Donald Trump has been indicted.

Post Reply New Topic

He made a lot of news before he went for President. Not as much, obviously, but a lot. America loves a loud and abrasive character that seems to be able to back up at least some of their bluster, and puts themselves out there with no reservations. I remain a bit sad at the loss of his celebrity businessman role, which may surprise people. There was no reason for most of us to hate him, we could just sit back and watch the reality TV show that was his real life (and the one that was an actual TV show). Why did he have to go and mess it up by trying to do something that matters?

The ONLY reason he got in was due to the corruption of the Political Aristocracy on BOTH sides.

That's not true. He got elected by people who are cartoonishly hateful of their fellow citizens - it was a perfect match for his ridiculous campaign.

Oh, and why he tried to do something that matters? Ego/narcissism.

Prosecutors in New York City on Monday asked the judge overseeing the criminal case against former President Donald Trump to seek additional information from one of Trump's attorneys who they believe may have a potential conflict of interest in the case.

Trump's defense team includes Joe Tacopina, a lawyer Daniels once considered hiring as her attorney, and the Manhattan district attorney's office said Tacopina's representations so far are insufficient.

"[T]he People request that the Court make certain additional inquiries of Mr. Tacopina and conduct a Gomberg inquiry of the defendant," executive assistant district attorney Susan Hoffinger wrote in a letter to the court, referring to a hearing that would establish that Trump knowingly opts to continue with Tacopina as his attorney notwithstanding any conflict.

Trump affirmed at his arraignment he wanted to move forward with Tacopina on his legal team, but Hoffinger said a full hearing would be needed.

She has asked the judge order Tacopina to turn over any records of his firm's communications with Daniels, and to disclose the extent to which he may have shared any information from Daniels with Trump.

The potential conflict was raised by Daniels' current attorney, Clark Brewster, who said in a letter to the Manhattan district attorney's office that Daniels had a 2018 conversation with Tacopina and attorneys at his firm about them potentially representing her.

A federal judge has denied Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's request to block a congressional subpoena for a former prosecutor in Bragg's office who investigated former President Donald Trump.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil on Wednesday declined to enjoin the subpoena for testimony about Trump's indictment, clearing the way for Mark Pomerantz to be interviewed privately Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee.

Pomerantz was a special assistant district attorney who resigned in 2022 over Bragg's unwillingness to pursue a case against Trump. After Pomerantz left Bragg's office, he wrote a memoir about his experience, telling ABC News in February he felt "strongly you do have to apply the same legal standards to everyone, regardless of your president or pauper."

A federal judge has denied Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's request to block a congressional subpoena for a former prosecutor in Bragg's office who investigated former President Donald Trump.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil on Wednesday declined to enjoin the subpoena for testimony about Trump's indictment, clearing the way for Mark Pomerantz to be interviewed privately Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee.

Pomerantz was a special assistant district attorney who resigned in 2022 over Bragg's unwillingness to pursue a case against Trump. After Pomerantz left Bragg's office, he wrote a memoir about his experience, telling ABC News in February he felt "strongly you do have to apply the same legal standards to everyone, regardless of your president or pauper."

Bragg's office immediately said it was seeking a stay of the judge's decision.

prosecution
"In our federalist system, elected state and federal actors sometimes engage in political dogfights," Vyskocil said in her ruling. "The Court does not endorse either side's agenda. The sole question before the Court at this time is whether Bragg has a legal basis to quash a congressional subpoena that was issued with a valid legislative purpose. He does not."

"It is not the role of the federal judiciary to dictate what legislation Congress may consider or how it should conduct its deliberations in that connection. Mr. Pomerantz must appear for the congressional deposition. No one is above the law," Vyskocil's decision said.

The judge urged Bragg and Jordan to "reach a mutually agreeable compromise" about the deposition of Pomerantz, which is scheduled for 10 a.m. Thursday in Washington, D.C.

The New York state judge presiding over the criminal hush money case against Donald Trump issued an order Monday restricting the former president from posting about some evidence in the case on social media.

Judge Juan Merchan largely sided with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg by limiting what Trump can publicly disclose about new evidence from the prosecution before the case goes to trial.

The order says that "any materials and information provided by the People to the Defense in accordance with their discovery obligations ... shall be used solely for the purposes of preparing a defense in this matter."

Merchan's order said anyone with access to the evidence being turned over to Trump's team by state prosecutors “shall not copy, disseminate or disclose” the material to third parties, including social media platforms, “without prior approval from the court."

It also singles out Trump, saying he is allowed to review sensitive "Limited Dissemination Materials" from prosecutors only in the presence of his lawyers and "shall not be permitted to copy, photograph, transcribe, or otherwise independently possess the Limited Dissemination Materials."

In addition, the order restricts Trump from reviewing "forensic images of witness cell phones," although his lawyers can show him "approved portions" of the images after they get permission from the judge.

The ruling largely tracks with the DA’s office request for a protective order, which Trump's attorneys had complained was “extremely restrictive.”

Prosecutors had argued they needed “safeguards that will protect the integrity of the materials,” saying the “risk” that Trump would use them “inappropriately is substantial.”

“Donald J. Trump has a longstanding and perhaps singular history of attacking witnesses, investigators, prosecutors, trial jurors, grand jurors, judges, and others involved in legal proceedings against him, putting those individuals and their families at considerable safety risk,” the DA's office argued in a court filing last month.

Prosecutors had stressed they were not seeking a gag order against Trump, a 2024 presidential candidate — they just wanted to make sure he did not misuse their evidence.

“Defendant has a constitutional right to speak publicly about this case, and the People do not seek to infringe upon that right,” their filing said.

Trump's lawyers argued in a filing last week that the DA's proposed order would do exactly that.

Former President Donald Trump was ordered by a Manhattan Supreme Court Judge to submit to a meeting giving him instructions on how to comply with an order restricting him from using evidence in his criminal case to attack witnesses, reported the Associated Press on Thursday.

"Judge Juan Manuel Merchan scheduled the hybrid hearing — the former president on a TV screen, his lawyers and prosecutors in court — to go over the restrictions with Trump and to make clear that he risks being held in contempt if he violates them," reported Michael R. Sisak. "The case is continuing in state court even as Trump’s lawyers seek to have it moved to federal court. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who is considering the transfer request, issued an order this week setting paperwork deadlines and a hearing for late June."

"Merchan, still in charge while that drama plays out, agreed to instruct Trump on the rules by video, rather than in person, after a prosecutor reminded him last week that bringing Trump to court would present mammoth security and logistical challenges," said the report.

A former prosecutor who once oversaw the Manhattan District Attorney Office’s investigation into former President Donald Trump frustrated House Republicans on Friday by repeatedly saying during a deposition that he would not answer their questions about the DA's probe.

Mark Pomerantz spent roughly six hours with members of the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's prosecution of Trump.

In a his opening statement, obtained by NBC News, Pomerantz blasted the inquiry as “political theater” and condemned the panel's use of a subpoena to compel his participation.

“This deposition is for show,” Pomerantz said. “We are gathered here because Donald Trump’s supporters would like to use these proceedings to attempt to obstruct and undermine the criminal case pending against him, and to harass, intimidate, and discredit anyone who investigates or charges him.”

Pomerantz also said it would be improper for him to provide information about an ongoing investigation.

“This is neither the time nor place for me to answer questions about the investigation or the pending indictment over the objection of the prosecutors.”

Republicans fumed after the deposition.

Rep. Darrell Issa of California criticized what he called Pomerantz’s lack of cooperation. He told reporters that instead of answering questions, Pomerantz invoked his Fifth Amendment right.

“I’ve never had a more obstructive and less cooperative witness in my over 20 years in Congress,” Issa said.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., similarly said that the committee was “not getting many answers.”

Jordan subpoenaed Pomerantz for his testimony in April, shortly after Trump was indicted on charges stemming from payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels and another woman during the closing days of the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Jordan said Pomerantz’s previous role as a prosecutor in the investigation made him “uniquely situated to provide information that is relevant and necessary” to the panel’s probe of Bragg’s prosecution of the former president. Pomerantz had abruptly resigned from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office last year.

After opposing the committee's request for Pomerantz’s testimony, Bragg and Jordan reached an agreement last month that paved the way for Friday's deposition.

Pomerantz previously wrote about his work investigating Trump’s alleged financial crimes in a book released in February, but said Friday that does not mean he'll discuss it further given Trump's subsequent indictment.

“Although I have written and spoken publicly about the Trump investigation, I did so before any criminal charges were brought against Mr. Trump,” Pomerantz said in his statement to the Judiciary Committee. “Now that a grand jury has indicted him, the circumstances have changed.”

After leaving the deposition Pomerantz told reporters, "I have nothing, nothing whatsoever to say.”

After opposing the committee's request for Pomerantz’s testimony, Bragg and Jordan reached an agreement last month that paved the way for Friday's deposition.

Pomerantz previously wrote about his work investigating Trump’s alleged financial crimes in a book released in February, but said Friday that does not mean he'll discuss it further given Trump's subsequent indictment.

“Although I have written and spoken publicly about the Trump investigation, I did so before any criminal charges were brought against Mr. Trump,” Pomerantz said in his statement to the Judiciary Committee. “Now that a grand jury has indicted him, the circumstances have changed.”

After leaving the deposition Pomerantz told reporters, "I have nothing, nothing whatsoever to say.”

Donald Trump is scheduled to attend his second court hearing as a criminal defendant Tuesday, but it will be a far different scene than his previous appearance.

New York Judge Juan Merchan is expected to explain to Trump the terms of a protective order he issued for much of the evidence prosecutors will give to the defense as part of the case. During a May 4 hearing that Trump was not required to attend, Merchan called the order "standard" but acknowledged it bears unusual significance for Trump, who is running for president.

The order largely bars Trump from publicizing any material that had not already been made public once it's turned over by prosecutors to his team. Merchan wrote in the May 8 order that Trump will only have access to certain information, labeled "Limited Dissemination Materials" by prosecutors, in the presence of his attorneys. He will not be allowed to make copy, photograph or transcribe those documents.

Merchan stressed on May 4 that this is not a gag order, and Trump is not barred from speaking about the case.

"I'm bending over backwards and straining to ensure that he is given every opportunity possible to advance his candidacy," Merchan said.

Trump's attorneys had argued against the protective order, writing in a May 1 filing that it "would be an unprecedented and extraordinarily broad muzzle on a leading contender for the presidency of the United States."

The order also bars Trump and his team from disclosing the names of certain Manhattan D.A. personnel until a trial begins.

Donald Trump will face a criminal trial in New York on March 25, 2024, a judge said on Tuesday, meaning the former U.S. President will be on trial as his campaign for the 2024 Republican nomination is in full swing.

Justice Juan Merchan in Manhattan state court announced the date at a hearing in which Trump, the front-runner for the Republican nomination in 2024 and the first former U.S. president to be criminally charged, appeared remotely from Florida.

Merchan also advised Trump of restrictions on his ability to publicly discuss certain evidence handed over by prosecutors.

At least four screens in Merchan's courtroom showed Trump and his lawyer Todd Blanche seated in front of U.S. flags.

"They forced upon us a trial date of March 25th, right in the middle of the Primary season," Trump wrote in the post. "It's called ELECTION INTERFERENCE."

JUDGE SAYS RESTRICTIONS DO NOT IMPEDE TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN
During the hearing, Trump spoke only to tell the court he had a copy of the May 8 order restricting him from disclosing certain evidence to third parties, including news outlets and on social media.

Blanche said Trump was concerned the order violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. But he said he had told his client that Merchan did not intend to impede his speech and that the restriction was not a gag order, which would bar him from speaking publicly about the case at all.

Merchan said he did not mean to restrict Trump's ability to campaign, and that Trump "is certainly free to deny the charges, he is free to defend himself against the charges."

The judge said on Tuesday that if Trump violates the restrictions, he could be held in contempt of court.

The restrictions on Trump concern grand jury minutes, witness statements, and other materials that prosecutors are required to turn over to the defense to prepare for trial.

Prosecutors have said the order was needed because of Trump's history of attacks on social media, and the risk that witnesses might be harassed.

Prosecutors in New York have informed attorneys for Donald Trump that the evidence in their hush money case against the former president includes an audio recording of him and a witness, a court filing made public Friday shows.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office made the disclosure in a filing this week called an automatic discovery form and said the evidence had already been disclosed to Trump's attorneys.

The filing does not identify the witness or say when the recording was made or when Trump's lawyers were made aware of it. NBC News has reached out to attorneys and a spokesperson for Trump for a response.

The filing is dated this past Tuesday — the same day Trump made a virtual appearance in Manhattan criminal court to be formally notified about a protective order barring him from speaking publicly about evidence his lawyers were slated to receive from the DA's office.

Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday lost a bid to transfer to federal court his New York state court case related to a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.

Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein’s decision denying that effort keeps Trump on track to go to trial on March 25 in Manhattan Supreme Court in the case. Trump was indicted in March on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

Hellerstein brushed aside Trump’s arguments that the case belonged in federal court because he was charged for conduct that was committed when he was U.S. president, and that the charged conduct related to acts performed “under color of office.”

“Trump has failed to show that the conduct charged by the Indictment is for or related to any act performed by or for the President under color of the official acts of a President,” Hellerstein wrote in an order.

“The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was purely a personal item of the President a cover-up of an embarrassing event,” the judge wrote.

A New York judge denied former President Donald Trump's request to dismiss criminal charges related to a "hush money" payment and said jury selection would proceed as scheduled on March 25, delivering a blow to Trump's efforts to delay what is set to be the first trial of any former president in U.S. history.

Trump is attending a pretrial hearing Thursday in the case, which involves the circumstances surrounding a payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016. A grand jury voted to indict Trump on March 30, 2023, charging him with 34 felony counts of falsification of business records. Trump has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty. He has repeatedly accused Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg of pursuing the case for political gain.

Judge Juan Merchan denied Trump's motion to dismiss the charges at the beginning of the hearing. "At this point I can inform you that we're moving ahead with jury selection on March 25," he told the court. He later said he expected the trial to last about six weeks.

Speaking outside the courtroom before the hearing got underway, Trump said the case represented a "great double standard" and "election interference." He acknowledged he was trying to delay the beginning of the trial, and said the proceedings were taking him off the campaign trail.

"We want delays, obviously, I'm running for election," he said. "How can you run for election when you're sitting in a courthouse in Manhattan all day long? I'm supposed to be in South Carolina right now."

The hearing in the Trump "hush money" case
As Trump looked on, his attorney Todd Blanche immediately protested the judge's decision to proceed to trial, saying he expected to be able to discuss timing at the hearing. Blanche, one of the key members of Trump's legal team, said the decision was a "grave injustice" and pointed to the former president's various other legal entanglements.

"We have been faced with compressed and expedited schedules in every one of those trials," Blanche told the judge. "We — meaning myself, the firm and President Trump — have been put into an impossible position."

The judge assured Blanche that his client is "not going to be in more than one criminal trial at once" and said the issues Trump's attorney raised had "been on my radar for many, many months." He said he had discussed the timing of the trial with U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will oversee Trump's federal prosecution in Washington, D.C., if it is allowed to proceed. Chutkan initially set a date of March 4, but the case is on hold as Trump pursues an immunity claim with the Supreme Court.

Once it became clear that Merchan would not delay the trial, Blanche and prosecutor Joshua Steinglass debated the questions that would be posed to screen potential jurors. Most of the questions related to what news outlets they consume and whether they belong to any fringe groups, like antifa or the Proud Boys. Prosecutors acknowledged that several questions were taken directly from the jury selection process in the defamation trial against Trump brought by the writer E. Jean Carroll.

One such question was: "Do you believe that the 2020 election was stolen?" Steinglass argued that an answer in the affirmative would indicate "an unwillingness to follow the facts and kind of just blindly follow" what Trump says.

Blanche argued that "what they all want to know, and what we want to know, is, 'Do you like President Trump?'"

"We can't ignore the elephant in the room. President Trump is running and he is a Republican, and he was the Republican president of the United States for four years, and the district attorney is a Democrat," Blanche said.

Steinglass responded: "We are not interested in whether people like or dislike President Trump, we are interested in whether they can be fair or unfair."

As the hearing wrapped up, Blanche told the judge that "the fact that President Trump is now going to spend the next two months working on this trial instead of campaigning is something that shouldn't happen in this country."

"What's your legal argument?" Merchan asked.

"That is my legal argument," Blanche responded.

Merchan, unpersuaded, replied: "I'll see you on March 25."