, while the defense just got the statement of facts today, it may seek a bill of particulars. “That might also be something we need before we start going through all the discovery.”
Hence, Blanche asks the judge for an “opportunity to study the indictment beyond the half an hour or so we had so far.” And he asks for an opportunity to file motions in two parts. He says he will consult with the prosecution and the court “as we land on the specifics” with respect to timing. “So I don't know if it is worth setting a date now, but if the Court would like to, we say at least six weeks after discovery has been concluded, and for other potential motions that we will reach out to the Court about, we would ask to have a month to file those motions or to at least inform the Court of what motions we intend to file.”
Judge Merchan now wants to clarify how long discovery is going to take. McCaw tells him again that the government can finish the “vast majority” of the production within 65 days of arraignment but acknowledges that there might be “some additional straggler materials”— especially with respect to emails from within the district attorney’s office. She asks for the motion schedule to be set in advance, even if the motions are to be divided.
Judge Merchan notes that 65 days from today brings the court to mid-June. He says he doesn’t want two sets of motions, and he says he means to set one motions schedule. “I think four months would be more than sufficient for you to be able to address your motions, so that would bring us out to August 8.”
Blanche offers “one caveat.” If the defense decides it needs to file a motion in advance of that, he will alert the court “and obviously your Honor can guide us.” Other than that, the court’s motions schedule works for him.
Judge Merchan does some calculations and determines that the government’s responses would be due on September 5. McCaw says if the defense is getting six weeks, she should as well for her responses, which would mean her responses should be due on September 19.
But Judge Merchan says he’s not giving the defense six weeks. He’s giving them four months from today to complete all their motions. She asks again “if we could get six weeks from the date of the filing of their motions, in light of the amount of time they will have had to prepare the motions, we request a date of September 19.” Judge Merchan obliges.
He now turns to the subject of the possible conflict of interest on the part of Tacopina. Tacopina asks to be heard on the subject. He states that “we received last night, for the first time, a letter from a Clark Brewster, an attorney apparently representing Stormy Daniels, that was larded with factual inaccuracies.” The most important was that “I never met Stormy Daniels. I never spoke to Stormy Daniels, and I never reviewed any documents of Stormy Daniels.” Daniels called Tacopina’s office and “tried to hire me or asked about hiring me. She spoke to an associate and paralegal. Gave some facts. Sent over a document, and it went no further than that.”
Under the ethics rules, he says, with respect to the attorney’s duty to prospective clients, “I have to be in possession of information that is significantly harmful to the person in the matter.” No such material exists. “Everything she sent us wound up in her book. So, there is not obviously any privilege, and any that existed was waived.”
What’s more, he argues, he has learned that Daniels “signed a waiver” when she turned over material to federal prosecutors. “She testified in open court about her attempt to secure representation prior to retaining Mr. [Michael] Avenatti.” Moreover, if any conflict really existed, the “remedy would be I do not participate in her examination” if and when she testifies. “There are three different law firms here. It is as simple as that.”
Now Judge Merchan turns to Conroy for argument on behalf of the district attorney’s office on the matter: “People, what was your basis for believing there might be a conflict?”
Conroy responds that the district attorney’s office believes that Tacopina has a conflict based on a “combination” of the letter received, comments made on various TV networks, and the fact that there were “some” privileged conversations between Tacopina and Daniels. He reiterates that he merely sought to “alert” the Court to the potential issue. “I think it is a real potential issue that needs to be explored,” he finishes.
Having heard the positions of both the prosecution and the defense on the matter, Judge Merchan tells Conroy that he would “welcome” a written motion on it should the district attorney decide to file one. “In the meantime,” Merchan continues, “I do believe I have an obligation to address both Mr. Tacopina and Mr. Trump with regard to this.” He then instructs Trump of his absolute right to “conflict-free” representation. While he stresses that he is “not making any findings of fact” at this point, he informs Trump that prosecutors have alleged that Tacopina has a potential conflict because he “may have represented a former client” who is a witness in the case. “Do you understand that right, Mr. Trump?”
The 45th President of the United States responds with a single word: “Yes.”
Moving on, Judge Merchan next announces that the state has asked him to give Trump what are called “Parker warnings”—a set of judicial admonitions provided to criminal defendants in New York state court. "This is something I do with every individual who appears before me in the courtroom," Judge Merchan says.
He then proceeds to inform Trump that he has a right to be present at “every stage” of the proceedings in his case. However, the judge warns Trump that there are ways he could lose or waive his rights to be present at the proceedings. Trump could, for example, “voluntarily absent” himself from the proceedings. If he does so, Merchan says that the Court has the right to find that he voluntarily waived his right to be present, which could mean that the proceedings would continue in his absence. Another way Trump could waive his rights to be present for the proceedings is to become disruptive to such a degree that it affects the judge’s ability to preside over the case. In that situation, Merchan warns, he would have the authority to remove Trump from the courtroom and continue the proceedings without him.
“Do you understand that?” Judge Merchan asks Trump.
The former President of the United States and current presidential candidate answers in the affirmative: “I do.”
Having read Trump his Parker warnings, Judge Merchan is ready to wrap up. “Now I think we need to set an adjournment date.” Trump, he continues, will be released “on his own recognizance”—that is, without bail. The judge announces that the next hearing date will be set for Dec. 4, 2023, for the Court’s decisions on various pre-trial motions. “If, for some reason, I'm unable to have my decisions ready or not all the decisions ready, I will certainly let you know,” he tells counsel.
Before the judge adjourns the hearing, however, Blanche pipes back up on behalf of Trump. “Judge,” he says, “I am just stating the obvious that having President Trump in this courtroom today is extraordinarily burdensome and expensive on the city,” he states. Adding that the “security issues” that needed to be worked out ahead of Trump’s appearance today were substantial, he informs the judge that defense counsel may ask that Trump’s presence be waived for future hearing dates.
“What would be the reason [for] asking to waive his appearance?” Judge Merchan queries. In reply, Blanche again emphasizes “the incredible expense and effort and security issues that present themselves with the President traveling and being in court.”
While Judge Merchan acknowledges that Trump’s appearance has been a “huge undertaking” for the court, he reminds Blanche that Dec. 4 is “quite a ways out.” If a reason were to come up that Trump could not appear on that date, such as something unanticipated, he says that defense counsel can run it by him then. “But in the same way I expect all other defendants to appear in court, even high profile defendants…I think in the interest of transparency and assuring the rules of law even-handedly, at this time I'm going to deny your application.”
Thanking the judge, Blanche stresses that he “was not suggesting President Trump does not want to be here.” Instead, he says, the cost of the arraignment to the city is why he brought the matter up today. “To the extent we need to, we will revisit it,” he finishes.
“What you said is true, and I agree,” Judge Merchan responds.
Then the judge addresses the courtroom at large: “Thank you all very much.”
And with that, the first arraignment of a United States president comes to an end.
****************************
What It Was Like Inside the Courtroom During Trump’s Arraignment: Here are some of the most important moments from the hearing where criminal charges against Donald Trump were unveiled. by Jonah E. Bromwich and Nate Schweber New York Times April 5, 2023
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
The scene on Tuesday for the arraignment of former President Donald J. Trump, seated third from right. Credit...Pool photo by Andrew Kelly
Former President Donald J. Trump sat quietly in a Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday as prosecutors described the accusations against him. The proceeding marked his first experience as a criminal defendant.
A 32-page transcript of the hearing offers only a hint of the dramatic implications of the arraignment and the lengthy legal process to come. It was one of the most-anticipated court proceedings in the world. And yet, it was seen firsthand only by the few dozen people who were present in the courtroom where the charges against Mr. Trump were unveiled.
Here are some of the most important moments from the arraignment:
The hearing begins, and Mr. Trump pleads.
THE COURT: Let’s arraign Mr. Trump.
THE CLERK: Donald J. Trump, the grand jury of New York County has filed indictment 71543 of 2023 charging you with the crimes of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.
How do you plead to this indictment, guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT MR. TRUMP: Not guilty.
The shades were down in the courtroom when Mr. Trump entered around 2:30 p.m., wearing a navy suit, a red tie and a blank expression. Armed court officers flanked him on both sides as he walked down the aisle toward the front. Photographers were briefly allowed to enter the jury box to take his picture, and he turned and stared at the cameras until their operators were made to leave.
Mr. Trump’s arraignment did not begin immediately after he came in. He was compelled to wait about 10 minutes, seated silently at the defense table, as a lawyer representing media organizations requested that journalists be granted more access to the proceeding. Mr. Trump visibly scoffed when that lawyer asserted that professional journalists could be trusted.
When that lawyer was finished speaking, the judge, Juan M. Merchan, referred to in the transcript as “The Court,” called for Mr. Trump to be arraigned. The former president was read the charges against him — 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. In the hushed courtroom, Mr. Trump leaned forward and, speaking into the microphone at the defense table, said that he was not guilty.
A prosecutor previews the case.
MR. CONROY: The defendant, Donald J. Trump, falsified New York business records in order to conceal an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the 2016 presidential election and other violations of election laws.
Chris Conroy, a prosecutor with the Manhattan district attorney’s office, then stood up and began to detail the charges. They stem from a hush-money payment that Mr. Trump’s former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, paid to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, in the run-up to the 2016 election. Mr. Trump reimbursed Mr. Cohen after he was elected. Prosecutors are accusing Mr. Trump of orchestrating the creation of false business records related to the reimbursements.
Falsifying business records is only a felony in New York State when it is committed with the intent to “commit or conceal” another crime. In saying that Mr. Trump had falsified records “to conceal an illegal conspiracy,” Mr. Conroy offered a potential preview of the office’s broader case against Mr. Trump.
Members of the defense team were handed copies of the indictment. Mr. Trump passed a copy to one of his lawyers, Joseph Tacopina. The former president was the only person at the defense table not to accept a copy.
Mr. Trump’s recent social media posts are entered into the record.
An extraordinary moment came when Mr. Conroy began to reference Mr. Trump’s recent social media posts. The former president promised that “death and destruction” would follow were he to be charged and posted racist language and threatening images directed at the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg.
MR. CONROY: We have significant concern about the potential danger this kind of rhetoric poses to our city, to potential jurors and witnesses, and to the judicial process.
Mr. Conroy then passed out printed copies of Mr. Trump’s posts to the judge and defense team. Mr. Trump passed his copy to Mr. Tacopina, but a minute later requested it back, beckoning with his right hand. Another of his lawyers, Todd Blanche, objected strongly to Mr. Conroy’s comments about the social media posts.
MR. BLANCHE: It is true that President Trump has responded, and responded forcefully. It is true that as part of that response, he’s absolutely frustrated, upset, and believes that there is a grave injustice happening with him being in this courtroom today.
Mr. Blanche asserted that Mr. Trump “ has rights, he’s allowed to speak publicly.”
That appeared to prompt Justice Merchan, who spoke calmly and soberly, to respond that he had no immediate intention of placing a “gag order” on Mr. Trump, counter to concerns expressed recently by the former president’s legal team. Prosecutors have not requested a gag order.
THE COURT: Certainly, the court would not impose a gag order at this time even if it were requested.
Such restraints are the most serious and least intolerable on First Amendment rights. That does apply doubly to Mr. Trump, because he is a candidate for the presidency of the United States. So, those First Amendment rights are critically important, obviously.
But Justice Merchan, a judge in the State Supreme Court since 2009, did warn the defense to speak to Mr. Trump “and anybody else you need to, and remind them to please refrain from making statements that are likely to incite violence or civil unrest.”
[JUDGE MERCHAN] PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING COMMENTS OR ENGAGING IN CONDUCT THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO INCITE VIOLENCE, CREATE CIVIL UNREST OR JEOPARDIZE THE SAFETY OR WELL-BEING OF ANY INDIVIDUALS.... DO NOT ENGAGE IN WORDS OR CONDUCT WHICH JEOPARDIZE THE RULE OF LAW, PARTICULARLY AS IT APPLIES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURTROOM.... IF I WERE TO BE HANDED SOMETHING LIKE THIS AGAIN IN THE FUTURE, I WOULD TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT IT.
The prosecution details potential constraints on Mr. Trump.
MS. MCCAW: Defendant may not provide the materials he receives through the discovery process to any third party, including the press, and he may not post them to social media.
As Mr. Trump continued to sit in silence, Catherine McCaw, another prosecutor, told the judge that her team was working with Mr. Trump’s lawyers to draft a protective order, a document that would place certain constraints on Mr. Trump.
One of those constraints, she said, would bar the former president from posting certain case material on social media, or from sharing it with reporters. Were Mr. Trump to violate any constraints that are in place, Justice Merchan would decide whether and how to sanction him.
Mr. Trump speaks again.
As his arraignment went on, Mr. Trump increasingly fidgeted. He wove and unwove his fingers repeatedly. He crossed and uncrossed his arms. He knocked his knuckles on the hardwood table. Once, he puffed out his cheeks in a sigh.
Finally, more than a half-hour after he entered his plea, he spoke again — after being prompted by his lawyers — but only to respond to Justice Merchan when the judge informed the former president about his right to be present at proceedings — and the ways that right could be forfeited.
THE COURT: If you become disruptive to such a degree that it affects my ability to preside over this case and my ability to ensure that the case is treated the way it needs to be treated for both sides, I do have the authority to remove you from the courtroom and continue in your absence, do you understand that?
DEFENDANT MR. TRUMP: I do.
The judge requests Mr. Trump’s presence.
THE COURT: I expect all other defendants to appear in court, even high-profile defendants.
Given that Mr. Trump was charged with nonviolent crimes, prosecutors were barred from even requesting that he be put in jail. As Justice Merchan prepared to release the former president, Mr. Blanche suggested that Mr. Trump might not appear at his next court date, scheduled for Dec. 4. When asked for his reasoning, Mr. Blanche cited “the incredible expense and effort and security issues” that attended the arraignment.
The judge acknowledged that it had been a huge undertaking for everyone involved. But he noted that December was “quite a ways out.” Finally, he noted that “in the interest of transparency and assuring the rules of law evenhandedly,” he was going to disagree with Mr. Blanche. The implication: As much as possible, the judge intends to treat Mr. Trump like any other defendant.
When the arraignment adjourned around 3:25 p.m., Mr. Trump was the slowest person at the defense table to stand up. He smoothed the lapels of his blue suit jacket, neatened a stack of paper in front of him and walked out of the courtroom.
Hurubie Meko, Kate Christobek and Jason Silverstein contributed reporting.
Jonah E. Bromwich covers criminal justice in New York, with a focus on the Manhattan district attorney's office, state criminal courts in Manhattan and New York City's jails. @jonesieman
*******************
Judge warns ‘defendant’ Trump: Ari Melber breaks down lengthy arraignment by Ari Melber MSNBC 4/5/23
The transcript from Donald Trump’s first court appearance shows Trump’s shift from candidate to criminal defendant. Judge Juan Merchan began Trump’s arraignment on the offensive over Trump’s recent threats and rejected Trump’s request to skip the next court hearing. MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent Ari Melber breaks down Trump’s historic arraignment.
Transcript
>>> TURNING NOW TO A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS HISTORIC ARRAIGNMENT OF DEFENDANT DONALD TRUMP YESTERDAY. FOR ALL THE TALK ABOUT HOW NEW YORK RULES BAR VIDEO CAMERAS, LET'S BE CLEAR THAT ONLY DELAYS HOW WE HEAR WHAT HAPPENS AND WE DON'T SEE IT ON VIDEO, SO WE DON'T HEAR IT IN REALTIME, AND FROM A NEWS AND INFORMATION PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING A LIVE VIDEO FEED WOULD MEAN WE'D ALL WATCH IT TOGETHER. LET'S BE CLEAR, IN ESSENCE, WE STILL WITH A DELAY LEARN WHAT HAPPENS. WE GET THE TRANSCRIPT. NOW TONIGHT WE HAVE THE FULL TRANSCRIPT AND I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU SOME OF WHAT WE'VE LEARNED. I CAN TELL YOU HONESTLY YESTERDAY THIS WASN'T COVERED. THERE WAS A LOT OF OTHER MORE IMPORTANT BIG THINGS HAPPENING, SO WE'RE GOING TO COVER IT FOR YOU RIGHT NOW. FIRST, THE WAY IT BEGAN. A NOTICEABLY SUBDUED TRUMP WAS SEATED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE CRIMINAL DEFENDANT SEAT FLANKED BY COPS THERE TO KEEP ORDER, NOT JUST PROTECT HIM AS A FORMER GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. TRUMP WAS COMPELLED ONLY TO SPEAK WHEN INSTRUCTED AND ASK, TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS. YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT, DONALD TRUMP IN MANY FORMS, INTERVIEWS, CANDIDATE SPEECHES, GOVERNMENT MEETINGS YOU'VE NEVER SEEN HIM LIKE THIS. COULD ONLY SPEAK IN RESPONSE FIRST SPOKE ON THE PLEA. THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHER TIMES TRUMP WAS COMPELLED TO SPEAK I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU SOME OF THEM THE PLEA WAS REPORTED. THE JUDGE ASKING -- THE DEFENDANT AS HE'S IDENTIFIED IN THIS TRANSCRIPT SAYS, NOT GUILTY TRUMP, PARTICIPATING, BOUND BY THE RULE OF LAW AND ENTERING THE PLEA THE JUDGE ALSO WAS QUICK TO ADMONISH DEFENDANT TRUMP OVER THE RECENT THREATS HE'S MADE, AND THAT IS A RESPONSE TO AND REALLY A VALIDATION OF A DECISION THAT THE D.A.'S TEAM MADE, BECAUSE AS YOU MAY HAVE HEARD US MENTION, THE VAST MAJORITY OF ARRAIGNMENTS ARE QUICK. WE HAD LEGAL EXPERTS ON TALK ABOUT HOW THIS COULD BE A FIVE, TEN-MINUTE THING BUT THE D.A.'S TEAM MADE AN UNUSUAL AGGRESSIVE CHOICE TO NOT WASTE ANY TIME AND RISK PEOPLE SAYING, OH, WHY WAS THIS DIFFERENT FOR THE DEFENDANT? AND THEY WOULD SAY, NOT FOR ANY REASON ABOUT THE COURTS OF BIAS, BUT BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT ACTED IN WAYS EVEN THOSE ACCUSE OF VIOLENT CRIMES DON'T, ATTACKING COURT OFFICIALS. THEY ACTUALLY SPENT A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME DOING THAT, AND IT WORKED. LET ME SHOW YOU THIS THE JUDGE THEN TOLD TRUMP'S TEAM ABOUT HOW THIS VIOLENT SET OF MESSAGES WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE QUOTE, THE COURT -- THAT'S A REFERENCE TO THE JUDGE PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING COMMENTS OR ENGAGING IN CONDUCT THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO INCITE VIOLENCE, CREATE CIVIL UNREST OR JEOPARDIZE THE SAFETY OR WELL BEING OF ANY INDIVIDUALS THE COURT -- THE JUDGE -- CONTINUED, DO NOT ENGAGE IN WORDS OR CONDUCT WHICH JEOPARDIZE THE RULE OF LAW, PARTICULARLY AS IT APPLIES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURTROOM. NOW, THAT IS THE JUDGE USING THE ARRAIGNMENT TO PUT DEFENDANT TRUMP ON NOTICE, ON RECORD, LAYING DOWN A MARKER FOR MORE SEVERE ACTION IF HE GOES FURTHER. NOW, IF YOU'RE WATCHING THIS THINKING, WELL, YOU HAVE BEEN ACQUAINTED WITH DONALD TRUMP AND HOW HE TALKS AND WHAT HE DOES FOR A LONG TIME, THAT MAY BE. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC DEBATE. THIS IS NOT RHETORIC OR POLITICS. AS FAR AS THE NEW YORK COURT SYSTEM IS CONCERNED, THIS TRANSCRIPT I'M READING FROM FOR YOU TONIGHT, WHICH IS NEW, WHICH COMES FROM OF COURSE YESTERDAY'S ARRAIGNMENT, IS THE FIRST TIME DONALD TRUMP HAS APPEARED AS A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IN THE NEW YORK COURT SYSTEM. SO THIS ACTUALLY, IN FAIRNESS, IS HIS FIRST OFFICIAL WARNING. AND THE JUDGE WAS DIRECT ON THAT POINT, CLARIFYING, AGAIN, IN THIS OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT ON THE RECORD -- WE ALL KNOW IT NOW -- THAT THE JUDGE WOULD CONSIDER MORE EXTREME MEASURES NEXT TIME. QUOTE, "IF I WERE TO BE HANDED SOMETHING LIKE THIS AGAIN IN THE FUTURE, I WOULD TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT IT." AND THE JUDGE IN THIS TRANSCRIPT INSTRUCTS TRUMP'S LAWYERS AND DEFENDANT TRUMP THAT WHILE THIS WAS THE INSTRUCTIONS -- I JUST READ THEM TO YOU, DON'T DO THIS, DON'T UNDERMINE THE RULE OF LAW, DON'T THREATEN VIOLENCE -- THAT'S AN INSTRUCTION, MEANING LEGALLY THAT'S JUST KIND OF A STATEMENT OF, YOU KNOW, "PLEASE DON'T." IT'S NOT AN ORDER. BUT THERE COULD BE ORDERS. THERE COULD BE GAG ORDERS. YOU CAN EVEN HOLD SOMEONE IN CONTEMPT CONTEMPT IS FAST, BECAUSE IT MEANS YOU GET TAKEN TO THE JAIL THAT SAME DAY. TRUMP AND HIS LAWYERS, WELL, THEY'RE SAYING THEY GOT THE MESSAGE. I HAVE A LITTLE MORE ON THAT TONIGHT. I ALSO WANT TO SHOW YOU HOW THE JUDGE ADDRESSED THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. AND THIS IS, AGAIN, WHY TRUMP IS A DEFENDANT. HE'S NOT IDENTIFIED AS A FORMER PRESIDENT, OR REFERENCE FOR HIS GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE. HE IS SIMPLY DEFENDANT TRUMP, LIKE ANY OTHER ACCUSED SYSTEM IN THIS COURT, YOU SEE HIM IDENTIFIED THAT WAY AS WHEN HE PLED NOT GUILTY. SO THE JUDGE THEN GOES ON TO SAY LATER IN THE SAME ARRAIGNMENT, "MR. TRUMP, AS YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO CONFLICT-FREE REPRESENTATION. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT?" >> DEFENDANT MR. TRUMP SAYS, "YES." AND THIS REFERS TO A LAWYER YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF, JOE TACOPINA, BECAUSE THE JUDGE IS TALKING ABOUT REPORTS, INCLUDING A NEW LETTER THAT WAS USED AT THE ARRAIGNMENT YESTERDAY THAT, AGAIN, GOT A LITTLE LESS NEWS THAN THE OTHER BIGGER DEAL OF DONALD TRUMP BEING ARRESTED, BUT A NEW LETTER THAT DISCUSSES ALLEGED CONTACT WITH STORMY DANIELS IN 2018 ABOUT POSSIBLY REPRESENTING HER. QUOTE, "YOU ARE CERTAINLY WELCOME TO CONSULT WITH OTHER COUNSEL. RUN THIS ISSUE BY THEM, AND SEE HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT WHEN IT'S OVER, OKAY?" THIS IS THE COURT LOOKING OUT FOR WHETHER DEFENDANT TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP, HAS A CONFLICT HERE ON ONE OF HIS LAWYERS ON HIS TEAM. AND TRUMP RESPONDS, "OKAY THANK YOU." NOW ALL OF THIS IS NEW FROM THE TRANSCRIPT AND "THANK YOU" IS A LONG WAYS AWAY FROM HOW TRUMP TALKS ABOUT THE JUDGE AND THE COURT PROCESS IN PUBLIC, WHICH REINFORCES HOW HE IS OPERATING UNDER THE RULES AND THE PRESSURES OF BEING A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT. THIS IS ALL NEW TO HIM. NOW THE JUDGE CONTINUES, "IF AT SOME POINT DOWN THE ROAD YOU ARE NOT PRESENT, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE PROCEEDINGS IN YOUR ABSENCE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?" >> DEFENDANT MR. TRUMP REPLIES, "YES." AND WHILE THE JUDGE MADE CLEAR HE WAS PROVIDING STANDARD INSTRUCTIONS NOT CAUSED BY THIS DEFENDANT IN THIS SECTION, HE ALSO TOLD DEFENDANT TRUMP, THAT IF HE WERE TO BECOME DISRUPTIVE, "I HAVE THE ABILITY TO REMOVE YOU FROM THE COURTROOM AND CONTINUE IN YOUR ABSENCE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?" DEFENDANT MR. TRUMP REPLIES, "I DO." AND THE JUDGE, MAKING IT CRYSTAL CLEAR IN CASE THIS EVER COMES UP LATER AND WE HEAR TALK ABOUT BIAS OR SELECTIVE PROSECUTION OR UNFAIR RULES, THE JUDGE IS SAYING IT RIGHT HERE, WE HAVE IT IN THIS NEW TRANSCRIPT -- QUOTE, "IF EITHER ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WERE TO HAPPEN, AND THE CASE WERE TO GO TO TRIAL, WE WOULD GO TO TRIAL WITHOUT YOU." THAT MEANS WITHOUT TRUMP PRESENT IN THE ROOM, WHILE HE STILL OF COURSE COULD BE SENT TO JAIL FOR THAT OUTCOME IF HE LOST. "DO YOU UNDERSTAND?" DEFENDANT MR. TRUMP REPLIES, QUOTE, "YES." SO ALL OF THIS HAPPENED YESTERDAY AND AGAIN IT IS STANDARD THAT THE VIDEO CAMERAS WERE NOT ON. MOST STATES HAVE THEM. NEW YORK DOESN'T. SO IT'S STANDARD NEW YORK PROCEDURE FOR THE DEFENDANT. BUT AGAIN AND AGAIN, YOU SAW A HUGE WIDENING GAP BETWEEN THE ROLE TRUMP IS PLAYING IN PUBLIC AND WHAT HE'S ASSURING HIS SUPPORTERS AND ALL THE REST TO THE -- AS REQUIRED -- COOPERATIVE AND OBEDIENT DEFENDANT IN COURT, WHERE THE JUDGE IS IN CONTROL. THIS IS THE MOST THAT DONALD TRUMP FACED IN THIS SCENARIO. THE NEXT HEARING DATE IS SET FOR DECEMBER 4th NOW, MOST ARRAIGNMENTS, I CAN TELL YOU, THAT WOULD BE THAT. YOU GO THROUGH IT. THIS ONE WAS LONGER THAN USUAL, BUT OKAY, WE GOT THROUGH THAT STUFF. HERE'S THE NEXT HEARING, AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE THERE. WHY ARE YOU GOING TO BE THERE? WELL, IF YOU BLOW OFF AN ARRAIGNMENT IN NEW YORK, THE JUDGE ISSUES A BENCH WARRANT. AND THAT MEANS THE NYPD COME AND GET YOU. AND UNLESS YOU ARE TERRIBLY MISINFORMED OR HAVE ALL KINDS OF OTHER PERSONAL PROBLEMS, MOST PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BRING ON MORE HEAT AND A NYPD ARREST WHEN THEY'RE ALREADY A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT, EVEN HABITUAL, REPEAT PLAYERS IN THE COURT SYSTEMS. BUT SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENED YESTERDAY. AND IF YOU HAVEN'T HEARD ABOUT IT, I'M GOING TO REPORT IT FOR YOU RIGHT NOW. BECAUSE SOMETIMES THE NEWS TAKES A MINUTE TO GET IT GATHERED UP AND FACT-CHECKED AND REPORTED OUT. DONALD TRUMP'S LAWYERS, RIGHT NEAR THE END OF THIS THING, TRIED TO GET HIM SOME SPECIAL TREATMENT. THEY TRIED TO CITE THE FACT THAT HE WAS FORMER PRESIDENT, BUT NOT SAY THAT HE SHOULD BE GIVEN SPECIAL TREATMENT JUST BECAUSE HE'S PRESIDENT, BUT BECAUSE RATHER THEY ARGUED IT'S CREATED SOME UNAVOIDABLE CHALLENGES FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK. THEY ARGUED THE HASSLE, THE COST OF SECURING THE AREA. I MEAN, IT WOULD REALLY BE BETTER FOR EVERYONE TO ALLOW HIM TO JUST SKIP THE NEXT HEARING, TO NOT HAVE TO LIVE THROUGH WHAT I JUST SHOWED YOU, THE AMOUNT OF TIME WHERE HE'S NOT IN CONTROL, AND WHETHER HE THINKS IT'S FAIR OR NOT, WHETHER IT'S AN INDIGNITY OR NOT, WHERE HE JUST SAYS, "YES SIR, NO, SIR, THANK YOU SIR." THEY WANTED TO EXEMPT HIM FROM THAT. NOW MIND YOU, THEIR IDEA WAS THAT THE LAWYERS WOULD STILL BE THERE TO FIGHT FOR HIM, BUT HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE THERE AT THE NEXT HEARING. NOW, THIS IS A LOGISTICAL ITEM. IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPACT THE RESOLUTION OF THE TRIAL. BUT TRUMP'S LAWYERS I CAN REPORT FOR YOU TONIGHT, LOST ON THAT YESTERDAY. BECAUSE OF THE NEW TRANSCRIPT I CAN TELL YOU THE JUDGE JUST SWIFTLY REJECTS THE ENTIRE TRUMP REQUEST. QUOTE, "I EXPECT ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS TO APPEAR IN COURT, EVEN HIGH PROFILE DEFENDANTS. I THINK, IN THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY AND ASSURING THE RULES OF LAW EVENHANDEDLY, I'M GOING TO DENY YOUR APPLICATION." END QUOTE. DENIED. IT'S THAT QUICK. NOW, A JUDGE CAN TAKE MORE TIME ON LARGER QUESTIONS OF COURSE. THIS WAS ANOTHER WAY THAT TRUMP LEARNED HE IS IN A DIFFERENT ARENA. THIS ISN'T A CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA OR A CIVIL CASE WHERE HE CAN JUST DRAG OUT EVERY STEP FOR MONTHS OR MORE. SO WHILE THIS WAS EMPHASIZING A KIND OF A PROCEDURAL POINT -- IT DOESN'T TELL YOU WHETHER HE'S GUILTY OR NOT, BUT TRUMP'S LAWYERS ASKED AND A JUDGE REJECTED THEM AND SAID NO, AND THAT'S THE END OF THAT. HE MUST SHOW UP AT THE NEXT HEARING OR IF HE DIDN'T HE'D BE FACING THAT POTENTIAL BENCH WARRANT AND ARREST TO BE BROUGHT THERE. THIS ALL HAPPENED YESTERDAY. THIS IS HOW TRUMP OBEYED AND ACCEPTED THE JUDGE'S RULINGS IN THE AFTERNOON WITH LITTLE CHOICE. AND AT NIGHT HE WENT OUT AND GAVE ONE OF HIS SPEECHES, WHICH WE'RE NOT AIRING ALL OF IT, THOUGH WE WILL AIR HIS LEGAL DEFENSES, AND WE'VE HAD HIS LAWYERS ON HERE, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO AIR JUST AN ENDLESS SET OF RAMBLING ATTACKS, AND IN THAT SPEECH HE TRIED TO PLAY TOUGH AGAIN. BUT TRUMP'S LAWYERS, WITH AN OPEN CASE AGAINST HIM, ARE TRYING TO TOE A DIFFERENT LINE. THEY'RE TRYING TO EMPHASIZE TRUMP HEARD THE JUDGE AND THEY'RE TRYING TO KEEP HIM IN LINE. >> [REPORTER] DID YOU TELL YOUR CLIENT, DID YOU DO WHAT THE JUDGE ASKED YOU TO DO, AND ADVISE HIM TO KNOCK IT OFF? >> [JOE TACOPINA] PRESIDENT TRUMP HEARD THE JUDGE. >> [ARI MELBER] PRESIDENT TRUMP HEARD THE JUDGE. AND IN COURT, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID YES TO THE JUDGE AND THANK YOU TO THE JUDGE, AND HE WATCHED AS HIS VAUNTED LAWYERS, THAT ONE AMONG OTHERS, DIDN'T REALLY GET AS FAR AS YOU CAN GET WITH THESE GAMES IN CIVIL COURT OR WITH CONGRESS OR WITH THE SUPREME COURT APPEALS OR WHILE YOU'RE A SITTING PRESIDENT. AND THERE ARE REASONS WHY THERE ARE DIFFERENT STANDARDS. THIS IS A NEW EXPERIENCE FOR HIM. YESTERDAY WAS THE FIRST TIME HE WATCHED AS HIS LAWYERS COULDN'T EVEN BUY HIM AN HOUR ON A QUESTION. JUST "NO." JUST "YOU HAVE TO BE HERE NEXT TIME." AND "THAT'S HOW IT'S GONNA BE." THIS IS THE FIRST FULL DAY OF DONALD TRUMP'S LIFE AS "DEFENDANT DONALD TRUMP." AND HE WILL BE LEARNING AS HE GOES.
Complaint against Jim Jordan and Mark Pomerantz Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., vs. Jim Jordan and Mark Pomerantz Case No. 23-cv-3032 by Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. 4/11/23
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ALVIN L. BRAGG, JR., in his official capacity as District Attorney for New York County,
Plaintiff,
v.
JIM JORDAN, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary; COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; and MARK F. POMERANTZ,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-3032
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. brings this action in response to an unprecedently brazen and unconstitutional attack by members of Congress on an ongoing New York State criminal prosecution and investigation of former President Donald J. Trump. Beginning on March 20, 2023, Representative Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary (the “Committee”), began a transparent campaign to intimidate and attack District Attorney Bragg, making demands for confidential documents and testimony from the District Attorney himself as well as his current and former employees and officials. Two days after Mr. Trump was arraigned on 34 felony counts in New York State Supreme Court, Chairman Jordan and the Committee served a subpoena on Mark Pomerantz, a former Special Assistant District Attorney who participated in an investigation of Mr. Trump and his businesses. The subpoena seeks to compel Mr. Pomerantz to testify in a deposition on April 20, 2023. Chairman Jordan’s demands, including his subpoena to Mr. Pomerantz, seek highly sensitive and confidential local prosecutorial information that belongs to the Office of the District Attorney and the People of New York. Basic principles of federalism and common sense, as well as binding Supreme Court precedent, forbid Congress from demanding it.
2. Congress has no power to supervise state criminal prosecutions. Nor does Congress have the power to serve subpoenas “for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to punish those investigated.” Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2032 (2020) (quoting Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Yet that is precisely what Chairman Jordan is trying to do. He and his allies have stated they want the District Attorney to come to Capitol Hill to “explain” himself and to provide “a good argument” to Congress in support of his decision to investigate and prosecute Mr. Trump. And they have threatened that the House of Representatives will “hold Alvin Bragg . . . to account” for indicting Mr. Trump. Now, Chairman Jordan has subpoenaed one of the District Attorney’s former Special Assistants to interrogate him about his official prosecutorial activities. But subpoenaing a former line prosecutor to talk about an ongoing criminal prosecution and investigation is no less of an affront to state sovereignty than subpoenaing the District Attorney himself. Chairman Jordan claims he is seeking to conduct “oversight.” But he has no power under the Constitution to oversee state and local criminal matters. By definition, then, he has no legitimate legislative purpose for issuing this subpoena. The subpoena threatens the sovereign powers of the States, confidence in the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, and the integrity of an ongoing criminal prosecution. This Court should enjoin its enforcement.
3. The Constitution “with[held] from Congress a plenary police power,” United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 566 (1995), which “is controlled by 50 different States instead of one national sovereign,” Nat’l Fed. of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 536 (2012); accord United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618 (2000). “[P]rimary authority” “for defining and enforcing the criminal law” is vested in the States. Lopez, 514 U.S. at 561 n.3. That division of authority requires that “[o]rdinarily” there should “be no interference with [state] officers,” who are “charged with the duty of prosecuting offenders against the laws of the State and must decide when and how this is to be done.” Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). “Federal intrusions into state criminal trials frustrate both the States’ sovereign power to punish offenders and their goodfaith attempts to honor constitutional rights.” Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 128 (1982).
4. The charges the District Attorney filed against Mr. Trump were approved by citizens of New York. They did their civic duty as members of a grand jury pursuant to the federal Constitution and laws of the State of New York. Like any other defendant, Mr. Trump is entitled to challenge these charges in court. He can avail himself of all the processes and protections that New York State’s robust criminal procedure affords.
5. But rather than allowing the criminal process to proceed in the ordinary course, Chairman Jordan and the Committee are participating in a campaign of intimidation, retaliation, and obstruction. Mr. Trump in particular has threatened New York officials with violent and racist vitriol. At a March 25, 2023 rally, for instance, Mr. Trump stated that “the thugs and criminals who are corrupting our justice system will be defeated, discredited, and totally disgraced.”1 On social media, he threatened “death & destruction” and to wage “war” if he was indicted. Mr. Trump also called District Attorney Bragg a “SOROS BACKED ANIMAL”—a dog whistle Chairman Jordan repeated on television on March 23, 2023, calling District Attorney Bragg “the Soros-backed, new DA, left-wing DA Alvin Bragg.”2 Mr. Trump even shared a social media post that appeared to be a picture of himself threateningly wielding a baseball bat to District Attorney Bragg’s head.
6. These statements have had a powerful effect. District Attorney Bragg has received multiple death threats. In one instance, he received a package containing suspicious white powder with a note making a specific death threat against him. Since Mr. Trump falsely predicted he would be arrested on March 18, 2023, in fact, the District Attorney’s Office has received more than 1,000 calls and emails from Mr. Trump’s supporters, many of which are threatening and racially charged. But rather than denounce efforts to vilify and denigrate the District Attorney and the grand jury process, House Republicans are participating in those efforts.3
7. Chairman Jordan, along with other congressmen, have made no secret that the purpose of the Committee’s inquiry is to “conduct oversight” and undertake an “examination of the facts” supporting the indictment—the same facts already evaluated by an independent grand jury of New Yorkers—and to hold the District Attorney “to account.” Chairman Jordan and the Committee have, in essence, appointed Congress as a super grand jury that can flex its subpoena power to second guess the judgment of New York citizens and interfere with the state criminal justice process. In his letters and public statements, however, Chairman Jordan and his congressional allies have changed their story multiple times, creating as it suits them a scattershot hodgepodge of new purported legislative interests and purposes that supposedly justify the Committee’s unwarranted “incursion” into a state criminal case. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 920 (1997). Each of these is a baseless pretext for hauling Mr. Pomerantz to Washington for a retaliatory political circus designed to undermine the rule of law and New York’s police power. And in cases like this one implicating “substantial” federalism or separation of powers concerns, the Supreme Court’s decision in Mazars requires the federal courts to probe Congress’s asserted purposes for pretext and evidence. 140 S. Ct. at 2036. The Chairman has also admitted that subpoenaing Mr. Pomerantz is only the first step of his subpoena strategy. As Chairman James Comer of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability put it, Mr. Trump’s allies in the House “fully expect to see Alvin Bragg answering questions in front of Congress as soon as [they] can make it happen.”4
8. Members of Congress are not free to invade New York’s sovereign authority for their or Mr. Trump’s political aims. Congress has no authority to “conduct oversight” into District Attorney Bragg’s exercise of his duties under New York law in a single case involving a single defendant. Nor can Congress force a former prosecutor to make extrajudicial statements during a criminal prosecution about that prosecution or related criminal investigations—statements that the New York Rules of Professional Conduct forbid, in part, because they could prejudice Mr. Trump’s right to a fair trial and prompt due process concerns. See N.Y.R. Prof. Cond. Rule 3.6; see also Powers v. Coe, 728 F.2d 97, 105 (2d Cir. 1984). Compelling Mr. Pomerantz to provide this type of testimony is unprecedented. As one former counsel for the House and legal scholar explained in testimony provided to Congress itself:
[T]here hasn’t been a subpoena enforcement against a state attorney general in 200 years . . . and there’s an excellent reason. State Attorneys General have their own state sovereign authority. They are frequently elected. They have their own base, their own electoral base, their own mission, and their mission is to pursue things that Congress can’t.5
9. Mr. Trump is free to avail himself of any and all criminal procedure processes available to him. Indeed, his motions in his criminal case are due in August. If he wishes to argue that his prosecution is “politically motivated,” he is free to raise that concern to the New York state criminal court. Chairman Jordan is not, however, free to unconstitutionally deploy Congress’s limited subpoena power for raw political retaliation, intimidation, or obstruction.
10. District Attorney Bragg therefore brings this action in response to the Committee’s plainly unconstitutional subpoena. He brings two causes of action.
11. First, the subpoena served on Mr. Pomerantz is invalid, unenforceable, unconstitutional, and ultra vires because it has no legitimate legislative purpose, Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187, and manifestly fails each of the four factors the Supreme Court established in Mazars to evaluate the enforceability of a congressional subpoena directed to another branch of government. 140 S. Ct. at 2035–36. Namely, Congress has no power under Article I of the Constitution to oversee, let alone disrupt, ongoing state law criminal matters, and the shifting array of legislative purposes the Chairman has invoked in favor of his demands do not “warrant[] the significant step” of seeking information from the District Attorney. Id. at 2035. The subpoena also is vastly “broader than reasonably necessary to support” the Chairman’s purported “legislative objective”— an objective the Chairman has provided not a whit of “evidence” to support. Id. at 2036. And finally, the subpoena is unduly burdensome, particularly in light of the ongoing criminal prosecution and investigation of Mr. Trump.
12. Second, even if Chairman Jordan and the Committee were able to demonstrate a valid legislative purpose and withstand the Mazars test (they cannot), the subpoena still would not be enforceable because it could allow the Committee to seek secret grand jury material, confidential investigative material, and information clearly protected by the attorney-client, work product, deliberative process, law enforcement, informant’s, and public interest privileges. These privileges exist to protect precisely the type of information Chairman Jordan and the Committee are seeking—confidential law enforcement and legal materials compiled during investigations and in the lead-up to a prosecution. The privileges are designed to prevent the type of obstruction and interference with ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions that Chairman Jordan and the Committee’s actions represent.
13. In sum, Congress lacks any valid legislative purpose to engage in a free-ranging campaign of harassment in retaliation for the District Attorney’s investigation and prosecution of Mr. Trump under the laws of New York. That campaign is a direct threat to federalism and the sovereign interests of the State of New York. This Court should enjoin the subpoena and put an end to this constitutionally destructive fishing expedition. It should protect New York’s lawful pursuit of criminal justice and permit this State’s criminal justice system to function under the careful supervision of the New York Supreme Court free from unconstitutional congressional interference. This Court should grant judgment to District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr.
PARTIES
14. Plaintiff Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. is the District Attorney for Manhattan. District Attorney Bragg brings this suit in his official capacity.
15. Defendant Jim Jordan is a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives and Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. He is sued in his official capacity.
16. Defendant Committee on the Judiciary is a standing committee of the United States House of Representatives.
17. Defendant Mark F. Pomerantz was a Special Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office from 2021 to 2022. In that role, Mr. Pomerantz assisted with the Office’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s personal and business finances. On February 23, 2022, Mr. Pomerantz resigned his appointment.
18. The District Attorney sues Mr. Pomerantz to protect the District Attorney’s Office’s interests and privileges and in light of the District Attorney’s Office’s instruction to Mr. Pomerantz not to provide any information or materials relating to his work in the District Attorney’s Office in response to the subpoena. As the Supreme Court has made clear, the important structural constitutional interests at stake “are no less palpable here simply because the subpoena[] w[as] issued to [a] third part[y].” Mazars, 140 S. Ct. at 2035.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
19. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this case arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
20. This Court has authority to issue a declaratory judgment and order other relief that is just and proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
21. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (e)(1) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in the Southern District of New York. Chairman Jordan served Mr. Pomerantz with a subpoena in New York, where he resides. That subpoena seeks testimony relating to law enforcement investigations and an active prosecution the District Attorney is conducting in Manhattan and related grand jury proceedings.
22. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Chairman Jordan and the Committee under CPLR § 302 because they “engage[d] in [a] persistent course of conduct” and “expect[ed] or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state.” The Chairman and the Committee have reached into New York State to serve a subpoena on Mr. Pomerantz, a former Special Assistant in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, as part of an ongoing effort to obstruct, impede, and delegitimize a local criminal prosecution in New York City. They have also demanded documents and testimony from three other New Yorkers, including the District Attorney himself. By his own reckoning, Chairman Jordan and the Committee are seeking to conduct “oversight” of an ongoing New York State criminal investigation and an ongoing New York State criminal prosecution pending in New York State court. They are seeking highly sensitive and confidential prosecutorial information concerning an ongoing local prosecution and investigation the District Attorney’s Office is properly conducting on behalf of the People of New York. They have thereby purposefully availed themselves of this forum and subjected themselves to personal jurisdiction in the State of New York in connection with this controversy.
23. The Chairman and the Judiciary Committee have also availed themselves of this forum by planning to hold a field hearing in New York City on April 17, 2023 regarding the District Attorney’s prosecutorial policies.
24. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Mr. Pomerantz because he is a resident of New York.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. District Attorney Bragg Takes Office And Reduces Crime In New York City.
25. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office investigates and prosecutes violations of New York State law. New York State law confers on district attorneys the authority “to prosecute all crimes and offenses cognizable by the courts of the county for which he shall have been elected or appointed.” N.Y. County L. § 927; see also id. § 700. Each case the Office brings is brought on behalf of “The People of the State of New York.”
26. Plaintiff Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. is the first Black person to serve as District Attorney of Manhattan. District Attorney Bragg has spent two decades in public service, having previously served as Chief Deputy Attorney General in the New York Attorney General’s office and as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York. As a long-time white collar prosecutor, District Attorney Bragg believes in holding powerful people accountable for harming everyday New Yorkers.
27. As of April 2, 2023, the year-to-date statistics for New York City, and Manhattan specifically, continue to trend downward: homicides are down 14.3% and down further in Manhattan; shooting incidents are down 17.3%; rapes are down 33.3% and down further in Manhattan; robbery is down 7.6% and down further in Manhattan; and burglary is down 21% and down further in Manhattan. Total index crimes are down 1.3% in Manhattan, despite being up slightly citywide. The work of the District Attorney’s Office in the last year is contributing to these successes. Gun prosecutions by the Office were up approximately 18% in the District Attorney’s first year in office. Last year, the District Attorney’s Office secured indictments against gun traffickers, ghost gun manufacturers, and members of a violent criminal enterprise. The Office is also making use of available tools to reduce recidivism: with recent amendments to bail eligibility the Office has sought bail in 400 property crime cases that would not have been baileligible otherwise. And in just the past week, the Office has required landlords to initiate civil eviction proceedings against seven unlicensed cannabis shops that are operating unlawfully in Manhattan.
B. District Attorney Bragg Continues His Predecessor’s Investigations Into Mr. Trump.
28. When he assumed office on January 1, 2022, District Attorney Bragg inherited years-long investigations into the financial activities of Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization. District Attorney Bragg issued a public statement on April 7, 2022, confirming that his Office had continued the investigations through its staff of experienced career prosecutors.
29. District Attorney Bragg also inherited an indictment of two Trump entities (Trump Corporation and Trump Payroll Corp.) and Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization. The charges against the Trump entities went to trial with opening statements beginning on Monday, October 31, 2022. Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President the next month, while the trial and previously announced investigations by the District Attorney remained ongoing.
30. District Attorney Bragg’s Office secured the trial conviction of the two Trump entities and a guilty plea from Mr. Weisselberg for, among other crimes, defrauding New York State and New York City tax authorities. Following the trial verdict in December of 2022, a New York State court fined the Trump Corporation and the Trump Payroll Corp. $1.6 million for running the decade-long tax fraud scheme and sentenced Mr. Weisselberg to five months incarceration followed by five years’ probation.
31. Other investigations remained ongoing. The New York State Constitution Bill of Rights establishes that all “capital or otherwise infamous crime[s]” must be brought through a grand jury indictment. N.Y. Const. Art. I § 6; see also U.S. Const., amend. V. A grand jury in New York consists of 23 New Yorkers who must decide whether documents, witness testimony, and other evidence presented by prosecutors supports returning an indictment for violations of New York law. Grand jurors are selected at random from the general population of New York County without regard to their personal political affiliation.
32. In early 2023, the news media reported on a grand jury investigation into allegations against Mr. Trump and the possibility that Mr. Trump might be criminally charged. In response, Mr. Trump and his supporters in Congress launched efforts to attack the District Attorney’s integrity, intimidate his Office, and mount “an aggressive response” to preempt potential criminal charges.6 House Republicans regularly kept Mr. Trump updated on these developments. For example, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene “keep[s] him up[dated] on everything that [they’re] doing,” and House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik has “walked [Mr. Trump] through the GOP’s plans for an aggressive response to Bragg.”7 It has been reported that Mr. Trump has himself been preparing plans to exact revenge on District Attorney Bragg if Mr. Trump returns to the White House in 2024. Some of his advisors have reportedly recommended that he “unleash” the Department of Justice’s “Civil Rights Division” to prosecute District Attorney Bragg “for supposedly ‘racist law enforcement practices.’”8
33. The effort to obstruct the grand jury’s investigation into Mr. Trump picked up steam on March 10, 2023. On that day, Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, sent Chairman Jordan a letter describing District Attorney Bragg as a “rogue local district attorney.”9 Mr. Tacopina urged Chairman Jordan to deploy the powers of his office to investigate what he described as District Attorney Bragg’s “egregious abuse of power.”10
34. On March 18, 2023, Mr. Trump announced on Truth Social, his social media platform, that he believed he would be arrested the following Tuesday. Mr. Trump claimed to have sourced this information—which was false—from “ILLEGAL LEAKS” in the “CORRUPT & HIGHLY POLITICAL MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE.” Mr. Trump urged his supporters to “PROTEST, TAKE OUR NATION BACK!”
35. Mr. Trump’s post calling for “protest[s]” bears a striking resemblance to the December 19, 2020 tweet in which he urged his supporters to protest after he lost the 2020 Presidential election: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”11 The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol concluded that Mr. Trump’s December 19, 2020 tweet served as “a call to arms” for “extremists and conspiracy theorists” that had the effect of “summoning a mob.”12 “For the Proud Boys . . . President Trump’s tweet set in motion a chain of events that led directly to the attack on the U.S. Capitol.”13
36. Mr. Trump was not arrested the following Tuesday, March 21, 2023, as he had predicted on social media. Although his prediction was false, his call to “protest” and “take our nation back” prompted law enforcement agencies to deploy a significant security response, including around the New York State Supreme Court criminal courthouse in lower Manhattan and the District Attorney’s Office.
37. Meanwhile, on March 19, 2023, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy amplified Mr. Trump’s incendiary rhetoric, accusing District Attorney Bragg of “abusing his office to target President Trump” and announced that Congress would “investigate any use of federal funds that are used to facilitate the perversion of justice by Soros-backed DA’s across the country.” George Soros is a Jewish American businessman and philanthropist known for his support of liberal causes and candidates. He is frequently cited as a boogeyman in rightwing, and often anti-Semitic, conspiracy theories and dog whistles. District Attorney Bragg does not know Mr. Soros and has never communicated with him.
38. Other House Representatives have also expressed their support for Mr. Trump. House Republican Conference Chair Stefanik frequently speaks with Mr. Trump and has expressed that she believes District Attorney Bragg should testify before Congress to explain his decision to investigate the former president. Representative Greene, a member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, also frequently speaks with Mr. Trump and has called for District Attorney Bragg’s arrest. On March 22, 2023, she falsely tweeted that District Attorney Bragg was “breaking the law” and “trying to incite civil unrest with his Soros funded political war.”
C. Chairmen Of Three Congressional Committees Send A Letter Requesting Documents and Testimony from District Attorney Bragg, Mr. Pomerantz, and Carey Dunne.
39. After receiving the letter from Mr. Trump’s counsel and in the wake of Speaker McCarthy’s tweet vowing an investigation, on March 20, 2023, chairmen of three Congressional committees sent a letter to District Attorney Bragg purporting to launch an investigation into his “decision to pursue such a politically motivated prosecution.”14 The signatories included Chairman Jordan, Chairman Comer, and Chairman Bryan Steil of the Committee on House Administration (together the “Chairmen” and the “Committees,” respectively).
40. The letter blithely accused District Attorney Bragg of “an unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority: the indictment of a former President of the United States and current declared candidate for that office.” And it demanded that District Attorney Bragg give testimony and produce the following three categories of documents for the period January 1, 2017 to the present:
“1. All documents and communications between or among the New York County District Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Department of Justice, its component entities, or other federal law enforcement agencies referring or relating to your office’s investigation of President Donald Trump;
2. All documents and communications sent or received by former employees Carey Dunne and Mark Pomerantz referring or relating to President Donald Trump; and
3. All documents and communications referring or relating to the New York County District Attorney Office’s receipt and use of federal funds.”
41. The Chairmen stated that their requests were based on Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives and the need for (1) “congressional scrutiny about how public safety funds appropriated by Congress are implemented by local law-enforcement agencies,” (2) “oversight to inform potential legislative reforms about the delineation of prosecutorial authority between federal and local officials,” and (3) “consider[ation] [of] legislative reforms to the authorities of special counsels and their relationships with other prosecuting entities.”
42. Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives identifies the jurisdictions and functions of the standing committees in the House, including the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on House Administration, and the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.
43. On March 22, 2023, Chairman Jordan sent letters to Mr. Pomerantz and Carey Dunne. Mr. Dunne was the General Counsel to former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. from 2017 to 2021 and Special Assistant District Attorney to District Attorney Bragg from January 1, 2022 to February 24, 2022. In those roles, Mr. Dunne helped lead the District Attorney’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s tax records and the Trump Organization’s tax-fraud scheme.
44. The letters to Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne both requested their “cooperation with [the Chairmen’s] oversight of this politically motivated prosecutorial decision” and “overzealous” investigation. Specifically, the letters requested the following documents and information for January 1, 2017 to the present from Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne, both of whom have not worked at the District Attorney’s Office in about a year:
“1. All documents and communications between or among the New York County District Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Department of Justice, its component entities, or other federal law enforcement agencies referring or relating to New York County District Attorney’s investigation of President Donald Trump;
2. All documents and communications between or among you and the New York County District Attorney’s Office referring or relating to President Donald Trump; and
3. All documents and communications between or among you and representatives of the New York County District Attorney’s Office referring or relating to your appointment and role as Special Assistant District Attorney for New York County.”
45. The letter to Mr. Pomerantz stated that he had previously “resign[ed] in protest” of a decision by District Attorney Bragg to “suspend[] the investigation” into Mr. Trump when District Attorney Bragg took office. The letter went on to state that Mr. Pomerantz’s actions “both as a special prosecutor and since leaving the District Attorney’s office, cast serious doubt on the administration of fair and impartial justice in this matter,” and alleged that Mr. Pomerantz had “unfairly disparaged” Mr. Trump, “an innocent and uncharged man, as a felon to millions of [New York Times] readers.” The letter further stated that Mr. Pomerantz’s “book again unfairly disparaged President Trump, and now opens the door to examination about the District Attorney’s office [sic] commitment to evenhanded justice.”
D. District Attorney Bragg Responds.
46. District Attorney Bragg’s Office timely responded to the demand on March 23, 2023. Leslie Dubeck, General Counsel for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, wrote in a letter to the Chairmen that the investigation into Mr. Trump “is one of thousands conducted by the Office of the District Attorney in its long history of pursuing justice and protecting New Yorkers” and “has been conducted consistently with the District Attorney’s oath to faithfully execute the laws of the State of New York.” In the letter, Ms. Dubeck states that the request by the Chairmen “is an unprecedented inquiry into a pending local prosecution,” which came only “after Donald Trump created a false expectation he would be arrested the next day and his lawyers reportedly urged [the Chairmen] to intervene.”
47. The letter states that compliance with the Chairmen’s request “would interfere with law enforcement.” Specifically, the Chairmen’s request “seeks non-public information about a pending criminal investigation, which is confidential under state law” because “[g]rand jury proceedings are secret.”
48. The letter also states that the requests “are an unlawful incursion into New York’s sovereignty” because a “Congressional committee may not ‘inquire into matters which are . . . reserved to the States,’” and “[p]erhaps the clearest example of traditional state authority is the punishment of local criminal activity.” It explained that the District Attorney’s investigation is a “quintessential police power[] belonging to the State” and because the Chairmen’s inquiry “treads into territory very clearly reserved to the states,” it is “indefensible.” The letter further explained that the requests would “usurp[] executive powers” because “Congress [is not] a law enforcement or trial agency.” Ms. Dubeck also made clear that the District Attorney’s Office was not “pursuing a prosecution for political purposes.”
49. Notwithstanding these objections, Ms. Dubeck stated that the District Attorney’s Office would submit a letter describing its use of federal funds. Ms. Dubeck further stated that “this Office will always treat a fellow government entity with due respect” and requested the opportunity to meet and confer regarding the Chairmen’s inquiry.
E. Former President Donald Trump Launches Attacks on Social Media and Puts District Attorney Bragg And Other New Yorkers at Risk.
50. Following the parties’ letter exchanges, Mr. Trump began to lob even more incendiary messages on Truth Social about District Attorney Bragg. On March 23, 2023, he inveighed that “BRAGG REFUSES TO STOP DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY” and described the District Attorney in dehumanizing terms, calling him a “SOROS BACKED ANIMAL.” These attacks by Mr. Trump and others have been widely condemned as both racist and antisemitic.
51. Minutes later, Mr. Trump accused District Attorney Bragg of “CARRYING OUT THE PLANS OF THE RADICAL LEFT LUNATICS.” He also stated that “OUR COUNTRY IS BEING DESTROYED, AS THEY TELL US TO BE PEACEFUL!”
52. Also on that day, Mr. Trump shared a photograph on Truth Social of a side-by-side image of himself and District Attorney Bragg. Mr. Trump was holding a baseball bat in the photograph, and their side-by-side juxtaposition suggested that Mr. Trump was winding up the bat to strike the District Attorney.
53. In the early hours of March 24, 2023, Mr. Trump threatened that an indictment would unleash “death & destruction” that would be “catastrophic for our Country.” Mr. Trump queried: “What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, . . . when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed[?]” He then supplied his followers with an answer, alluding to District Attorney Bragg: “Only a degenerate psychopath that truely [sic] hates the USA.”
54. Later that day, a package containing suspicious white powder arrived at the District Attorney’s Office along with a note making a specific death threat against the District Attorney. The New York City Police Department and the Department of Environmental Protection responded and ultimately concluded the substance was not dangerous.
55. In the aftermath, the District Attorney’s Office received more than 1,000 calls and emails from individuals claiming to be Mr. Trump’s supporters, many of which were threatening and racially charged. District Attorney Bragg also received multiple death threats.
F. The Chairmen Continue to Insist on Document Production and Testimony.
56. On March 25, 2023, the Chairmen sent District Attorney Bragg’s Office another letter. They ignored Ms. Dubeck’s request to meet and confer.
57. The letter states that the Committees are “conducting oversight of [the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office’s] reported effort to indict a former President of the United States and current declared candidate for that office.” The Chairmen, for the first time, declared that they were considering whether Congress “should take legislative action to protect former and/or current Presidents from politically motivated prosecutions by state and local officials.”
58. The letter claimed that the inquiry is proper because (1) the Committees “are authorized to conduct such an inquiry,” (2) “the inquiry is on a matter on which legislation could be had,” and (3) “the requests are pertinent to the committees’ inquiry.”
59. The letter further explains that the inquiry into the circumstances of a prosecutorial decision to indict a former President of the United States “on a novel and untested legal theory” falls within the scope of the Committee on the Judiciary’s “oversight of criminal justice matters to inform potential legislation.” It also states that the inquiry could inform whether Congress drafts legislation to “insulate current and former presidents from such improper state and local prosecutions”—purported legislation the Chairmen did not even hint at in their March 20, 2023 letter. The Chairmen speculated without any evidence that these prosecutions could create a conflict “between the federal law-enforcement officials required to protect the former President and local law-enforcement officials required to enforce your indictment.” Despite the District Attorney’s Office’s commitment to provide a letter detailing the use of the Office’s federal funds, the Chairmen reiterated their request for such information and insisted that a letter from the District Attorney’s Office would not be enough. The Chairmen requested a response by March 31, 2023.
60. Subsequently, on an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Chairman Comer was asked about the Chairmen’s letters to District Attorney Bragg.15 Chairman Comer candidly explained his view that the District Attorney should “come explain to us exactly what he’s investigat[ing].” He further stated, “if Mr. Bragg wants to come in and explain to us what he is doing and he makes a good explanation, . . . then we’ll back off.” And when Mr. Tapper noted, “well, he’s investigating as I understand it potential violations of state crimes,” Chairman Comer responded: “even at that, . . . when you look at what we believe the role of the Manhattan DA should be is to fight crime. I mean that’s one of the biggest issues in New York.” He went on to state, “we believe our tax dollars would be better spent prosecuting local criminals—that’s what a DA is supposed to do.” Mr. Tapper also asked: “if [District Attorney Bragg] refuses to come in willingly, will you subpoena him?” Chairman Comer responded: “Well, that’ll be up to Jim Jordan. He’s the lead investigator in this particular situation.” Mr. Tapper queried in response: “Jim Jordan who refused to comply with a congressional subpoena in the previous Congress?”
61. Also on March 25, 2023, Ms. Dubeck sent a letter to Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne instructing them, as former employees of the District Attorney’s Office, to not respond to Chairman Jordan’s requests in light of the ongoing discussions and concerns over the inquiry. In that letter, the District Attorney’s Office explained that the Chairmen’s requests “raise significant concerns about federalism, state sovereignty, the limits on congressional power, and the purpose and legality of the [Judiciary Committee’s] inquiry. In addition, the documents and information requested are protected from disclosure for many reasons, including because they relate to an ongoing criminal investigation, and are subject to the attorney client privilege, work product doctrine, and other legal protections.”
62. The letter specifically instructed Mr. Pomerantz to “as a former employee and attorney of the DA’s Office, [] not provide any information or materials relating to your work in the DA’s Office in response to [the Judiciary Committee’s] request. In addition, please direct [the Judiciary Committee] to communicate with the DA’s Office regarding the request.” The letter made clear the District Attorney’s Office was writing “[t]o protect the DA’s Office’s interests and privileges” and had asked the Committee “to provide additional information regarding their inquiries.”
G. Donald Trump Persists in His Attacks on Social Media.
63. On March 28, 2023, Mr. Trump re-posted to his Truth Social account an article by Wayne Allyn Root titled “Democrats Want to Indict & Arrest President Trump. They Want a War? Let’s Give it to Them.” That same day, a supporter of Mr. Trump who was protesting District Attorney Bragg’s investigation pulled a knife on a family—including two small children— outside the Manhattan Criminal Court. Court officers arrested the protester, who was holding a sign that read: “I support Trump, do you?”
64. On March 29, 2023, following news reports that the grand jury had recessed for several weeks, Mr. Trump continued his attacks on Truth Social. He stated that he had “GAINED SUCH RESPECT FOR THIS GRAND JURY” for not being a “RUBBER STAMP” and described District Attorney Bragg as “HIGHLY PARTISAN” and “HATEFUL.”
65. A day later, on March 30, 2023, Mr. Trump described District Attorney Bragg as a “Radical Left, Soros Backed Lunatic[]” in a post on Truth Social. He also implied that a New York Times columnist wrote that Mr. Trump “should be prosecuted” “because [he is] WHITE.” He concluded “we are now a Nation in Decline being stupidly led into World War III.”
H. Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne Respond.
66. On March 27, 2023, Mr. Pomerantz responded to Chairman Jordan’s March 22, 2023 correspondence. In the letter, Mr. Pomerantz states that he will “act in a manner consistent with the instructions [he has] received from DANY” and requested that Chairman Jordan relay any communication to the District Attorney’s Office.
67. That same day, Mr. Dunne also responded to Chairman Jordan’s March 22, 2023 correspondence. Like Mr. Pomerantz, Mr. Dunne declined to respond to the inquiry and referred any communication to the District Attorney’s Office. In the letter, Mr. Dunne also stated that the District Attorney’s Office is the legal holder of various privileges, including the attorney-client privilege, implicated by Chairman Jordan’s inquiry. The letter further states that “[a]s the legal holder of such privileges,” the Office’s position that the inquiry was “constitutionally infirm” was “[their] prerogative.”
I. New York State Supreme Court Unseals The Fact That Mr. Trump Has Been Indicted And The Chairmen (And Other Members Of Congress) React.
68. On March 30, 2023, the New York State Supreme Court issued an order unsealing the fact that a Manhattan grand jury had returned an indictment charging Mr. Trump with a certain number of undefined crimes. Mr. Trump is the first American president, current or former, to be indicted.
69. It did not take long for Mr. Trump to start casting doubt on the integrity of the District Attorney’s Office, and on the judicial system as a whole. On March 30, 2023, he claimed that the charges against him were “Fake, Corrupt, and Disgraceful.” And on the morning of March 31, 2023, he asserted on Truth Social: “The Judge ‘assigned’ to my Witch Hunt Case [] HATES ME.” He further stated that the judge’s name “is Juan Manuel Marchan [sic], [he] was handpicked by Bragg & the Prosecutors, & is the same person who ‘railroaded’ my 75 year old former CFO, Allen Weisselberg, to take a ‘plea’ deal.”
70. Later that day, Mr. Trump posted again on Truth Social, specifically referencing Mr. Pomerantz:
71. Mr. Trump’s followers have followed suit. Hours after the indictment, District Attorney Bragg and his Office received numerous overtly racist and antisemitic emails and messages.16 One email stated: “Hay George Soros a** hole puppet If you want President Trump come and get me to. Remember we are everywhere and we have guns.” Other messages called the District Attorney “black trash [f----r]” and “Aids Infested.”
72. Mr. Trump’s supporters in Congress have also followed his lead, although none of them articulated the legislative reform proposals the Chairman has invoked as the basis for this congressional subpoena and his other demands. On March 30, 2023, Speaker McCarthy tweeted using language that indicated his goal was retribution against District Attorney Bragg, not legislation:
73. The Speaker’s caucus followed suit. That same day, and after the news broke that Mr. Trump would be indicted, Chairman Jordan tweeted: “Outrageous.” Representative Ronny Jackson tweeted “When Trump wins, THESE PEOPLE WILL PAY!!” Later, he stated that “it will ultimately be Alvin Bragg that pays the price for this abuse of office!”
74. On March 31, 2023, Representative Dan Bishop, a member of defendant Committee on the Judiciary, tweeted that “The subpoenas should now fly.”
J. District Attorney Bragg Responds to the Chairmen.
75. District Attorney Bragg’s Office responded to the Chairmen on March 31, 2023. In that response, Ms. Dubeck reiterated the Office’s position: Congress cannot interfere with a state criminal investigation or usurp judicial and executive functions, and the Chairmen’s “examination of the facts of a single criminal investigation, for the supposed purpose of determining whether any charges against Mr. Trump are warranted, is an improper and dangerous usurpation of the executive and judicial functions” and “an unprecedented and illegitimate incursion on New York’s sovereign interests.”
76. The letter states that the Chairmen’s alleged legislative purpose for the inquiry— potential legislation to “insulate current and former presidents”—is “baseless pretext to interfere with [the] Office’s work.” The letter queried whether “Congress would [even] have authority to place a single private citizen—including a former president or candidate for president—above the law.” It further stated that “based on [the Chairmen’s] reportedly close collaboration with Mr. Trump in attacking this Office and the grand jury process, it appears [the Chairmen] are acting more like a criminal defense counsel trying to gather evidence for a client than a legislative body seeking to achieve a legitimate legislative objective.”
77. As Ms. Dubeck indicated she would in her March 23, 2023 correspondence, she provided in the March 31, 2023 letter further detail and information about the Office’s use of federal funds. Specifically, Ms. Dubeck clarified that “[n]o expenses incurred relating to this matter [including the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Trump] have been paid from funds that the Office received through federal grant programs.” She identified three federal grant programs that the District Attorney’s Office participates in: (1) Stop Violence Against Women Act Program; (2) Victim and Witness Assistance Grant Program; and (3) Justice Assistance Grant.
78. Ms. Dubeck also stated that the Office has “contributed to the federal fisc,” in part by “help[ing] the Federal Government secure more than one billion dollars in asset forfeiture funds in the past 15 years.” Of that forfeiture money, the Office spent approximately $5,000 “on expenses incurred [between October 2019 and August 2021] relating to the investigation of Donald J. Trump or the Trump Organization.” The letter clarified that most of these expenses related to Trump v. Vance, 140 S. Ct. 2412 (2020), the Supreme Court case “in which the DA’s Office prevailed and which led to the indictment and conviction of Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg and two Trump organizations.”
79. In light of the death threats the District Attorney had received, Ms. Dubeck also urged the Chairmen to “denounce the[] attacks” and “refrain from inflammatory accusations” instead of continuing to “vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges.” Ms. Dubeck further urged the Chairmen to “let the criminal justice process proceed without unlawful political interference.”
80. Ms. Dubeck again requested to meet and confer with the Chairmen.
81. The Chairmen did not accept that request. Instead, in the days following the District Attorney’s March 31, 2023 letter, Chairman Jordan and the Committee focused on the $5,000 of forfeiture funds the District Attorney’s Office had used in investigating Mr. Trump or the Trump Organization between October 2019 and August 2021. Specifically, defendant Committee on the Judiciary tweeted that the $5,000 of forfeiture funds “BOLSTER[S] GOP INVESTIGATION”:
82. And in an interview conducted on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo, Chairman Jordan stated, “they keep saying ‘oh you’re not supposed to be involved because, you know, this is a local prosecution decision,’ and we’re saying well look you used federal funds, you conceded that in your response to” the March 25, 2023 letter.17
83. In other words, Chairman Jordan and the Committee argued the District Attorney’s use of $5,000 from federal forfeiture funds prior to 2021 on matters relating to Mr. Trump other than his indictment was sufficient to confer authority on Congress to investigate the now-pending criminal prosecution. But they provided no explanation, and none exists, as to how mere federal funds (even if they had been used in preparing for the pending prosecution of Mr. Trump) could justify invading state sovereignty to conduct federal “oversight” of a single ongoing state criminal investigation or prosecution to begin with.
K. Donald Trump and His Supporters Continue to Interfere with an Ongoing State Criminal Proceeding.
84. On April 3, 2023, Mr. Trump falsely accused District Attorney Bragg of “illegally LEAK[ING] . . . the pathetic Indictment against [him]” on Truth Social. He stated that as a result of this “illegal” leak, District Attorney Bragg “MUST BE IMMEDIATELY INDICTED.”
85. Eleven minutes later, he once again falsely accused the District Attorney of “ILLEGALLY LEAK[ING] THE 33 points of Indictment” and called for the District Attorney’s resignation.
86. On April 4, 2023—the very day of his scheduled arraignment—Mr. Trump stated on Truth Social that New York County was a “VERY UNFAIR VENUE” and “THE HIGHLY PARTISAN JUDGE & HIS FAMILY ARE WELL KNOWN TRUMP HATERS.”
87. Later that day, Mr. Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., shared an article on Twitter that identified Judge Juan Merchan’s daughter and included a picture of her. He called into question Judge Merchan’s impartiality and alleged that his daughter had worked on the Biden- Harris campaign, which he claimed was another “relevant” “connection in this hand picked democrat show trial.” Representative Greene shared a similar article.
88. Also on April 4, 2023, Chairman Jordan and Chairman Comer issued a statement expressing “concern” over “reports [that] the New York District Attorney may seek an unconstitutional gag order” because “[t]o put any restrictions on the ability of President Trump to discuss his mistreatment at the hands of this politically motivated prosecutor would only further demonstrate the weaponization of the New York justice system.”18
89. That same day, Speaker McCarthy once again evoked the specter of punishment, reiterating that District Attorney Bragg would be “held accountable by Congress” for “attempting to interfere in our democratic process by invoking federal law to bring politicized charges against President Trump [and] admittedly using federal funds.”
90. Later that night on April 4, Chairman Jordan and Mr. Comer did an interview on the Fox News program Jesse Watters Primetime. During that interview, Chairman Jordan stated “Mr. Pomerantz . . . is someone we want to talk to as well. He has left the DA’s office. He has written a book. He’s the guy who threw the fit and I think put the pressure on Mr. Bragg to go through with the ridiculous action that he took today.”19 The book to which Chairman Jordan referred was Mr. Pomerantz’s account of the District Attorney’s Office’s investigation into Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization, published on February 7, 2023. Before the book was published, the District Attorney’s Office wrote to Mr. Pomerantz and, referring to the existence of then-pending proceedings, expressly confirmed that Mr. Pomerantz did not have authority to make public any privileged or confidential information he acquired while serving as a Special Assistant. The Office requested to review a manuscript of the book before publication but was not provided that opportunity. Mr. Pomerantz subsequently stated publicly that he was “confident that all of my actions with respect to the Trump investigation, including the writing of my forthcoming book, are consistent with my legal and ethical obligations.”20
91. In response to Chairman Jordan’s statement about the book, Mr. Watters stated: “Biden sent his goon into the DA’s office, and that’s what lit this fuse.” Chairman Comer shortly thereafter reiterated “we’re serious about this . . . I fully expect to see Alvin Bragg answering questions in front of Congress as soon as we can make it happen. This is unacceptable, and we’re not going to back down on this.” Chairman Comer therefore confirmed that the subpoena to Mr. Pomerantz was the first action of a subpoena strategy, with the ultimate goal of subpoenaing the District Attorney himself.
L. Mr. Trump Is Arraigned, And Chairman Jordan And The Committee Subpoena Mr. Pomerantz.
92. On April 4, 2023, Mr. Trump traveled from Florida to New York for his arraignment, arrest, and fingerprinting. He was accompanied by the Secret Service, who had coordinated effectively with New York State Supreme Court security officers in advance of the arraignment. On information and belief, Mr. Trump’s transit to (and from) New York was safe. No security incidents or breaches were reported with respect to Mr. Trump’s safety.
93. Later that day, Mr. Trump was arraigned in New York State Supreme Court and his indictment and the District Attorney’s statement of facts were unsealed. The indictment accuses Mr. Trump of 34 felony counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree in violation of New York Penal Law § 175.10. Specifically, District Attorney Bragg alleged that Mr. Trump “repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.”21 The criminal conduct involved, among other things, a scheme in which Mr. Trump and other participants “violated election laws,” “made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York,” and “took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme.”22
94. Mr. Trump entered a plea of not guilty before Judge Merchan.
95. The indictment vindicates a distinct state interest in the integrity of business records within New York State. As District Attorney Bragg observed, “[t]rue and accurate business records are important everywhere,” and “are all the more important in Manhattan, the financial center of the world.”23 He further explained that “we have a history in the Manhattan DA’s office of vigorously enforcing white collar law,” and that the charge of falsifying business records is “the bread and butter of our white-collar work,” which the Office has charged as a felony “hundreds” of times.24
96. During the arraignment, prosecutors raised to the court Mr. Trump’s recent “public statements threatening our city, our justice system, our courts, and our office.” They noted Mr. Trump had made “irresponsible social media posts that target various individuals involved in this matter, and even their families”; that he had “threatened potential death and destruction, and that is a quote, and world war three, another quote, if these charges were brought and he was indicted.” Prosecutors also informed the Court that Mr. Trump had posted “a picture that depicts Mr. Trump wielding a baseball bat at the head of the District Attorney.” Before handing the court copies of these posts, prosecutors noted that Mr. Trump’s comments have “led to extensive public safety measures being put into place.” Prosecutors asked the court to impose an “appropriately restricted protective order” to ensure “the defendant does not disseminate any information provided as discovery through threatening online posts.”
97. Following the parties’ discussion of the prosecutors’ concerns, the court instructed the parties’ counsel “speak to [their] client [or witnesses] and anybody else you need to, and remind them to please refrain [] from making statements that are likely to incite violence or civil unrest. Please refrain from making comments or engaging in conduct that has the potential to incite violence, create civil unrest, or jeopardize the safety or well-being of individuals.” And the court concluded, “please do not engage in words or conduct which jeopardizes the rule of law, particularly as it applies to these proceedings in this courtroom.”
98. Hours later, Mr. Trump made a statement in Florida. He told his supporters: “[t]he criminal is the District Attorney because he illegally leaked massive amounts of grand jury information, for which he should be prosecuted or at a minimum, he should resign” and “I have a Trump hating judge, with a Trump hating wife and family, whose daughter worked for Kamala Harris and now receives money from the Biden-Harris campaign and a lot of it.”25
99. On April 6, 2023, two days after Mr. Trump was arraigned, Chairman Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee served a subpoena on Mr. Pomerantz directing him to appear and testify at a deposition before the Committee regarding the District Attorney’s investigation. The subpoena directs Mr. Pomerantz to appear before the Committee on April 20, 2023.
100. In the cover letter accompanying the subpoena, the Committee states that based on Mr. Pomerantz’s “role as a special assistant district attorney leading the investigation into President Trump’s finances,” he is “uniquely situated to provide information that is relevant necessary to inform the Committee’s oversight and potential legislative reforms” related to “insulat[ing] current and former Presidents from [] politically motivated state and local prosecutions.” The Committee claims that such potential legislative reforms could include: (i) broadening “the existing statutory right of removal of certain criminal cases from state court to federal court”; (ii) investigating potential conflicts between “federal law-enforcement officials required by federal law to protect a former President and local law-enforcement officials required to enforce an indictment”; and (iii) enhancing “reporting requirements concerning the use of federal forfeiture funds or to prohibit the use of federal forfeiture funds to investigate a current or former President or presidential candidate.”
101. The letter states that Mr. Pomerantz has “no basis to decline to testify” regarding matters he wrote about (and later promoted in television interviews) in his February 2023 book, People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account. The book details some of Mr. Pomerantz’s views and his depiction of his personal experiences working on the District Attorney’s investigation into Donald Trump. The letter cites passages in Mr. Pomerantz’s book, which the letter argues reveal that the District Attorney’s Office’s investigation of Donald Trump was politically motivated. The letter says, for instance, that Mr. Pomerantz “frivolously compare[d] President Trump to mob boss John Gotti.” And it alleges that Mr. Pomerantz said there was “no doubt in [Mr. Pomerantz’s] mind that [President] Trump deserved to be prosecuted,” demonstrating that Mr. Pomerantz was personally “searching for any basis on which to bring criminal charges” against Mr. Trump. The letter also points to Mr. Pomerantz’s personal perceptions of Mr. Trump as a “malignant narcissist” and “megalomaniac who posed a real danger to the country” whose behavior made Mr. Pomerantz “angry, sad, and [] disgusted.” These views, the letter speculates, were evidence that Mr. Pomerantz “prejudg[ed] the results of the District Attorney’s investigation” which contributed to the “political pressure” on District Attorney Bragg to “bring charges against former President Trump.”
102. Contrary to the Chairman’s contentions, however, Mr. Pomerantz’s book did not and could not waive any privilege belonging to the District Attorney’s Office. Prior to the book’s publication, the District Attorney had instructed Mr. Pomerantz to make no disclosures relating to the “existence, nature, or content” of any communications or records or documents that relate in any manner to the investigation he participated in as a Special Assistant. The District Attorney’s Office also did not have the opportunity to review any drafts or excerpts of Mr. Pomerantz’s book prior to publication.
103. The letter also states that under Rule X of the House of Representatives, the Committee has jurisdiction “to conduct oversight of criminal justice matters to inform potential legislation.” Rule X, however, makes no reference to State criminal justice—only stating that the Committee has jurisdiction over “[c]riminal law enforcement and criminalization” as well as “[t]he judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil and criminal.” H.R. Rule X, clause 1 (l)(1), (7). Other sections of Rule X expressly make reference to the States, however, confirming that Rule X(l) on the Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction does not confer on the Judiciary Committee jurisdiction over State criminal (let alone civil) matters.
104. In the hours following his service of the subpoena, Chairman Jordan tweeted the following:
105. He also retweeted a report by Breitbart News that “Rep @Jim_Jordan has issued his first subpoena for House Republicans’ investigation of the Manhattan district attorney’s indictment of former President Donald Trump,” suggesting more subpoenas would follow. (emphasis added).
106. Media reports after the subpoena was served indicated that the subpoena was part of an “all-out blitz” Mr. Trump was preparing to commence.26 That blitz will reportedly be directed towards “Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Judge Juan Merchan, and anyone else in the judicial system who dares cross” Mr. Trump.27 “Meanwhile, powerful Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill are preparing to use the levers of the legislative branch to run interference for Trump following his historic arrest and arraignment in Manhattan this week.”28
M. Chairman Jordan Demands Documents And Testimony From A Current Employee Of The District Attorney’s Office.
107. On April 7, 2023, Chairman Jordan sent a letter to Matthew Colangelo, Senior Counsel at the District Attorney’s Office.
108. The letter requested documents and testimony in light of Mr. Colangelo’s “history of working for law-enforcement entities that are pursuing President Trump and the public reporting surrounding [his] decision to work for the New York County District Attorney’s Office.” The Chairman argued Mr. Colangelo is “uniquely situated to provide information that is relevant and necessary to inform the Committee’s oversight and potential legislative reforms.” The Chairman requested Mr. Colangelo’s cooperation in his “personal capacity.” The Chairman’s letter requested four categories of documents from Mr. Colangelo for the period June 22, 2021 to December 5, 2022:
• All documents and communications between or among you and anyone affiliated, in any way, with the New York County District Attorney’s Office referring or relating to your potential or future employment with that Office, including, but not limited to (a) [t]he substance or type of work that you would potentially do for that Office; (b) [t]hat Office’s motivation for or interest in hiring you; or (c) [y]our personal motivation for or interest in working for that Office; • All documents and communications between or among you and anyone affiliated, in any way, with the New York County District Attorney’s Office referring or relating to President Donald J. Trump; the Trump Organization; or any other entity owned, controlled by, or associated with President Donald J. Trump; • All documents and communications between or among you and anyone not affiliated with the New York County District Attorney’s Office referring or relating to both your potential or future employment with that Office and (a) President Donald J. Trump; (b) [t]he Trump Organization; or (c) [a]ny other entity owned, controlled by, or associated with President Donald J. Trump; • Any other documents or communications referring or relating to both your potential or future employment with the New York County District Attorney’s Office and (a) President Donald J. Trump; (b) [t]he Trump Organization; or (c) [a]ny other entity owned, controlled by, or associated with President Donald J. Trump.
The letter also asked that Mr. Colangelo testify before the Committee no later than April 21, 2023.
109. The Chairman’s letter said he sought information and documents relating to the “circumstances and chain of events that led to [Mr. Colangelo’s] hiring by the New York County District Attorney’s Office.” In other words, the Chairman now wanted to exercise “oversight” of the District Attorney’s personnel decisions. The Chairman argued this information would “shed substantial light on the underlying motives for that Office’s investigation into and indictment of President Trump.” Specifically, the Chairman pointed to the fact that when Mr. Colangelo worked at the New York Attorney General’s Office, he “ran investigations into President Trump, leading ‘a wave of state litigation against Trump administration policies.’” The Chairman opined that District Attorney Bragg hired Mr. Colangelo to “fill the void left by the departure of . . . Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne.”
110. The letter to Mr. Colangelo confirms the subpoena issued to Mr. Pomerantz is just the first of many the Chairman is planning to send to current and former District Attorney’s Office employees and officials to wreak havoc on their prosecutorial activities pursuant to New York law. In fact, Representative Wesley Hunt, a member of the Judiciary Committee, confirmed just that when he gave an interview on Fox News on April 6, 2023. During that interview, Mr. Hunt stated: “I can assure you that Jim Jordan, who’s the head of the Judiciary Committee, we have a plan for all of these people to expose them for exactly who they are.”29 He continued: “They have an agenda to destroy our country. They have an agenda to destroy the very fabric of America. We’ve got to expose this so that in two years, the American people—we, the people—can get this right.” Chairman Jordan retweeted a clip of Mr. Hunt’s interview, signaling, on information and belief, that he approved of Mr. Hunt’s statements. Mr. Trump subsequently posted the clip to his Truth Social account as well.
111. On April 10, 2023, the New York Post reported that the House Judiciary Committee would hold a “field hearing” in New York City at 9:00 am Monday, April 17 at the Jacob Javits Federal Building to examine “New York’s rampant crime and victims of Alvin Bragg.”30 A source told the New York Post that purported “victims” of District Attorney Bragg’s “policies” and “failure[s] to prosecute” would be witnesses at the hearing, although a witness list was not made immediately available for examination. A source also told the New York Post that the House Judiciary Committee and Congressman Jordan had not ruled out inviting the District Attorney to attend the hearing. Chairman Jordan and the Judiciary Committee specifically tweeted about the hearing:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Injunctive & Declaratory Relief) The Subpoena Is Ultra Vires And Exceeds the Committee’s Constitutional Authority
112. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
113. The subpoena served on Mr. Pomerantz is invalid, unenforceable, unconstitutional, and ultra vires because it has no legitimate legislative purpose. See Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187.
114. The Chairman and the Committee have stated that their purpose in seeking information from current and former employees and officials of the District Attorney’s Office is to “conduct oversight” into a local criminal prosecution and as part of an overall investigative plot to demand unconstitutionally that District Attorney Bragg “explain himself” and provide a “good explanation” and a “good argument” to Congress. They have also made clear that the subpoena is designed to punish District Attorney Bragg for his prosecutorial decisions—i.e., as Speaker McCarthy stated, to “hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account.” The subpoena Chairman Jordan and the Committee have served on Mr. Pomerantz is part and parcel of these unlawful aims.
115. But Congress lacks any enumerated power entitling it to “conduct oversight” into a single state prosecution in which a local grand jury has voted to bring criminal charges. The Supreme Court held more than 140 years ago that Congress may not deploy its subpoena power to “interfere with” a case “pending in a court of competent jurisdiction.” Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 194 (1880). Congress is not “a law enforcement or trial agency,” for “[t]hese are functions of the executive and judicial departments of government.” Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187. “No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress. Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to ‘punish’ those investigated are indefensible.” Id. And under the Tenth Amendment, the “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U.S. Const. amend X. This framework reflects our principles of federalism and dual sovereignty, by which the states “remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.” Printz, 521 U.S. at 928. The Constitution “reposed [police power] in the States.” Morrison, 529 U.S. at 618. It clearly conferred “primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law” on the States. Lopez, 514 U.S. at 561 n.3. There is no congressional power to interfere—as the Chairman and the Committee seek to do here—with the states’ “proper sphere of authority” to police. Printz, 521 U.S. at 928. In short, Congress has no legitimate legislative objective to pursue here.
116. As a result, in his letters and public statements, Chairman Jordan and his congressional allies have changed their story multiple times, creating new and constantly shifting purported legislative interests and purposes that supposedly justify the Committee’s unwarranted “incursion” into a state criminal case. Printz, 521 U.S. at 920. These are just obvious pretexts for interfering with the District Attorney’s Office’s work enforcing the laws of the State of New York on behalf of the People.
117. The subpoena served on Mr. Pomerantz fails to satisfy the Supreme Court’s test in Mazars. 140 S. Ct. at 2035. Namely, the purported legislative purposes Chairman Jordan has invoked to support the subpoena are unsupported, speculative, specious, and/or unconstitutional. The subpoena is more broad than reasonably necessary to support any claimed congressional objective. Chairman Jordan and the Judiciary Committee have offered no evidence in support of any legislative purpose they have attempted to invoke to justify their subpoena. And the subpoena is unduly burdensome because it would substantially burden both the New York criminal justice system and the District Attorney’s Office as it prepares for Mr. Trump’s criminal trial. The Committee’s subpoena also burdens the District Attorney and the criminal justice system by politicizing Mr. Trump’s trial and undermining the public’s faith in the integrity of the criminal justice system. The Committee’s subpoena to Mr. Pomerantz and its other intrusive serial requests for documents and testimony are plainly aimed at burdening the District Attorney’s Office by harassing them, attempting to intimidate them, and trying to distract them from their preparation of Mr. Trump’s criminal case.
118. The subpoena is also ultra vires because the Judiciary Committee does not have jurisdiction over State criminal prosecutions under Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
119. The demands for documents and testimony that Chairman Jordan has made on District Attorney Bragg and current and former District Attorney’s Office employees or officials similarly lack any valid legislative purpose. In the event Chairman Jordan or the Committee serves a subpoena on the District Attorney himself or any of his current or former employees or officials, such subpoenas will also be invalid, unenforceable, unconstitutional, and ultra vires.
120. Plaintiff suffers and is continuing to suffer irreparable harm from the risk that Mr. Pomerantz may be forced to comply with the subpoena served on him, including but not limited to irreparable harm to New York’s sovereign dignitary interests. Plaintiff further lacks any adequate remedy at law.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Injunctive & Declaratory Relief) Violation of Grand Jury Secrecy And Privilege
121. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
122. Even if Chairman Jordan and the Committee were able to demonstrate a valid legislative purpose and withstand the Mazars test (they cannot), the subpoena still would not be enforceable because it could allow the Committee to seek secret grand jury material, confidential investigative material, and documents and communications that are clearly privileged under the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the deliberative process privilege, the law enforcement privilege, the informant’s privilege, and the public interest privilege.
123. Grand jury materials are secret and privileged under New York State law. See N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 190.25(4)(a); N.Y. Penal Law § 215.70. “The attorney-client privilege protects communications (1) between a client and his or her attorney (2) that are intended to be, and in fact were, kept confidential (3) for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice.” United States v. Mejia, 655 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2011). The attorney work product doctrine protects documents prepared in anticipation of litigation by a party or its representative. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511–12 (1947); PepsiCo, Inc. v. SEC, 563 F. Supp. 828, 830 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (explaining that work product privileges are part of federal law). The deliberative process privilege protects deliberations regarding agency information, such as recommendations and analysis. The law enforcement privilege protects, among other things, law enforcement techniques and procedures, confidentiality of sources, and otherwise prevents interference with an investigation. The informant’s privilege protects from retaliation members of the public who provide information to the government during an investigation. The public interest privilege applies to confidential communications between or to public officers in the performance of their duties where the public interest requires that those confidential communications or sources should not be revealed. The risk of disclosure is only heightened because the regulations governing House depositions permit only two “personal, nongovernmental” attorneys to accompany Mr. Pomerantz to his deposition and bar “government agency personnel” from the District Attorney’s Office to attend and protect the Office’s privilege. The regulations also empower a partisan decisionmaker—the Committee chairman—to overrule a privilege objection and order a witness to answer a question.
124. Privilege has not been waived by virtue of Mr. Pomerantz’s book. Nor can grand jury secrecy be waived at all. Mr. Pomerantz did not receive written authorization to disclose any communications, records, or documents that relate in any manner to the investigation he participated in as a Special Assistant. He was expressly informed of the need to receive that written authorization prior to the publication of his book and was expressly unauthorized to reveal any privileged or secret information. The District Attorney’s Office did not have the opportunity to review any drafts or excerpts of Mr. Pomerantz’s book prior to publication, despite asking to conduct such a pre-publication review. And Mr. Pomerantz publicly stated before the book was published that he was “confident that all of my actions with respect to the Trump investigation, including the writing of my forthcoming book, are consistent with my legal and ethical obligations.”
125. The demands for documents and testimony that Chairman Jordan has made on District Attorney Bragg and current and former District Attorney’s Office employees or officials also improperly seek privileged and confidential material.
126. Plaintiff will suffer imminent irreparable harm if the secret and privileged material is compelled to be disclosed, including but not limited to irreparable harm to New York’s sovereign dignitary interests.
127. Plaintiff lacks any adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks this Court to enter judgment in his favor and to provide the following relief:
a. A declaratory judgment that the subpoena served on Mr. Pomerantz is invalid, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and/or unenforceable;
b. A permanent injunction, preliminary injunction, and temporary restraining order enjoining any enforcement of the subpoena served on Mr. Pomerantz and enjoining Mr. Pomerantz’s compliance with the subpoena;
c. In the event Chairman Jordan or the Committee serves subpoenas on the District Attorney himself or any of his current or former employees or officials, a declaratory judgment that those subpoenas are invalid, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and/or unenforceable as well as a permanent and preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of any such subpoena;
d. Plaintiff’s reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees; and
e. For such other and further relief as this Court determines proper.
Dated: April 11, 2023
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP /s Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. _____________ Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. 333 South Grand Ave., Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel: (213) 229-7804 tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
Leslie B. Dubeck General Counsel to the New York County District Attorney One Hogan Place New York, New York 10013 Tel: (212) 335-9000 Dubeckl@dany.nyc.gov
Counsel for Plaintiff Alvin L. Bragg, Jr.
_______________
Notes:
1 Julia Shapero, Trump vows to remove ‘thugs and criminals’ from justice system at rally, amid legal woes, The Hill (Mar. 25, 2023), https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3 ... criminals- from-justice-system-at-rally-amid-legal-woes/.
4 Luke Broadwater and Jonathan Swan, Republicans Vowed to Grill Bragg About Trump, but It’s Not So Simple, N.Y. Times (Apr. 5, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/05/us/p ... gsubpoena- trump.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20do%20want%20Mr.%20Bragg,not%20going%20to%20 back%20down.%E2%80%9D.
5 Affirming Congress’ Constitutional Oversight Responsibilities: Subpoena Authority and Recourse for Failure to Comply with Lawfully Issued Subpoenas: Hearing Before H. Comm. On Science, Space, and Technology, 114th Cong. (2016) (statement of Charles Tiefer, Former Acting General Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives).
12 Final Report of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capital, House Rep. 117-000, at Foreword & p. 6 (Dec. 22, 2022), available at https://tinyurl.com/mr364uyt.
13 Id.
14 Previously, Chairman Jordan requested from the U.S. Department of Justice documents relating to the special counsel investigation into President Biden’s handling of classified material. The Department of Justice responded by stating that it would withhold such documents because “[d]isclosures to Congress about active investigations risk jeopardizing those investigations and creating the appearance that Congress may be exerting improper political pressure or attempting to influence Department decisions in certain cases. Judgments about whether and how to pursue a matter are, and must remain, the exclusive responsibility of the Department.” Zachary Cohen, DOJ tells House Judiciary chair it will not hand over most Biden special counsel probe documents until investigation complete, CNN (Jan. 30, 2023), https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/30/politics ... alcounsel- documents/index.html.
16 Molly Crane-Newman, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg inundated with racist emails, death threats amid Trump indictment; ‘We are everywhere and we have guns,’ N.Y. Daily News (Mar. 31, 2023), https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ ... t-threats- 20230401-vimpdgvbrnfe5bq5d6wdw4g7ty-story.html.
26 Tim Dickenson, Asawin Suebsaeng, Adam Rawnsley, Trump’s Lawyers Are Begging Him for Restraint. His Political Allies Are Preparing to ‘Fight Dirty’, Rolling Stone (Apr. 6, 2023), https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... nt-debate- 1234711049/.
30 Steven Nelson, House panel to examine ‘victims’ of Bragg policies as GOP casts doubt on NYC prosecutor who took on Trump, New York Post (Apr. 10, 2023), https://nypost.com/2023/04/10/house-jud ... ee-tohold- nyc-hearing-on-victims-of-da-alvin-braggs-policies/.
Witnesses Asked About Trump’s Handling of Map With Classified Information: The map is just one element of the Justice Department’s inquiry into former President Donald Trump’s possession of sensitive documents and whether he obstructed justice in seeking to hold onto them. by Maggie Haberman, Adam Goldman and Alan Feuer New York Times April 12, 2023
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
Federal investigators are asking witnesses whether former President Donald J. Trump showed off to aides and visitors a map he took with him when he left office that contains sensitive intelligence information, four people with knowledge of the matter said.
The map has been just one focus of the broad Justice Department investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents after he departed the White House.
The nature of the map and the information it contained is not clear. But investigators have questioned a number of witnesses about it, according to the people with knowledge of the matter, as the special counsel overseeing the Justice Department’s Trump-focused inquiries, Jack Smith, examines the former president’s handling of classified material after leaving office and weighs charges that could include obstruction of justice.
One person briefed on the matter said investigators have asked about Mr. Trump showing the map while aboard a plane. Another said that, based on the questions they were asking, investigators appeared to believe that Mr. Trump showed the map to at least one adviser after leaving office.
A third person with knowledge of the investigation said the map might also have been shown to a journalist writing a book. The Washington Post has previously reported that investigators have asked about Mr. Trump showing classified material, including maps, to political donors.
The question of whether Mr. Trump was displaying sensitive material in his possession after he lost the presidency and left office is crucial as investigators try to reconstruct what Mr. Trump was doing with boxes of documents that went with him to his Florida residence and private club, Mar-a-Lago.
Among the topics investigators have been focused on is precisely when Mr. Trump was at the club last year. In particular, they were interested in whether he remained at Mar-a-Lago to look at boxes of material that were still stored there before Justice Department counterintelligence officials seeking their return came to visit in early June, according to two people familiar with the questions.
Understand the Trump Documents Inquiry
The Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into Donald Trump’s handling of classified files after he left office.
Special Counsel: Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith, a longtime prosecutor, to take over the inquiry. Here is what Smith’s role entails.
A Behind-the-Scenes Battle: A legal fight over obtaining evidence from a lawyer who represented Trump in the inquiry has brought into sharper view where the Justice Department might be headed with the case.
Comparison With Biden Case: The discovery of classified documents from President Biden’s time as vice president prompted comparisons to Trump’s hoarding of records. But there are key differences.
Mr. Trump typically leaves Florida for his club in Bedminster, N.J., earlier than he did last year, when he was still at Mar-a-Lago for the visit from the Justice Department officials, on June 3. Investigators have been gathering evidence about whether Mr. Trump had aides bring him boxes to sift through after a grand jury subpoena was issued in May for any government documents Mr. Trump still had in his possession, the people said.
After the June 3 visit, when Justice Department officials were handed a batch of documents with classified markings that had been found at Mar-a-Lago, a lawyer for Mr. Trump signed a certification saying a “diligent search” had been conducted and all government material had been returned. That statement proved untrue two months later when the F.B.I. found hundreds of pages of additional classified documents during a court-authorized search.
Investigators have also asked questions about whether Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was ever mentioned in discussions related to the boxes of material, as well as whether donors to Mr. Trump were ever part of discussions about the material, according to people familiar with the questions.
Christopher M. Kise, a lawyer working with Mr. Trump on some of his cases, faulted the Justice Department for its focus on the former president’s handling of classified material, like documents related to his dealings with the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Mr. Kise suggested that the department should be focused on the recent leaks of intelligence under the Biden administration about the war in Ukraine.
“Seems the priorities are misplaced here,” he said. “America’s national security apparatus is spending much time and taxpayer money alleging President Trump had old photos of K.J.U. and some outdated map while real wartime intelligence data is flying out the door. Might be time to focus on what matters.”
The documents investigation being overseen by Mr. Smith, the special counsel, is running in parallel with another he is managing that is focused on Mr. Trump’s efforts to remain in power after his election loss in 2020 and how those efforts led to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol.
As part of the documents investigation, federal prosecutors have been building a potential case that Mr. Trump obstructed justice by seeking to avoid returning all the classified material in his possession after leaving office.
Investigators have compiled extensive witness testimony, texts and emails from a number of key witnesses. They have constructed a timeline of Mr. Trump’s actions and movements and interviewed dozens of people, including close advisers to Mr. Trump as well as staff members at Mar-a-Lago and former administration officials who had knowledge of how he handled documents in different settings.
They have heard from witnesses who described Mr. Trump being urged repeatedly in 2021 by aides and advisers to return material to the National Archives, and then how he handled the grand jury investigation by the Justice Department that began early last year and resulted in a subpoena for any remaining classified material in Mr. Trump’s possession.
Among the witnesses interviewed was a Mar-a-Lago employee who moved boxes with a close aide to Mr. Trump, Walt Nauta, according to people familiar with the events.
It remains less clear whether prosecutors are building a case for other potential charges beyond obstruction. In seeking the search warrant used last summer at Mar-a-Lago, prosecutors cited potential violations of the Espionage Act, which relates to mishandling of national defense information, and the removal or destruction of records, in addition to obstruction.
Prosecutors have now interviewed nearly everyone who could offer insight in connection with the documents, according to one person briefed on the range of witnesses.
Among those interviewed recently is one of the lawyers involved in Mr. Trump’s response to the grand jury subpoena for remaining documents. Prosecutors successfully asked the chief judge who had been presiding over the grand jury until recently, Judge Beryl A. Howell, to allow them to question the lawyer, M. Evan Corcoran.
Judge Howell ruled that Mr. Corcoran had to testify to the grand jury in the case and could not invoke attorney-client privilege on certain topics. Judge Howell cited what is known as a crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege.
Her order ruling that Mr. Corcoran must testify was said to be accompanied by an 86-page memorandum of law. She found that the Justice Department had met the threshold for having a credible case that Mr. Trump had obstructed justice, justifying its request to override attorney-client privilege and require Mr. Corcoran’s testimony about his role, according to people familiar with the memorandum’s contents.
Judge Howell wrote not only about Mr. Trump’s actions in relation to the subpoena last year, but also wrote that what she called “misdirection” with the National Archives in 2021 and early last year was “apparently a dress rehearsal” for how he handled the subpoena in May, according to a person briefed on its contents.
“The court certainly appears to have allowed the government to invade the attorney-client privilege based on minimal proof,” Mr. Kise said.
In a recent interview with Newsmax, Mr. Trump complained that Mr. Corcoran was being compelled to testify, saying he had always believed an attorney “can’t be subpoenaed.”
“If they testify truthfully, they’ll see I did nothing wrong,” Mr. Trump said.
This week, top congressional leaders and the senior Democrats and Republicans on the intelligence committees in both chambers of Congress gained access to classified documents recovered from Mr. Trump, as well as a smaller number discovered in recent months to be in the possession of President Biden from years earlier, and some recovered from former Vice President Mike Pence.
Maggie Haberman is a senior political correspondent and the author of “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America.” She was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on President Trump’s advisers and their connections to Russia. @maggieNYT
Adam Goldman reports on the F.B.I. and national security from Washington, D.C., and is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner. He is the coauthor of “Enemies Within: Inside the NYPD's Secret Spying Unit and bin Laden's Final Plot Against America.” @adamgoldmanNYT
Alan Feuer covers extremism and political violence. He joined The Times in 1999. @alanfeuer
Mike Lindell was so confident in his “evidence” that China interfered with the 2020 presidential election, he offered five million dollars to anyone who could prove him wrong. Bob Zeidman, a computer forensics expert and Trump voter who took up that challenge and did indeed prove Lindell wrong, joins Chris Hayes. “I didn’t really know up until yesterday whether I was going to win. I knew that I should have won. I knew that I met the challenge – because that was easy – but whether I was going to be awarded the money by the arbitrators was a little up in the air,” Zeidman says of his experience.
Transcript
>> [CHRIS HAYES] IN 2021, MONTHS AFTER JOE BIDEN HAD BEEN SWORN IN AS PRESIDENT, MIKE PILLOW, WHO HAD BEEN SPREADING CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BEING STOLEN FROM DONALD TRUMP, MADE A STRIKING CLAIM. HE WAS SO CONFIDENT THAT HE HAD EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT CHINA INTERFERED IN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, HE OFFERED A $5 MILLION DOLLAR REWARD TO ANYONE WHO COULD PROVE HIM WRONG. THE STUNT WAS PART OF A CYBER SYMPOSIUM HE WAS HOSTING IN AUGUST OF 2021. HE NAMED THE CONTEST, "PROVE MIKE WRONG."
>> [REPORTER] NOW, MIKE, AND IF SOMEONE COMES FORWARD AND SAYS, "THIS IS BS, AND I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU WHY," AND HE'S GOING TO SHOW HOW WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING IS NOT THE TRUTH, AND INVALID, AND YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE HIM THE TIME TO SPEAK AND SHOW THE EVIDENCE, THIS PERSON WILL GET $5 MILLION, RIGHT?
>> [MIKE LINDELL] $5 MILLION AT THAT SYMPOSIUM, THAT WILL BE LIVESTREAMED ON TV! THAT'S WHY WE PUT UP THE $5 MILLION, OR I PUT UP THE $5 MILLION MYSELF.
>> [CHRIS HAYES] ALL RIGHT, WELL, SOMEONE DECIDED TO TAKE MIKE UP ON THAT CHALLENGE, AND NOW AN ARBITRATION PANEL HAS AGREED THAT A MAN NAMED BOB ZEIDMAN DID, INDEED, PROVE MIKE WRONG. WASHINGTON POST WRITES, QUOTE, "THE PANEL SAID ROBERT ZEIDMAN, A COMPUTER FORENSICS EXPERT AND 63-YEAR-OLD TRUMP VOTER FROM NEVADA, WAS ENTITLED TO THE $5 MILLION DOLLAR PAYOUT. ZEIDMAN HAD EXAMINED LINDELL'S DATA AND CONCLUDED THAT NOT ONLY DID IT NOT PROVE VOTER FRAUD, IT ALSO HAD NO CONNECTION TO THE 2020 ELECTION... LINDELL SAID IN A TEXT TO THE POST: 'THEY MADE A TERRIBLY WRONG DECISION! THIS WILL BE GOING TO COURT!'" AND BOB ZEIDMAN, THE WINNER OF THAT CONTEST, JOINS ME NOW. IT'S GOOD TO HAVE YOU ON THE PROGRAM, MR. ZEIDMAN. CONGRATULATIONS ON THE FINDING IN YOUR FAVOR. LET'S START WITH JUST HOW YOU FOUND YOURSELF ENTERING THE CONTEST TO BEGIN WITH, HOW YOU HEARD ABOUT IT, AND WHY YOU DID IT.
>> [BOB ZEIDMAN] SURE, SO CHRIS, THANKS FOR HAVING ME. YEAH, I ACTUALLY WAS GETTING A LOT OF PRESSURE FROM FRIENDS, BECAUSE THIS IS MY FIELD. I'M A FORENSIC SCIENTIST, AND I TESTIFY IN COURT. AND THEY KEPT TELLING ME, "YOU NEED TO GO." SOME OF THEM SAID, "YOU MIGHT WIN $5 MILLION." AND MY RESPONSE WAS THAT IF HE'S OFFERING $5 MILLION, HE HAS GOT THE PROOF, SO I'M NOT GOING TO WIN IT. AND ANYWAY, THREE DAYS OF A CONFERENCE IS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO EXAMINE ALL THE DATA THAT HE WAS ALLEGEDLY SHOWING, OR PRESENTING. BUT EVENTUALLY, I THOUGHT, WELL, THIS WILL BE HISTORIC IN SOME SENSE OR ANOTHER. IT WILL BE HISTORIC. MAYBE IT'LL ACTUALLY SHOW THAT THE ELECTION NEEDS TO BE OVERTURNED. BUT WHATEVER IT SHOWS, THERE WILL BE INTERESTING PEOPLE THERE, AND I WILL GET TO MEET THEM, AND HANG OUT WITH THEM. SO THAT'S WHAT INITIALLY GOT ME, GAVE ME THE INCENTIVE TO GO.
>> [CHRIS HAYES] SO, YOU DO FORENSIC ANALYSIS FOR A LIVING. YOU HAD FRIENDS WHO SAID YOU SHOULD GO. YOU WENT TO THE SYMPOSIUM. THERE'S SOME GROUP OF FILES. LIKE, WHAT ACTUALLY WAS THE EVIDENCE HERE?
>> [BOB ZEIDMAN] WELL, WHAT WAS PRESENTED WAS A NUMBER OF FILES, AND WE WERE LOOKING AT THEM. AND I CAN TELL YOU, FIRST OF ALL, WE WERE SELECTED, EVERYONE WHO CAME WAS A TRUMP SUPPORTER, INCLUDING ME. LOOK, WE CAN GET INTO THAT. I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH TRUMP, AND I DON'T PLAN TO VOTE FOR HIM NEXT TIME, BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY INVITED A LOT OF CYBER EXPERTS WHO WERE TRUMP SUPPORTERS, AND EVERYBODY LOOKED AT THIS AND SAID, "THIS ISN'T WHAT WE EXPECTED. IT'S NOTHING ABOUT THE ELECTION." MOST OF US DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS. BUT I STARTED DOING SOME SIMPLE TRANSFORMATIONS, AND EVERY TIME I DID THIS TRANSFORMATION, I GOT SOMETHING THAT I RECOGNIZED. AND EVENTUALLY, I FOUND THAT MOST OF THE FILES WERE WORD DOCUMENTS. ONE WAS A TABLE OF NUMBERS THAT WERE BASICALLY MEANINGLESS. ANOTHER ONE WAS HUNDREDS, OR THOUSANDS OF PAGES, WHERE IT LOOKED LIKE SOMEBODY HAD BEEN RANDOMLY TYPING LETTERS INTO A DOCUMENT. BUT THEN THERE WAS A TRANSFORMATION, SEVERAL TRANSFORMATIONS DONE, SO WHEN IT WAS HANDED TO US IT LOOKED LIKE OH, SOME KIND OF SOPHISTICATED COMPUTER DATA. AND SO WITHIN A FEW HOURS, I SLIPPED OUT OF THE ROOM WHERE EVERYBODY WAS LOOKING OVER THE DATA, AND I WENT BACK TO THE HOTEL TO WRITE UP A REPORT. AND I CALLED MY WIFE, AND I TALKED TO HER QUIETLY, AND I SAID, "START THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH $5 MILLION."
>> [CHRIS HAYES] BECAUSE IT WAS THAT EVIDENT TO YOU THAT THESE FILES AMOUNTED TO NOTHING THAT COULD REMOTELY BEGIN TO SHOW -- AND THESE WERE FROM THE INTERNAL FILES OF VOTING MACHINES? LIKE, WHAT EVEN WAS THE PUTATIVE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE?
>> [BOB ZEIDMAN] WELL, IT WASN'T CLEAR. LINDELL HAD PROMISED P-CAPS, WHICH ARE CAPTURES OF PACKET DATA ON THE INTERNET. NOW THERE'S ALSO JUST A LOGICAL QUESTION, HOW COULD SOMEBODY CAPTURE EVERY PACKET ON THE INTERNET AND KEEP A FILE. I MEAN, THERE'S JUST TOO MUCH DATA. IN THE TIME WE ARE SPEAKING THERE'S PROBABLY MORE DATA THAN YOU COULD FIT ON TO ANY HARD DRIVE IN EXISTENCE. BUT LINDELL HAD IT. HE PURCHASED IT FROM SOMEONE WHO'S NOT VERY REPUTABLE. BUT AGAIN, IT TURNS OUT IT WAS IN NO RECOGNIZABLE FORMAT, AND I WAS ABLE TO SHOW, GOING FILE BY FILE, SHOW THAT WHAT THE DATA ACTUALLY WAS, NONE OF IT WAS RELATED TO ELECTIONS.
>> [CHRIS HAYES] YEAH, I WANT TO JUST READ FROM THIS PIECE FROM THE WASHINGTON POST REPORTING THAT "THE FILES PROVIDED TO ZEIDMAN" -- YOU -- "AND OTHER EXPERTS WERE PRIMARILY TEXT OR PDF FILES. ZEIDMAN TESTIFIED THAT ONE WAS A FLOW CHART PURPORTING TO SHOW HOW ELECTIONS GENERALLY WORK. ANOTHER, WHEN UNENCRYPTED, WAS A LIST OF INTERNET IP ADDRESSES, AND OTHERS WERE ENORMOUS FILES OF WHAT APPEARED TO ZEIDMAN TO BE RANDOM NUMBERS AND LETTERS." NOW, YOU WRITE UP THE REPORT, AND THEN DID YOU THINK YOU WERE GOING TO, LIKE, HOW DID YOU THINK THIS WAS GOING TO WORK? WAS IT LIKE, A NOVELTY CHECK? WAS IT GOING TO BE A "PRICE IS RIGHT" KIND OF SITUATION? OR DO YOU THINK HE WOULD TRY TO STIFF YOU? WHAT WAS YOUR EXPECTATION?
>> [BOB ZEIDMAN] WELL, SO I REGISTERED A COPYRIGHT. I FILED MY REPORT WITH THE U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE. BECAUSE I FIGURED, WHETHER IT'S DONE ON PURPOSE OR ACCIDENTALLY, THE EVENT WAS FAIRLY DISORGANIZED. WE DIDN'T HAVE AN AGENDA. MOST OF THE TIME IT WAS LINDELL SPEAKING NONSTOP, WHERE HE WOULD INVITE PEOPLE UP, BUT DIDN'T GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO SPEAK. SO I THOUGHT THEY WOULD LOSE IT, AND THEN I WOULD CHALLENGE THEM THAT WAY. BUT INSTEAD, THEY ACTUALLY KEPT IT. IT GOT TO THE RIGHT PERSON. BUT THEY NEVER RESPONDED UNTIL I FOUND SOME LAWYERS TO TAKE MY CASE. AND WE WROTE TO LINDELL, AND THEY SAID, "OH NO, HE FAILED THE CHALLENGE," AND THEY SENT BACK A COUPLE OF PAGES OF EXPLANATION ABOUT WHY I FAILED THE CHALLENGE. I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO DETAIL NOW, BUT IT'S PRETTY LUDICROUS. AND I'M WRITING A BOOK ABOUT IT. BUT IT DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. SO THEN WE WENT TO ARBITRATION, AS REQUIRED BY THE AGREEMENT THAT I SIGNED. AND, YOU KNOW, THE ARBITRATORS DIDN'T BUY IT. BUT I WILL TELL YOU, EVEN THROUGH THE ARBITRATION -- I'VE BEEN THROUGH THE SYSTEM A LOT. I THINK THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM IS GREAT. IT'S BETTER THAN ANY OTHER IN THE WORLD. IT ALLOWS DAVID TO TAKE ON GOLIATH. BUT IT'S NOT PERFECT. AND I KNEW THAT THERE WAS A CHANCE THAT SOMEBODY COULD SAY, THEY DON'T LIKE ME, OR THERE WAS A LAW THAT SOMEBODY FINDS THAT I DIDN'T ADHERE TO THIS LAW. AND IN ARBITRATION IT'S A LITTLE BIT ARBITRARY, SO THEY CAN EVEN SAY THINGS OR MAKE JUDGMENTS THAT DON'T CONFORM TO THE LAW. SO I REALLY DIDN'T KNOW, UP UNTIL YESTERDAY, WHETHER I WAS GOING TO WIN. I KNEW THAT I SHOULD'VE WON. I KNEW THAT I'D MET THE CHALLENGE, BECAUSE THAT WAS EASY. BUT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER I WAS GOING TO BE AWARDED THE MONEY BY THE ARBITRATORS WAS A LITTLE UP IN THE AIR.
>> [CHRIS HAYES] WELL, YOU WERE. IT LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT BE THE FIRST CHAPTER IN A LONG BOOK, ONE WHICH YOU WILL BE WRITING. THANK YOU. THIS IS REALLY A WILD STORY. AND THANK YOU FOR SHARING WITH US TONIGHT, BOB.
[BOB ZEIDMAN] THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
******************************
Mike Lindell’s firm told to pay $5 million in ‘Prove Mike Wrong’ election-fraud challenge by Chris Dehghanpoor, Emma Brown and Jon Swaine The Washington Post Updated April 20, 2023 at 11:11 a.m. EDT|Published April 20, 2023 at 9:53 a.m. EDT
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
MyPillow founder and prominent election denier Mike Lindell made a bold offer ahead of a “cyber symposium” he held in August 2021 in South Dakota: He claimed he had data showing Chinese interference and said he would pay $5 million to anyone who could prove the material was not from the previous year’s U.S. election.
He called the challenge “Prove Mike Wrong.”
On Wednesday, a private arbitration panel ruled that someone did.
The panel said Robert Zeidman, a computer forensics expert and 63-year-old Trump voter from Nevada, was entitled to the $5 million payout.
Zeidman had examined Lindell’s data and concluded that not only did it not prove voter fraud, it also had no connection to the 2020 election. He was the only expert who submitted a claim, arbitration records show.
He turned to the arbitrators after Lindell Management, which created the contest, refused to pay him.
In their 23-page decision, the arbitrators said Zeidman proved that Lindell’s material “unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data.” They directed Lindell’s firm to pay Zeidman within 30 days.
In a statement to The Washington Post, Zeidman said he was “really happy” with the arbitrators’ decision. “They clearly saw this as I did — that the data we were given at the symposium was not at all what Mr. Lindell said it was,” he said. “The truth is finally out there.”
Zeidman’s attorney, Brian Glasser, said the panel’s decision stands as a warning to others who have made wild allegations about election fraud. “I think the arbitrators thought it important that these claims be vetted, because they’ve done great harm to our country,” he said.
Computer forensics entrepreneur Robert Zeidman. (Courtesy of Robert Zeidman)
Lindell said in a text to The Post: “They made a terribly wrong decision! This will be going to court!” His attorneys did not reply to a request seeking comment.
A copy of contest rules submitted in the arbitration said disputes would be “resolved exclusively by final and binding arbitration” and noted that arbitration “is subject to very limited review by courts.”
Glasser said the panel’s decision cannot be directly appealed but that Lindell could ask a federal court to quash it on the basis that it represented a “manifest injustice.” The statutory grounds for such a claim are narrow, and it is “extremely rare” for such a claim to succeed, according to Glasser.
Lindell also faces a $1.3 billion defamation suit from Dominion Voting Systems and a defamation lawsuit from one of Dominion’s former executives.
In the months after Trump’s 2020 election loss, Lindell spent millions of dollars to finance lawsuits, support right-wing activists nationwide and launch a streaming television station dedicated to amplifying election-fraud falsehoods.
During frequent media appearances, he had advertised his three-day symposium as the event where he would finally provide data proving his claims. And he issued his high-stakes challenge.
“There’s a $5 million prize for anybody that can prove the election data that I have from the 2020 election was false, is not from the 2020 election,” Lindell said on the conservative show “The Glazov Gang,” which streams online.
The data he planned to reveal, he said, were “packet captures” that would demonstrate Chinese government interference. Packet captures, or “pcaps,” are a specific file format that is an industry standard for archiving internet traffic.
“They were captured in real time and preserved. They cannot be altered. … They’re 100 percent evidence,” Lindell said on the show. “So it will show an intrusion. This was an attack from China.”
The symposium, he later told arbitrators, was meant to “do three things: to make the media show up, cyber guys show up, and politicians to open their eyes and say, ‘Hey, we got to check into this.’”
Lindell’s claims that he had packet captures intrigued Zeidman, who has served as an expert for tech firms in intellectual property lawsuits. Describing himself as a “reasonable” and “moderate conservative” who voted twice for Donald Trump, Zeidman told the arbitration panel he was skeptical of Lindell’s claims. But he said he also did not believe Lindell would promote unvetted data, so he thought the conference could offer a “great chance to see history in the making, perhaps an election overturned.”
At the event, Zeidman received the contest rules. There was no mention of disproving Chinese interference, according to contest forms submitted in the arbitration case. Rather, winners would have to prove that the data provided “does NOT reflect information related to the November 2020 election.”
(Obtained by The Washington Post)
Prove Mike Wrong Challenge Official Rules
1. Overview. Lindell Management, LLC. ("Lindell") has created a contest where participants will participate in a challenge to prove that the data Lindell provides, and represents reflects information from the November 2020 election, unequivocally does NOT reflect information related to the November 2020 election (the "Challenge"). In case more than one person is found to have met the ...
6. Winners. The winners will be determined on August 12, 2021 by 9:00 pm CDT. The three-member panel selected by Lindell will identify the winners based on their professional opinion that the submission proves to a 100% degree of certainty that the data shown at the Symposium is not reflective of November 2020 election data. If more than one winner is selected, the $5 million prize will ...
At the symposium, participants interested in the contest were given a badge with a hot-pink dot to indicate they were cyber experts and could enter a room where Lindell’s data was shared.
The files provided to Zeidman and other experts were primarily text or PDF files. Zeidman testified that one was a flow chart purporting to show how elections generally work. Another, when unencrypted, was a list of internet IP addresses, and others were enormous files of what appeared to Zeidman to be random numbers and letters.
The packet captures that Lindell had promised were nowhere to be found, according to Zeidman.
Zeidman laid out his findings in a 15-page report. “I have proven that the data Lindell provides … unequivocally does not contain packet data of any kind and do not contain any information related to the November 2020 election,” he wrote.
Six weeks after the symposium, Zeidman sent a letter to Lindell Management to claim the prize. He got back a denial, and the following month he filed for arbitration, a type of proceeding that allows parties to resolve disputes outside the court system.
The private arbitration proceedings in Lindell’s home state of Minnesota included written briefs, depositions and a three-day hearing in January with sworn testimony from Zeidman, Lindell, subject-matter experts and witnesses. The Post obtained records from the proceeding.
Asked why he had decided to go to the trouble of seeking a hearing, Zeidman testified that he wanted the money and wanted to push back against stolen-election claims. “Mr. Lindell has a lot of followers,” Zeidman said. “He’s making a lot of statements to people that I know, people that are good friends of mine, people that are influential. And they are claiming that he has the data that shows that this election was stolen.”
Zeidman’s lawyers wrote to the panel that the data presented at the symposium contained “no recognizable data in any known data format.”
Lindell testified at arbitration that he did not share what he had described as his key data to support the foreign intrusion claim during the conference. He held off, he said, after a man seeking a selfie poked him in the side as the symposium was nearing an end — an act that Lindell called an assault and said he took as a signal the government might tamper with his central information if he made it public.
Lindell told the panel that, after the incident, his “red team” advisers warned him against making that information public. “They said it could be a poison pill put in the data and we really shouldn’t release the China stuff,” he said.
The arbitrators did not address the substance of Lindell’s claims about vote tampering, noting that they were “not asked to decide whether China interfered in the 2020 election.”
Blame Rupert Murdoch and Fox for Iraq, Trump, and The Big Lie by Mehdi Hasan MSNBC Apr 20, 2023 #RupertMurdoch #FOXNews #TheBigLie
"Three of the most destructive events of my lifetime -- the Iraq war, the Brexit vote, and the rise of Trump and his Big Lie simply could not have happened without Rupert Murdoch." In this week's deep dive, Mehdi examines the influence that Rupert Murdoch and his media empire have had on decades of global events.
Transcript
[Mehdi Hasan] Back in 2005, or was it 2006, I was a young TV news producer working at Sky News in London, then part of the Rupert Murdoch media Empire. And one day, Rupert Murdoch himself, turns up in the Newsroom in West London for a visit. We're sitting at our desks, frozen in fear, as the big boss, the media Mogul himself, wanders the Newsroom floor, looking over our shoulders, as we work at our computers. Imagine my surprise, nearly two decades later, to see this scene in the critically acclaimed HBO drama, and my favorite TV show, Succession.
[Man 1] Hey hey hey hey hey, so, uh, so Logan said --
[Tom Wambsgans] Logan's in? Where? Upstairs? In a sales meeting?
[Man 1] He's on the floor, Tom.
[Tom Wambsgans] On the floor?
[Man 3] Wait. Explain exactly what he's doing with his body and his face?
[Man 1] I don't know. Just moseying, terrifyingly moseying. He's wearing sunglasses inside. It looks like if Santa Claus was a hitman.
[Mehdi Hasan] Yes, Logan Roy, the cynical ruthless media billionaire -- and spoiler alert -- until very recently, until his shocking on-screen death, the lead character on Succession, who bears a, shall we say, passing resemblance to the very real life, and very alive, cynical, ruthless media billionaire Rupert Murdoch.
Now the writers of Succession like to say the Roys are not based on the Murdochs, or only on the Murdochs. But it's hard not to see the similarities between Logan and family, and Rupert and family: an immigrant who comes to America, and builds a media empire. Check. In charge of a right-wing, scandal-plagued cable channel. Check. Bent on picking Presidents, and dominating politics. Check. Three super ambitious squabbling kids from a second marriage, all trying to succeed him. I mean, here's Logan Roy addressing the staff of his news organization, ATN, in a recent episode, standing on boxes of paper to do so. And here's Rupert Murdoch addressing the staff of one of his news organizations, The Wall Street Journal, back in 2007.
Or just compare and contrast, as many have, Murdoch testifying in front of a British parliamentary Committee in 2011 over a scandal involving his media empire, and Logan Roy and his son testifying in front of Congress over a scandal involving his fictitious media empire.
[Rupert Murdoch] This is the most humble day of my life.
[Logan Roy] When I read of the abuses of power alleged in my cruise division, well, that was the worst day of my life."
[Congressman] So none of your UK staff drew your attention to this serious wrongdoing, even though the case received widespread media attention?
[Rupert Murdoch] I think my son can perhaps answer that in more detail. He was a lot closer to it.
[Congressman] Mr. Logan Roy, what did you personally know about the operation of a system of obfuscation of wrongdoing in your cruise division by means of the keeping of shadow logs?
[Logan Roy] At that point I believe my son was across that operation.
[Mehdi Hasan] With Murdoch, as with Logan Roy, it's all about the ego, the power, the influence.
[Australian Broadcasting Corporation] You like the feeling of power you have as a newspaper proprietor, of being able to, sort of, formulate policies for a large number of newspapers in every state of Australia?
[Rupert Murdoch] Well, [inaudible] yes.
[Logan Roy] I'm 100 feet tall. These people are pygmies.
[Mehdi Hasan] It's the power of Rupert Murdoch, and the sheer power of Murdoch, to do damage to our politics, our media, our world which is what I want to discuss and examine today. Because as we've just seen this week, Rupert Murdoch narrowly escaped testifying publicly in the case brought against Fox by Dominion voting systems. In a major anti-climax, Dominion agreed to settle with Fox just moments before opening arguments were set to begin in court on Tuesday, leaving Fox with a $787.5 million dollar hole in their pocket -- a seemingly huge number -- but in the context of the $14 billion dollars in Revenue that they got last year, it's just 5.%.
And Fox, the quote unquote "news channel," is of course, just a sliver of the massive media Empire beneath Rupert Murdoch, an Empire with a footprint on three continents: hundreds of print TV and publishing outlets, and billions of dollars in profits, that all started when Rupert's father, Keith Murdoch, an Australian journalist and newspaper publisher, left him his company, "News Limited," after his death.
Taking over the business in his early 20s, the younger Murdoch spent the next decade buying up small papers across Australia before making the leap into the British and American markets. Today he's the man behind names like the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post in the U.S.; The Times and the Sun in the UK; The Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph in Australia; International publishing giant Harper-Collins; and of course Fox.
The list goes on and on. It's staggering to see just how much influence Murdoch has in the U.S., let alone on a global scale. And if Succession has taught us anything, it's that rich and powerful people will put that influence to use. And Murdoch, for one, doesn't hide this. He's been meeting with, and lobbying presidents for decades, going as far back as JFK, who he met in the Oval Office in 1961; and Ronald Reagan, who invited him to dinner -- a dinner so enthralling, The Washington Post reports, that the President himself fell asleep.
And then there was Donald Trump, not really known as a hugger, who seemed to make an exception for Rupert Murdoch. But it wasn't just hugs and golf outings -- Trump is the one chauffeuring Murdoch around the golf course in this video -- but also frequent Oval Office phone calls, as the New Yorker reported in 2019.
And it's not just U.S. presidents he's met with. He's met with prime ministers around the world, too, like Margaret Thatcher in the UK, and John Howard in Australia. Murdoch's influence on politics is hard to overstate. But don't just take it from me. Take it from former Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, on this very show.
[Kevin Rudd] In the last 21 federal and state elections, over the last decade in Australia, in each and every one of them, Murdoch has acted as a relentless campaigning beast for the conservative side of politics, and increasingly drifting the agenda on the right to the far right. These two things together: monopoly, plus an overwhelming ideological bias to the far right, frankly is a big challenge, and a threat to the vibrancy of our own democracy.
[Mehdi Hasan] The fact of the matter here is that Murdoch doesn't just have the power to settle lawsuits. He has the power to move world events, almost always, in my view, in a negative and harmful way. I mean, as we'll demonstrate today, three of the most destructive events of my lifetime: Iraq war; the Brexit vote; and the rise of Trump and his Big Lie, simply could not have happened without Rupert Murdoch.
Let's go back 20 years. The US invasion of Iraq began with a campaign of bombings known as Shock and Awe, and as U.S. and Coalition troops prepared to enter harm's way on March the 20th, 2003, some of the people responsible for the war were watching from a safe distance, thousands of miles away. As David Kirkpatrick reported in the New York Times, "He watched the explosions over Baghdad on a panel of seven television screens mounted in the wall ... telling friends and colleagues over the phone of his satisfaction that after weeks of a hand-wringing the battle had finally begun."
"The battle had finally begun." Now you could be forgiven for thinking this was an account from the White House Situation Room where George Bush, and Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld, spent plenty of time in those early days of the Iraq War. But according to the Times, the scene, with those seven monitors, was actually at Fox headquarters in LA. And the guy sharing his satisfaction with friends and colleagues was Rupert Murdoch.
You can understand why he was satisfied. He had used all his power and influence to make it happen. The New York Times even called it "Mr. Murdoch's War." For months his vast media organization agitated for Invasion. The Guardian newspaper examined 175 Murdoch owned papers in the run-up to war. Coincidentally -- completely coincidentally -- all of them supported the invasion. There was one hold out in Tasmania, but It ultimately fell into line with its corporate cousins, too. But sure, there was no pressure from the top there!
"I think that all our papers are certainly supportive of the Armed Forces," Murdoch told the New York Times in the spring of 2003. "But that is not me calling the editors." No! Just coincidence!
"How lucky can Murdoch get!" the Guardian observed. "He hires 175 editors and, by remarkable coincidence, they all seem to love the nation which their boss has chosen as his own."
But there was no pretense of separation between Murdoch and his cable channel, Fox. "When Mr. Murdoch is in New York during major news events, as he was during the first full week of the war, he attends the 8 A.M. meetings of the producers of Fox News, sometimes two or three times a week, a Fox executive told the Times."
And this is what Murdoch's Network looked like back then.
[Fox News] Coalition forces are cutting to Iraqi defenses quickly.
[Fox News] Today they are tasting freedom.
[Fox News] Well it may be too early to say, "we told you so," but if the tests are accurate, the U.S. may have just found its smoking gun.
[Fox News] Our president, the man they call their liberator.
[Sean Hannity] By golly, he has done a pretty great job here.
[Fox News] OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM
[Mehdi Hasan] Yes, they really had theme music, and an animation where a fighter jet turns into a bald eagle. There was also the American flag constantly waving on the screen, there were the repeated descriptions of American forces as liberators, and the constant fear-mongering about fictitious WMDs. There were attacks on other reporters who dared to report on setbacks in the war effort.
But it wasn't just Murdoch's media Empire that was turned towards the push for war. Sometimes it takes a personal touch. In the final days before the invasion, British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had still not publicly committed to taking part in the invasion -- at least, not on the timeline that the U.S. wanted. On the night of March the 11th, 2003, according to the diary of a top Blair aid, he got a call from Rupert Murdoch. As the Independent Newspaper notes, "A later inquiry says that Downing Street has no record of this call, implying that the Tycoon did not need to go through the Downing Street switchboard. According to the diary, kept by Blair spin doctor, Alistair Campbell, Murdoch was pressing on timing, saying how News International would support us, etc. "Both Tony Blair and I felt it was prompted by Washington, and another example of their over-crude diplomacy."
Murdoch later called it rubbish to suggest he was lobbying for war on behalf of U.S. Republicans. But still this account suggests that Murdoch had a direct line to the British prime minister -- no need to go through the switchboard.
But you don't even have to take the word of Tony Blair's aid. Because Murdoch was also making the case for war himself, in public. "We can't back down now, where you hand over the whole of the Middle East to Saddam. I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly," he said ahead of the invasion.
And he continued to defend the war, even as casualties mounted, and WMDs were nowhere to be found. In the fall of 2006, he told reporters, "The death toll, certainly of Americans there, by the terms of any previous war, are quite minute." Maybe not surprising that Murdoch's longtime rival, CNN founder Ted Turner, talking about Iraq, once called Murdoch a "warmonger."
But why was Rupert Murdoch so big on the Iraq war effort to begin with? Was it his love for democracy in the Middle East, his Devotion to the neo-conservative political project, or was it just good for business?
Fox's Prime Time ratings were up 45% the year of the invasion: the unseated cable news longtime rival CNN. That translated into revenue which more than doubled during peak war coverage.
There was real money to be made from the illegal Invasion, for everyone. Murdoch told an Australian magazine in 2003, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 dollars a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country."
Yeah, cheaper oil! Talk about quiet part out loud.
Whatever his motivations, Rupert Murdoch helped make that war happen. As even the right-wing editor of the Daily Mail once said, "I'm not sure that the Blair government, or Tony Blair, would have been able to take the British people to war if it hadn't been for the implacable support provided by the Murdoch papers. There's no doubt that came from Mr. Murdoch himself."
But you don't have to take a Murdoch rival's word for it. You could listen to Murdoch.
[Davos, Switzerland, WEF] Have you shaped that agenda at all, in terms of perceptions of the war, in terms of how the war is viewed?
[Rupert Murdoch] No, I don't think so. I mean, we've tried. [Laughter]
[Davos, Switzerland, WEF] "Tried" in what way?
[Rupert Murdoch] Well, we basically supported -- our papers and television, I would say supported the Bush policy in the Middle East.
[Mehdi Hasan] I've said it before on this show, the original Big Lie was the WMD lie. And almost two decades before Murdoch's Fox was pushing Trump's big election lie -- which I'll get to in a moment -- it was pushing George Bush's big Iraq lie about weapons of mass destruction. And as with the election lie, their viewers, back then, believed it!
A 2003 survey found that 80% of regular Fox viewers believe something demonstrably false about the WMD-based war effort. And the facts never actually did catch up with them. Even in 2015, 12 years after the invasion, a survey found that more than half of Fox viewers thought the WMDs were discovered in Iraq! They weren't! But that's the sheer power of Murdoch's propaganda.
So let's turn now to Brexit, the UK's decision to leave the European Union. Since that pivotal vote in 2016, the UK has seen no less than four prime ministers resign, and utter havoc unleashed on the British economy, and the undermining of the European Union at a time when domestic far-right populists are on the rise, and Vladimir Putin's expansionist Russia is at the doorstep.
And yet Brexit almost didn't happen. The "leave" side, the pro-Brexit side, won the 2016 referendum by less than four percentage points, with 51.9% of citizens voting to leave, and 48.1% voting to remain.
So how is it that the British public could make such a self-sabotaging decision by such a narrow margin? As we saw with the Iraq War, Murdoch played a crucial role, beginning with that personal touch. Again, don't just take it from me, take it from a former conservative prime minister of the UK in the 1990s, John Major. Here he is recounting, years later, a conversation with Murdoch that he had at a dinner during his 1997 election campaign.
[John Major] Mr. Murdoch said that he really didn't like our European policies. If we couldn't change our European policies, his papers could not, and would not, support the conservative government. My feeling -- and he did not say this -- my feeling was that what he was edging towards was a referendum on leaving the European Union.
[Mehdi Hasan] Of Murdoch's four British papers at the time, only one ended up supporting John Major in 1997.
Fast forward to 2016, and Murdoch wasn't just "edging" towards Brexit, he was bolting for it, bolting with the help of his hard right tabloid the Sun newspaper, the most widely read print newspaper in all of the UK. And the Sun did far more than throw out some cheeky pro-Brexit headlines. Their parent company, News Group Newspapers, actually registered themselves with the UK's electoral commission as an official "Leave EU" campaign Group, after spending more than 96,000 pounds on the Sun's "Believe in Britain" posters. That's right. Murdoch's news organization doubled down as a pro-Brexit lobbying group, as one does when they are pursuing the most basic standards of "journalistic integrity."
It didn't stop there. There were also the false claims. The Sun published a story about migrants from Europe found in the back of a truck, a supposed instance of Europeans flooding the UK under the EU's "Freedom of Movement" laws, except the Sun had to issue a correction after social media users pointed out that those migrants weren't from Europe, they were from Iraq and Kuwait. The Sun ran this headline claiming "Queen Backs Brexit," a claim disputed by the Queen. And an independent press watchdog later condemned the headline as "significantly misleading."
Now, you could say that the Sun is just a newspaper, a tabloid, a couple of sheets of paper with words stamped onto them. How much impact could it really have on public opinion? Well, let me take you to the city of Liverpool. You see, by chance, a lot of the people in Liverpool don't read the Sun. That's because the paper wrongly blamed local football fans, soccer fans, for an incident at a match in 1989. So many residents since have basically boycotted the Sun because of that awful coverage of the Hillsborough tragedy.
So, in Liverpool, researchers found that residents were 10% less Eurosceptic than the rest of the UK. It also found that Liverpool residents' views of the EU improved significantly as a result of the newspaper, the Sun, boycott.
Of course, correlation does not mean causation. The Sun was not the only tabloid to be overwhelmingly pro-Brexit at the time. But it's impossible to deny that the Sun has had a clear impact on British opinion.
Now, question: why did Murdoch care so much about Brexit, getting Brexit done, to begin with? Perhaps he was bothered by the alleged lack of democracy in the EU, or the supposed attack on UK National sovereignty -- though he's not even a British citizen. Well, Evening Standard reporter, Anthony Hilton, says he once asked Murdoch why he was so anti-Europe? And he says Murdoch replied, "When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice."
Wow!
Now, Murdoch denies ever having said that, but we do know that he's long been critical of EU regulations -- in fact, most regulations. And we do know that Brexit made him, and his media empire, stronger, while making his opponents, his critics, weaker. Just another coincidence!
But if you think Murdoch's role in Iraq, or Brexit, was bad, now it's time to talk Trump, Trumpism, and the Big Lie. Rupert Murdoch was deeply involved in the biggest political event of our lifetimes: the rise of Donald J Trump. All roads lead back to him, and to Fox. Again.
Now I know what you're thinking: Maybe the Fox News quote unquote "stood up" to Trump back in 2016. Former Fox star, Megyn Kelly, was famously clashing with the Donald back then. And Rupert Murdoch went so far as to refer to Trump as "an idiot." But these are Minor Details, because the fact is Fox, for many years, in advance of 2016, laid the groundwork for Trump's presidential victory. Fox built a conservative audience enraged and agitated by "birther" conspiracies, and anti-immigrant sentiment. They primed millions of viewers to care about ridiculous non-issues that Donald Trump would successfully exploit during his first primary campaign, and then general election campaign.
Not to mention the fact that starting in 2011, Fox literally gave then-private-citizen, then-businessman Donald Trump, free air time every week with his own recurring segment, "Mondays with Trump."
[Fox Mondays With Trump] Bold, brash, and never bashful. The Donald now makes his voice loud and clear every Monday on Fox.
[Donald Trump] My message is a better message than anybody else.
[Fox Mondays With Trump] Monday Mornings With Trump, on Fox and Friends.
[Fox News Reporter] If you were in charge of this super committee, what would happen?
[Donald Trump] Well, first of all, there would have been no "Super Committee." This should have been a deal made between the President -- if he was a proper leader, which he's not.
[Fox News Reporter to young boy] Do you know who this guy is, right here?
[Boy] Donald Trump?
[Fox News Reporter to young boy] Yeah, that's right. [Laughter]
[Donald Trump] I called Steve. And I said, you know, I just saw the nicest guy on television, and his bike was stolen -- and you knew about the report -- and I said, "Let's get him a new bike, get him a beauty."
[Mehdi Hasan] Fox contributed to the myth of Donald Trump way before he became candidate Trump. And after he took the Republican nomination, they basically became his propaganda arm. And once he took the White House, they morphed into State TV.
[Lou Dobbs, Fox News] America has always been a country that seems to get lucky. And we are lucky to have Donald Trump step up for the most important job in this country.
[Judge Jeanine Pirro] The whole idea to say that women who support Trump are numbor dead inside! How dare you trash the women in this country!
[Fox News] A majority of veterans and service members, giving high marks to President Trump.
[Fox News] The most extraordinary, wonderful thing today, was nominating President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
[Sean Hannity] Joe Biden just got steamrolled by President Trump.
[Mehdi Hasan] Then comes 2020, when Trump lost his re-election bid, and Fox and Murdoch had a moment of opportunity to break with Trump, the man Murdoch once called "an idiot." They had the chance to say, "You lost. We're done with you, now let's move on." And yet, even while bashing Trump in private, Fox hosts and guests still pushed the Big Lie on their shows, which is why Fox was in court this week with Dominion voting systems.
And not just Fox hosts. Rupert Murdoch himself, in private, was calling out Trump lies. In an email to Fox CEO Suzanne Scott, revealed in the Dominion filings, Murdoch suggested Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham, together, say something like, "the election is over, and Joe Biden won." Going so far as to call Trump's election narrative "a myth."
After January the 6th, Murdoch wrote in this email, to Suzanne Scott, "Trump insisting on the election being stolen, and convincing 25% of Americans, was a huge disservice to the country. Pretty much a crime. Inevitable it blew up on January 6th."
But when asked in his Dominion deposition whether he could have told a host -- his own hosts -- "stop putting Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani, on the air," he answered, quote, "I could have, but I didn't."
So if Murdoch thought his hosts were going too far with their support for the Big Lie, if he had the power to stop them, why did Murdoch's Network continue to push pro-Trump, Pro Big-Lie content to its audience? Not because Murdoch respects Trump. Not because Murdoch believed in the Big Lie. He didn't. But he does believe in ratings.
"A big message with Trump people" -- that's the reason he gave when demanding the firing of the Fox journalists who had accurately -- accurately -- called the key State of Arizona for Joe Biden on Election night. Murdoch emailed Scott, Suzanne Scott, to voice concern about losing viewers to far-right cable channel Newsmax. And the Fox chairman also admitted to former house Speaker Paul Ryan, a Fox Board member, that his star primetime host, Sean Hannity, had been privately disgusted by Trump for weeks, but was scared to lose viewers.
Once again, the number one priority for Rupert Murdoch, and his media empire, was not telling the truth about Trump, or the election -- it was their bottom line. And don't just take my word for it. Take his! In his Dominion deposition, Murdoch told lawyers, "Nobody wants Trump as an enemy," because, as Murdoch said, "if Trump says don't watch Fox News, maybe some don't." Yeah "Profile-In-Courage" there, Rupert!
Look. On TV Succession, Logan Roy may now be dead, but in the real world, Rupert Murdoch is very much alive, having beaten COVID in his 90s, beaten a broken back in his 80s, and even beaten cancer in his 60s, after which he famously declared, "I'm now convinced of my own immortality."
This week Murdoch beat Dominion. He did. Don't think paying $787 million is a defeat for Murdoch. No, he dodged accountability. Again. He dodged having to take the witness box, and testify under oath. Again.
As media critic Jack Shafer writes in a piece this week for Politico, headlined, "Rupert Wins Again," quote, "ever since Rupert Murdoch busted out of Adelaide, Australia, ever since he conquered the newspaper market in England, ever since he came to dominate cable news with Fox, he's paid his way out of jams. It's all a part of Murdoch's way of doing business."
Shafer calls Murdoch "indestructible." Which is both true, and ironic. Because he may be indestructible, but he's helped cause so much destruction. From the killing fields of Iraq, to the chaos of Brexit Britain, to the Big Lie and the insurrection here in the United States. All in the service not of principle, or even ideology. But for the sake of power and money.
Once again, you don't have to take my word for it. When asked in his Dominion deposition why Fox continued to give a platform to the pillow guy and conspiracy theorist, Mike Lindell, even after January the 6th, Rupert Murdock agreed with the Dominion lawyers that his approach is not red or blue, it's green.
Letter from Fani T. Willis to Patrick Labat, Sheriff of Fulton County Re the need for heightened security and preparedness in coming months due to this pending announcement. by Fani T. Willis, District Attorney April 24, 2023
OFFICE OF THE FULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY ATLANTA JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 136 PRYOR STREET SW, 3RD FLOOR ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 TELEPHONE 404-612-4980
April 24, 2023
Fani T. Willis District Attorney
Via Hand Delivery
Hon. Patrick Labat Sheriff of Fulton County 185 Central Avenue, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303
Via Hand Delivery
Dear Sheriff Labat:
My staff and I greatly appreciate the efforts you have made to increase security at the Fulton County Courthouse. While these efforts have addressed security needs related to several high-profile trials and investigations, as we have discussed, the need for vigilance will increase.
In the near future, I will announce charging decisions resulting from the investigation my office has been conducting into possible criminal interference in the administration of Georgia’s 2020 General Election. I am providing this letter to bring to your attention the need for heightened security and preparedness in coming months due to this pending announcement.
Open-source intelligence has indicated the announcement of decisions in this case may provoke a significant public reaction. We have seen in recent years that some may go outside of public expressions of opinion that are protected by the First Amendment to engage in acts of violence that will endanger the safety our community. As leaders, it is incumbent upon us to prepare.
I will be announcing charging decisions resulting from this investigation during Fulton County Superior Court’s fourth term of court, which will begin on July 11, 2023, and conclude on September 1, 2023. Please accept this correspondence as notice to allow you sufficient time to prepare the Sheriff's Office and coordinate with local, state and federal agencies to ensure that our law enforcement community is ready to protect the public.
As your strategic planning process begins, collaboration with my investigative leadership team is vital. My team will be in touch in coming days to set up appropriate conversations.
My staff and I are grateful for the work of the Sheriff's Office in ensuring the safety of the public during this time. Thank you for your efforts, and we look forward to working with you.
Yours in Service,
Fani T. Willis Fulton County District Attorney Atlanta Judicial Circuit
cc: Hon. Robb Pitts Hon. Khadijah Abdur-Rahman Hon. Marvin S. Arrington Jr. Hon. Dana Barrett Hon. Bob Ellis Hon. Natalie Hall Hon. Bridget Thorne Hon. Robert McBurney Mr. Dick Anderson Mr. Alton Adams Ms. Che Alexander Ms. Harriett Thomas Mr. Fred Hoffman Ms. Dorsha Simmons Ms. Anita Harris Mr. Preston Thompson Ms. Pamela Lyons-Johnson Mr. Edward Leidelmeijer
