- “He Has Made Up His Entire Story From Beginning To End”: Kevin Spacey Hits Back At Man Who Accused Him Of Grabbing His Crotch “Like A Cobra” & Brands Case For The Prosecution “Weak” Deadline
- Actor Kevin Spacey tells court he touched complainant in ‘romantic and intimate ways’ CNN
- Kevin Spacey Says He Was ‘Crushed’ by Sexual Assault Allegations: ‘I Lost Everything’ PEOPLE
- A-list celebrities mentioned during Kevin Spacey sex offences trial Bridport and Lyme Regis News
- Kevin Spacey tells London court sexual assault accusation is ‘absolute bollocks’ Reuters UK
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Tag Archives: prosecution
Idaho murders: Bryan Kohberger leaks ‘huge issue’ with ‘potential to compromise’ prosecution, lawyer warns – Fox News
- Idaho murders: Bryan Kohberger leaks ‘huge issue’ with ‘potential to compromise’ prosecution, lawyer warns Fox News
- Idaho murders suspect had photos of victim on phone weeks after massacre | FOX 13 Seattle FOX 13 Seattle
- What are the latest updates, info about University of Idaho killings? Here’s what we know Idaho Statesman
- Idaho murders: Bryan Kohberger leaks ‘huge issue’ with ‘potential to compromise’ prosecution, lawyer warns Yahoo News
- Bryan Kohberger lived here: Friends recall murder suspect Lewiston Morning Tribune
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Prosecution rests in Trump Organization’s tax fraud case
NEW YORK (AP) — Prosecutors in the Trump Organization’s criminal tax fraud trial rested their case Monday earlier than expected, pinning hopes for convicting Donald Trump’s company largely on the word of two top executives who cut deals before testifying they schemed to avoid taxes on company-paid perks.
Allen Weisselberg, the company’s longtime finance chief, and Jeffrey McConney, a senior vice president and controller, testified for the bulk of the prosecution’s eight-day case, bringing the drama of their own admitted wrongdoing to a trial heavy on numbers, spreadsheets, tax returns and payroll records.
Weisselberg, who pleaded guilty in August to dodging taxes on $1.7 million in extras, was required to testify as a prosecution witness as part of a plea deal in exchange for a promised sentence of five months in jail. McConney was granted immunity to testify.
The Trump Organization’s lawyers are expected to start calling witnesses Monday afternoon, likely beginning with an accountant who handled years of tax returns and other financial matters for Trump, the Trump Organization and hundreds of Trump entities.
Prosecutors had considered calling the accountant, Mazars USA LLP partner Donald Bender, but decided not to. The defense indicated it would call him instead.
Prosecutors called just three other witnesses: the Trump Organization’s accounts payable supervisor, a forensic accountant for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, and a state tax auditor, on the witness stand Monday, who investigated Weisselberg’s taxes.
Weisselberg, now a senior adviser at the company, testified last week that he conspired with McConney, his subordinate, to hide more than a decade’s worth of extras from his taxable income, but that neither Trump nor the family were involved.
McConney testified that Weisselberg and another executive, Michael Calamari Sr., leaned on him over the years to fudge payroll records to hide extras such as Manhattan apartments and Mercedes-Benz cars from their taxable income, in part by reducing their salaries by the cost of those perks and issuing falsified W-2 forms.
Manhattan prosecutors allege that the Trump Organization helped top executives avoid paying taxes on company-paid perks and that it is liable for Weisselberg’s wrongdoing because he was a “high managerial agent” acting on its behalf.
The tax fraud case is the only trial to arise from the Manhattan district attorney’s three-year investigation of Trump and his business practices. If convicted, the company could be fined more than $1 million and face difficulty making deals.
Trump blamed Bender and Mazars for the company’s troubles, writing on his Truth Social platform last week: “The highly paid accounting firm should have routinely picked these things up – we relied on them. VERY UNFAIR!”
Mazars cut ties with Trump in February and said annual financial statements it prepared for him “should no longer be relied upon” after New York Attorney General Letitia James said they regularly misstated the value of assets.
James filed a lawsuit in September accusing Trump and his company of padding his net worth by billions of dollars and habitually misleading banks and others about the value of assets such as golf courses, hotels and his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Trump’s financial statements are not a part of the criminal case.
___
Follow Michael Sisak on Twitter at twitter.com/mikesisak and send confidential tips by visiting https://www.ap.org/tips/.
Parkland shooter’s death penalty trial nears its end as the prosecution and defense make closing arguments
CNN
—
Prosecutors have called on a Florida jury to recommend the Parkland school shooter be put to death, saying in a closing argument Tuesday he meticulously planned the February 2018 massacre, and that the facts of the case outweigh anything in his background that defense attorneys claim warrant a life sentence.
“What he wanted to do, what his plan was and what he did, was to murder children at school and their caretakers,” lead prosecutor Michael Satz said of Nikolas Cruz, who pleaded guilty to 17 counts of murder and 17 counts of attempted murder for the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in which 14 students and three school staff members were killed. “That’s what he wanted to do.”
But Cruz “is a brain damaged, broken, mentally ill person, through no fault of his own,” defense attorney Melisa McNeill said in her own closing argument, pointing to the defense’s claim that Cruz’s mother used drugs and drank alcohol while his mother was pregnant with him, saying he was “poisoned” in her womb.
“And in a civilized humane society, do we kill brain damaged, mentally ill, broken people?” McNeill asked Tuesday. “Do we? I hope not.”
With closing arguments, the monthslong sentencing phase of Cruz’s trial is nearing its end, marking prosecutors’ last chance to convince the jury to recommend a death sentence and defense attorneys’ last opportunity to lobby for life in prison without parole.
Prosecutors have argued Cruz’s decision to commit the deadliest mass shooting at an American high school was premeditated and calculated, while Cruz’s defense attorneys have offered evidence of a lifetime of struggles at home and in school.
Each side was allotted two and a half hours to make their closing arguments.
Jury deliberations are expected to begin Wednesday, during which time jurors will be sequestered, per Broward Circuit Judge Elizabeth Scherer.
If they choose to recommend a death sentence, the jurors must be unanimous, or Cruz will receive life in prison without the possibility of parole. If the jury does recommend death, the final decision rests with Judge Scherer, who could choose to follow the recommendation or sentence Cruz to life.
In his remarks, Satz outlined prosecutors’ reasoning, including the preparations Cruz made. For a “long time” prior to the shooting, Satz said, Cruz thought about carrying it out.
Revisiting ground covered in the trial, the prosecutor said Cruz researched mass shootings and their perpetrators, including those at a music festival in Las Vegas; at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; at Virginia Tech; and at Colorado’s Columbine High School.
Cruz modified his AR-15 to help improve his marksmanship; he accumulated ammunition and and magazines; and he searched online for information about how long it would take police to respond to a school shooting, Satz said.
Then, the day of, Satz said, Cruz hid his tactical vest in a backpack and took an Uber to the school, wearing a Marjory Stoneman Douglas JROTC polo shirt to blend in. Based on his planning, he told the Uber driver to drop him off at a specific pedestrian gate, knowing it would be open soon before school let out.
“All these details he thought of, and he did,” Satz said.
Satz also detailed a narrative of the shooting, which he called a “systematic massacre,” recounting how the shooter killed or wounded each of his victims, whose families and loved ones filled the courtroom gallery.
Cruz, wearing a striped sweater and flanked by his public defenders, looked on expressionless, occasionally looking down at the table in front of him or talking to one of his attorneys.
“The appropriate sentence for Nikolas Cruz is the death penalty,” Satz concluded.
In her own statement, McNeill stressed to jurors that defense attorneys were not disputing that Cruz deserves to be punished for the shooting.
“We are asking you to punish him and to punish him severely,” she said. “We are asking you to sentence him to prison for the rest of his life, where he will wait to die, either by natural causes or whatever else could possibly happen to him while he’s in prison.”
The 14 slain students were: Alyssa Alhadeff, 14; Martin Duque Anguiano, 14; Nicholas Dworet, 17; Jaime Guttenberg, 14; Luke Hoyer, 15; Cara Loughran, 14; Gina Montalto, 14; Joaquin Oliver, 17; Alaina Petty, 14; Meadow Pollack, 18; Helena Ramsay, 17; Alex Schachter, 14; Carmen Schentrup, 16; and Peter Wang, 14.
Geography teacher Scott Beigel, 35; wrestling coach Chris Hixon, 49; and assistant football coach Aaron Feis, 37, also were killed – each while running toward danger or trying to help students to safety.
The lengthy trial – jury selection began six months ago, in early April – has seen prosecutors and defense attorneys present evidence of aggravating factors and mitigating circumstances, reasons Cruz should or should not be put to death.
The state has pointed to seven aggravating factors, including that the killings were especially heinous, atrocious or cruel, as well as cold, calculated and premeditated, Satz said Tuesday. Other aggravating factors include the fact the defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many people and that he disrupted a lawful government function – in this case, the running of a school.
Together, these aggravating factors “outweigh any mitigation about anything about the defendant’s background or character,” Satz said.
Satz rejected the mitigating circumstances presented during trial by the defense, including that Cruz’s mother smoked or used drugs while pregnant with him. Those factors would not turn someone into a mass murderer, Satz argued, adding it was the jury’s job to weigh the credibility of the defense witnesses who testified to those claims.
Satz cast doubt on the defense’s other proposed mitigators. In response to a claim that Cruz has neurological or intellectual deficits, Satz pointed to the gunman’s ability to carefully research and prepare for the Parkland shooting.
In response to claims Cruz was bullied by his peers, Satz argued Cruz was an aggressor, pointing to testimony that he walked around in high school with a swastika drawn on his backpack, along with the N-word and other explicit language.
“Hate is not a mental disorder,” Satz said.
During trial, prosecutors presented evidence showing the gunman spent months searching online for information about mass shootings and left behind social media comments sharing his express desire to “kill people,” while Google searches illustrated how he sought information about mass shootings. On YouTube, Cruz left comments like “Im going to be a professional school shooter,” and promised to “go on a killing rampage.”
“What one writes,” Satz said, referencing Cruz’s online history Tuesday, “what one says, is a window to someone’s soul.”
In their own case, the public defenders assigned to represent Cruz have asked the jury to take into account his troubled history, from a dysfunctional family life to serious mental and developmental issues, with attorney McNeill describing him earlier in the trial as a “damaged and wounded” person.
“His brain is broken,” she said during her opening statement in August. “He’s a damaged human being.”
Among the first witnesses was Cruz’s older sister, Danielle Woodard, who testified their mother, Brenda Woodard, used drugs and drank alcohol while pregnant with him – something McNeill said made his brain “irretrievably broken” through no fault of his own.
“She introduced me to a life that no child should be introduced to,” she said. “She had no regards for my life or his life.”
The defense also called teachers and educators who spoke to developmental issues and delays Cruz exhibited as a young child, including challenges with vocabulary and motor skills. Various counselors and psychiatrists also testified, offering their observations from years of treating or interacting with Cruz.
Former Broward County school district counselor John Newnham testified Cruz’s academic achievements in elementary school were below expectations. Cruz would describe himself as “stupid” and a “freak,” Newnham said.
Despite these apparent issues, Cruz’s adoptive mother, the late Lynda Cruz, was reluctant to seek help, according to the testimony of a close friend who lived down the street from the family, Trish Devaney Westerlind.
Newnham’s testimony echoed that: While Lynda Cruz was a caring mother, after the death of her husband, she would ask for help but not use the support available.
“She was overwhelmed,” Newnham said. “She appeared to lack some of the basic foundations of positive parenting.”
Westerlind still accepts calls from Cruz and, says though he’s in his 20s, Cruz still talks like an 11-year-old child.
Cruz’s attorneys acknowledged as he grew older he developed a fascination with firearms, and school staff raised concerns about his behavior to authorities, McNeill said.
In June 2014, an adolescent psychiatrist and a school therapist at the school Cruz attended at the time wrote a letter to an outside psychiatrist treating Cruz, in which they expressed concern Cruz had become verbally aggressive and had a “preoccupation with guns” and “dreams of killing others.”
The psychiatrist, Dr. Brett Negin, who testified he treated Cruz between the ages of 13 and 18, said he never received the letter.
As part of the prosecution’s case, family members of the victims were given the opportunity this summer to take the stand and offer raw and emotional testimony about how Cruz’s actions had forever changed their lives. At one point, even members of Cruz’s defense team were brought to tears.
“I feel I can’t truly be happy if I smile,” Max Schachter, the father of 14-year-old victim Alex Schachter, testified in August. “I know that behind that smile is the sharp realization that part of me will always be sad and miserable because Alex isn’t here.”
Before the prosecution rested, jurors also visited the site of the massacre, Marjory Stoneman Douglas’ 1200 building, which had been sealed since the shooting to preserve the crime scene – littered with dried blood, Valentine’s Day cards and students’ belongings – for the trial.
The defense’s case came to an unexpected end last month when – having called just 26 of 80 planned witnesses – public defenders assigned to represent Cruz abruptly rested, leading the judge to admonish the team for what she said was unprofessionalism, resulting in a courtroom squabble between her and the defense (the jury was not present).
Defense attorneys would later file a motion to disqualify the judge for her comments, arguing in part they suggested the judge was not impartial and Cruz’s right to a fair trial had been undermined. Prosecutors disagreed, writing “judicial comments, even of a critical or hostile nature, are not grounds for disqualification.”
Scherer ultimately denied the motion.
Prosecutors then presented their rebuttal, concluding last week following a three-day delay attributed to Hurricane Ian. Their case included footage of Cruz telling clinical neuropsychologist Dr. Robert Denney he chose to carry out the shooting on Valentine’s Day because he “felt like no one loved me, and I didn’t like Valentine’s Day and I wanted to ruin it for everyone.”
Denney, who spent more than 400 hours with the gunman, testified for the prosecution that he concluded Cruz has borderline personality disorder and anti-social personality disorder. But Cruz did not meet the criteria for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, as the defense has contended, Denney testified, accusing Cruz of “grossly exaggerating” his “psychiatric problems” in tests Denney administered.
When read the list of names of the 17 people killed and asked if fetal alcohol spectrum disorder explained their murders, Denney responded “no” each time.
Correction: An earlier version of this story misspelled the first name of defense attorney Melisa McNeill.
Bannon trial Wednesday: Prosecution calls FBI agent, Hill staffer
The fast pace of the prosecution, which began Tuesday afternoon and finished a day later, speaks to the relatively simple factual and legal issues at the heart of the high-profile, politically charged trial: whether Bannon spurned a congressional subpoena and, therefore, committed the rarely charged crime.
Prosecutors called as their first witness Kristin Amerling, the chief counsel for the Jan. 6 committee, who described in detail how Bannon did not engage with the committee until after he had missed the first response deadline. In the weeks and months that followed, Bannon still refused to provide the information sought by subpoena, Amerling said.
Bannon’s legal team countered Wednesday by asking about a series of letters, some as recent as a week ago, between Bannon’s lawyer and the committee in which the prospect of his testimony was still discussed. The defense is trying to show that he didn’t refuse to cooperate, he was just negotiating.
M. Evan Corcoran, one of Bannon’s lawyers, also suggested that Bannon had been told by Donald Trump that the former president had invoked executive privilege — a legal claim meant to shield some of the president’s conversations from congressional inquiries.
In rejecting the committee’s subpoenas in late 2021, lawyer Robert Costello — who represented Bannon in his dealings with the House select committee — claimed in a letter that Trump had invoked the privilege to cover Bannon. Earlier this month, however, as Bannon was seeking to delay his trial, Trump told Bannon he was no longer asserting such a privilege.
But Amerling said both of those claims were specious, based on a mischaracterization of what executive privilege is, and how it works. “The president had not formally or informally invoked the privilege, even if you accept the premise that the privilege applied,” she testified.
U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols has previously said that it’s unclear if Trump ever invoked executive privilege. Also uncertain is whether a former president can claim such a privilege, let alone whether it would cover conversations with a non-government employee like Bannon.
In any case, Nichols has ruled that the privilege is not a valid defense for Bannon, unless he can show it caused him to misunderstand the subpoena’s October 2021 compliance deadlines.
Bannon’s defense strategy became clearer Wednesday, as his lawyers repeatedly suggested he and the committee were negotiating in late 2021 about information he might provide and continued to do so as recently as a week ago. The defense team also tried to show that the committee’s Democratic chairman, Bennie G. Thompson (Miss.), played a key — and political — role in the pursuit of Bannon.
A day earlier, Bannon told reporters outside the courthouse that Thompson didn’t have the “guts” to come testify against him, sending Amerling instead.
Prosecutors repeatedly objected to the defense strategy, saying it was a legal fiction designed to fool the jury into thinking Bannon had acted appropriately. Nichols said he would not allow the high-profile trial to become “a political circus,” warning that he would allow Bannon’s team to raise some political questions but also would police the issue.
While defense lawyers tried to make the case about political leanings and alliances, prosecutors sought to narrow the focus to a more straightforward set of letters between Bannon’s lawyer and the committee, including one from Thompson warning that Bannon’s “defiance” could result in a criminal referral for contempt of Congress. Bannon was indicted in November.
Corcoran grilled Amerling over the process by which the subpoenas were served and the letters created, asking specifically which parts of the letters were penned by Thompson. Amerling said she couldn’t remember that level of detail, and that such letters were generally drafted by staff before being reviewed and signed by lawmakers.
Corcoran then tried a very different line of attack, suggesting that Amerling’s past work history and book club membership with a prosecutor might have tainted the case.
Amerling acknowledged that about 15 years ago, she worked for then-congressman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, alongside Molly Gaston, who is now an assistant U.S. attorney handling the Bannon prosecution and other Jan. 6 cases.
Amerling also said she is in a book club with Gaston, made up primarily of people who used to work for Waxman.
“So you’re in a book club with the prosecutor in this case?” asked Corcoran. “We are,” replied Amerling, though she said she hadn’t attended one of the gatherings in more than a year, and didn’t think she’d seen Gaston at a book club meeting in years.
Asked whether the book club talked about politics, Amerling replied, “The conversations cover a whole variety of topics. … It’s not unusual that we would talk about politics in some way or another.”
Amerling said under reexamination by prosecutors that she had never discussed Bannon’s case with Gaston and their acquaintance had no bearing on the committee’s action or the U.S. prosecution.
Prosecutors also called FBI special agent Stephen Hart to the stand to discuss his conversation in November 2021 with Costello, the lawyer who represented Bannon in his dealings with the committee, who may testify as a defense witness.
In that conversation, Hart testified, Costello said Bannon was “fully engaged” in the discussions about the subpoena. The lawyer at no point suggested there was any confusion about the committee’s subpoena deadlines, Hart said.
Bannon, a bombastic media figure, has been restrained in court this week, often sitting with his hands clasped in front of him. But once the FBI agent took the stand, Bannon became more animated, laughing at one answer, then shaking his head in apparent exasperation over testimony about Hart’s conversation with Costello.
Former top Trump aide Peter Navarro indicted by grand jury for contempt of Congress, but Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino will not face prosecution
Former top Trump White House aide Peter Navarro has been indicted by a grand jury on two counts of contempt of Congress, according to court documents.
But CBS News has learned former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino will not face prosecution, despite being referred for contempt for failing to appear in front of the Jan. 6 select committee. An official familiar with the matter confirmed to CBS News a letter was sent to the House committee telling them of the decision by the U.S. Attorney’s office in D.C.
“While today’s indictment of Peter Navarro was the correct decision by the Justice Department, we find the decision to reward Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino for their continued attack on the rule of law puzzling. Mr. Meadows and Mr. Scavino unquestionably have relevant knowledge about President Trump’s role in the efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the events of January 6th,” said select committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, and Vice Chair Liz Cheney, a Wyoming Republican, in a statement.
Navarro’s contempt indictment stems from the former top trade official’s refusal to comply with a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the assault on the Capitol that took place on Jan. 6, 2021. Navarro said earlier this week that he had received a subpoena from the top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C., to testify before a grand jury and to turn over records related to the Capitol assault.
Navarro, 72, made his first appearance in federal court Friday afternoon, after the indictment was unsealed Friday. He said he’d represent himself to avoid expensive legal fees and was joined by a court-appointed attorney for assistance.
He showed anger at prosecutors during the hearing, calling them “despicable” and alleging prosecutorial misconduct.
Navarro claimed he had told prosecutors to contact a lawyer on Wednesday, seeming to indicate a willingness to cooperate with them, but he was instead taken into custody at the airport, where he planned to board a flight to Nashville for a TV appearance. The government, he said, was playing “hardball” and was pursuing a “bad faith projection.”
He asked that his lawsuit against the Jan. 6 select committee and Justice Department, which was filed this week, be litigated before his criminal charges move forward, and he complained that the timing of his case “flies in the face of good faith and due process. He said he’s caught between two constitutional interpretations of executive privilege.
Navarro called the Jan. 6 committee a “sham” and, pointing at prosecutors, asked, “who are these people? This is not America.”
“The behavior of these people is unconscionable,” he added.
The government did not ask for Navarro’s detention, so he will be released. He will not be allowed to carry a gun, but he successfully argued that he should be able to retain his passport.
The House Select Committee examining the Jan. 6 attack and the events leading up to it first issued a subpoena to Navarro for records and testimony in early February. Investigators believe Navarro worked with former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and others to craft a plan to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. The February request from the House committee also notes that in his book, Navarro described the plan as the “Green Bay Sweep” and wrote it was “the last, best chance to snatch a stolen election from the Democrats’ jaws of deceit.”
The select committee issued a subpoena to Navarro in February, requiring him to produce documents and appear before the committee in March, but Navarro declined to do either.
One count applies to his refusal to turn over documents, and the other count applies to his refusal to appear to testify. If convicted, each count of contempt of Congress would mean a minimum 30-day jail sentence for Navarro, as well as a fine of up to $100,000, according to the Justice Department.
Another former top adviser to Trump, Steven Bannon, was also indicted last year on contempt of Congress charges.
— CBS News’ Scott MacFarlane, Andres Triay, Nikole Killion and Melissa Quinn contributed to this report.
Ghislaine Maxwell trial: Prosecution gives scathing closing argument in Ghislaine Maxwell trial
Maxwell, 59, has pleaded not guilty to six federal counts, including sex trafficking of minors, enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and three related counts of conspiracy.
If convicted on all six counts, she faces up to 70 years in prison.
“Maxwell and Epstein were a wealthy couple who used their privilege to prey on kids from struggling families,” prosecutor Alison Moe said Monday.
“The way that they selected these girls tells you that they were targeting vulnerable kids. It is not an accident that Jane and Kate and Annie and Carolyn all came from single-mother households.”
The prosecutor said Maxwell knew Epstein’s preference for underage girls and helped satisfy that need.
“When you’re with someone for 11 years, you know what they like. Epstein liked underaged girls. He liked to touch underaged girls. Maxwell knew it. Make no mistake, Maxwell was crucial to the whole scheme. Epstein could not have done this alone,” Moe said.
Maxwell normalized physical touch and sexuality to the alleged victims she groomed for Epstein, the prosecution argued.
“A single middle-aged man who invites a teenage girl to visit his ranch, to come to his house, to fly to New York, is creepy,” Moe told jurors.
“But when that man is accompanied by a posh, smiling, respectable, age-appropriate woman, that’s when everything starts to seem legitimate. And when that woman encourages those girls to massage that man, when she acts like it’s totally normal for the man to touch those girls. It lures them into a trap. It allows the man to silence the alarm bells.”
Jurors again saw pages from Epstein and Maxwell’s “little black book with their victims’ names in it” recovered from Jeffrey Epstein’s home.
One page titled “Massages Florida” had notes “Mom,” “dad,” and “parents” next to some females’ names.
“When you contact a professional masseuse you don’t need to call her mom or dad,” Moe said.
Maxwell’s defense team is expected to make its closing argument Monday afternoon.
‘Pyramid scheme of abuse’
During opening statements last month, prosecutors said Maxwell and Epstein used cash to lure underage girls into their “pyramid scheme of abuse.”
Prosecutor Lara Pomerantz told jurors that in the 1990s, Maxwell would procure girls for Epstein for sexual abuse via the “ruse” of a massage.
Epstein, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to state prostitution charges, was indicted on federal sex trafficking charges in July 2019 but died by suicide in prison a month later. Maxwell was arrested in 2020.
Four key witnesses testified for the prosecution against Maxwell — all women who allege Epstein sexually abused them when they were under 18. Three of the four accusers used pseudonyms or only first names to protect their privacy.
“Jane” testified that Maxwell sometimes joined in on the sexualized massages.
“Kate” testified Maxwell set up those sexual meetings.
Carolyn testified Maxwell once touched her breasts, hips and butt and told her she “had a great body for Epstein and his friends.” Carolyn said she was 14 at the time.
The fourth woman, Annie Farmer, testified she was 16 years old when Maxwell massaged her naked chest at Epstein’s New Mexico ranch in 1996.
Two dozen witnesses were called across 10 days of testimony before the prosecution rested. In photos shown to jurors, Maxwell and Epstein are seen embracing and smiling for the camera over the years, including several showing her massaging his foot.
“Their relevance is self-apparent, given the contents of the photographs,” prosecutor Alison Moe said. “The relationship between Maxwell and Epstein is central to this case.”
Defense rested Friday
The defense rested Friday after presenting its case over two days. The defense argued that Maxwell is being scapegoated for Epstein’s criminal behavior and tried to dispute the accusers’ statements.
Attorneys called to the stand Eva Andersson-Dubin, who testified she dated Epstein on and off from 1983 through about 1991. She confirmed she and her now-husband, hedge fund billionaire Glenn Dubin, remained friends with Epstein through the 2000s.
One of the accusers, referred to as “Jane,” had earlier testified she recalled a woman named Eva had joined group sexualized massages with Epstein and Maxwell.
In response to questioning by the defense, Andersson-Dubin said she had never participated in group sexualized massages with “Jane.”
“Absolutely not,” Andersson-Dubin testified Friday.
A prosecutor clarified on cross-examination that Eva Andersson-Dubin is not necessarily the only Eva to have ever interacted with Epstein, suggesting “Jane” could have been referring to someone else.
On Thursday, as part of the defense’s effort to undermine the accusers’ testimony, a psychologist and professor at the University of California Irvine testified about false memories.
Dr. Elizabeth Loftus said people can be exposed to misinformation about an event after the fact and incorporate it into their memory, making it inaccurate.
“Even traumatic experiences can be subjected to post-event suggestion that can exaggerate, distort or change the memory,” Loftus said.
Maxwell declined to testify Friday, telling Judge Alison Nathan when asked if she understood her rights: “Your honor, the government has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. And so there is no need for me to testify.” The jury was not present.
CNN’s Holly Yan, Dakin Andone, Eric Levenson and Travis Caldwell contributed to this report.
Capitol attack panel recommends Mark Meadows for criminal prosecution | US Capitol attack
The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack on Monday voted to recommend the criminal prosecution for former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, punishing Donald Trump’s most senior aide for refusing to testify about the 6 January insurrection.
The select committee advanced the contempt of Congress report for Meadows unanimously, sending the matter to a vote before the full House of Representatives, which is expected to approve the citation as soon as Tuesday.
Bennie Thompson, the chair of the select committee, said in an opening statement before the panel recommended Meadows’ referral to the justice department that Trump’s former White House chief of staff displayed willful noncompliance in his defiance of his subpoena.
“It comes down to this,” Thompson said. “Mr Meadows started by doing the right thing: cooperating. He handed over records that he didn’t try to shield behind some excuse. But in an investigation like ours, that’s just a first step.
“When the records raise questions – as these most certainly do – you have to come in and answer those questions. And when it was time for him to follow the law, come in, and testify on those questions, he changed his mind and told us to pound sand. He didn’t even show up.”
The select committee said in the contempt report they were seeking charges against Meadows after he attempted to obstruct the investigation in myriad ways, from refusing to testify to frustrating their efforts to locate and discover documents relevant to the Capitol attack.
The select committee also said Meadows should be prosecuted since he refused to testify even about information he voluntarily provided to the panel through his own document production and conceded were not covered by claims of executive privilege advanced by Trump.
Over the course of a near-hour-long business meeting, the select committee outlined in detail the materials Meadows had turned over to the panel – and how Meadows then promptly refused to testify about those very records.
Meadows turned over about 9,000 documents as part of a cooperation deal, the select committee said, in his effort to engage with the inquiry to a degree in order to avoid an immediate criminal referral that befell other Trump administration aides who defied subpoenas.
Among the materials Meadows turned over to the select committee was a PowerPoint presentation titled “Election Fraud, Foreign Interference and Options for 6 JAN”, which recommended Trump declare a national security emergency to unilaterally return himself to office.
He also turned over text messages – read out loud by the select committee’s vice chair, Liz Cheney – that he received as the 6 January riot unfolded, including from Trump’s eldest son, Don Jr, who implored him “we need an Oval Office address” to stop the Capitol attack.
Meadows received more texts, the select committee said, from an unnamed lawmaker, who messaged him the day after the Capitol attack: “Yesterday was a terrible day. We tried everything we could in our objection to the 6 states. I’m sorry nothing worked.”
But his cooperation with the select committee ended with the document production and Meadows informed the panel last week that he would not answer questions because he had learned that House investigators had subpoenaed call detail records for his personal phone.
The select committee said Meadows’ refusal to testify constituted noncompliance with his subpoena, which was first issued in September, and initiated proceedings to recommend that the House hold him in contempt of Congress.
The move by the select committee poses damaging consequences for Trump’s most senior aide: if it is approved by the House, the justice department is required to take the matter before a grand jury, which previously indicted Trump strategist Steve Bannon for subpoena defiance.
A successful contempt prosecution could result in up to a year in federal prison, $100,000 in fines, or both – although the misdemeanor charge may not ultimately lead to his cooperation, and pursuing the offense could still take years.
The select committee targeted Meadows from the outset of the investigation as it sought to uncover the extent of his role in Trump’s scheme to subvert the results of the 2020 election and stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win from taking place on 6 January.
The Guardian previously reported, for instance, that hours before the Capitol attack, Trump made a call from the White House to operatives working from the Willard hotel in Washington DC and pressed them about stopping Biden from being named president.
But House investigators said in a 51-page contempt report for Meadows that they had also wanted to question him about a range of issues about the 6 January insurrection, including an email he sent that said the national guard would be there to “protect pro Trump people”.
The select committee said they wanted to ask about text messages and emails about having state legislatures send Trump slates of electors to Congress – a plan that one congressman told him was “highly controversial”, to which Meadows responded: “I love it.”
House investigators said in the contempt report that they wanted to depose Meadows about texts he sent in December 2020 about installing the Trump justice department official Jeffrey Clark as acting attorney general, as well as texts to organizers of the 6 January rally.
The select committee said it also had questions about why Meadows used a personal cellphone, an encrypted Signal messaging app and two personal Gmail accounts for official business – and whether their contents had been turned over to the National Archives.
Counsel for the select committee noted additionally that it was untenable for Meadows to claim executive privilege protection as a way to dodge testifying before the panel after he wrote about potentially privileged conversations with Trump in his new book.
“Mr Meadows has shown his willingness to talk about issues related to the select committee’s investigation across a variety of media platforms – anywhere, it seems, except to the select committee,” the panel said in the contempt report.
During the contempt vote, the select committee beamed screenshots of texts he had received on his personal cellphone from lawmakers on 6 January and, crucially, a passage from his book that described a private conversation he had with Trump as rioters breached the Capitol.
The select committee showed Meadows wrote in his book: “When he got offstage, President Trump let me know that he had been speaking metaphorically about the walk to the Capitol. He knew as well as anyone that we couldn’t organize a trip like that on such short notice.”
The move to recommend Meadows’ criminal prosecution marks the third such instance by the select committee, after it first approved a contempt of Congress citation against Bannon in October, and then against Clark last month, for defying subpoenas.
Ghislaine Maxwell trial: Fourth and accuser testifies and prosecution rests
Friday’s witnesses included Annie Farmer, the fourth and final accuser to take the stand. She testified she was 16 years old when Maxwell massaged her naked chest at billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s New Mexico ranch in 1996.
Maxwell faces six counts, including sex trafficking of a minor, for allegations of conduct that allegedly occurred between 1994 and 2004.
The government alleges Maxwell facilitated and took part with Epstein in the alleged sexual abuse described by the four accusers.
Defense attorneys moved for an acquittal at the end of the court Friday, which is standard practice after the prosecution rests. Judge Alison Nathan denied the motion.
The defense is expected to start its case next Thursday. The trial will not sit Monday through Wednesday due to a scheduling conflict for the judge.
Defense attorneys said their case will likely take two or three days and they expect to rest on December 20.
Some defense witnesses want to testify anonymously given they “might get a lot of unwanted attention” testifying for Maxwell, attorney Christian Everdell said. The parties will confer on that over the break.
Farmer was the only accuser to testify by her full name in the federal trial in New York. Others did so under pseudonyms or their first name only to protect their privacy.
Farmer’s allegations are connected to the charges of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, and conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity.
Farmer, now 42, is identified as “Minor Victim-2” in the indictment detailing the charges against Maxwell. It alleges that Farmer traveled to New Mexico in 1996 where Epstein abused her at his ranch. Maxwell groomed Farmer, giving her an unsolicited massage while she was topless and encouraging Farmer to massage Epstein, according to the indictment.
Prosecutors additionally allege, in a perjury case severed from this trial, that Maxwell denied ever giving Farmer a massage when explicitly asked during a 2016 civil deposition.
‘I felt like kind of frozen’
Prosecutor Lara Pomerantz told Farmer to look around, “Do you see anyone in this courtroom who has ever given you a massage?”
“Yes,” Farmer said, and described Maxwell seated at the defense table.
Farmer testified that Maxwell gave her a massage at Epstein’s New Mexico ranch in 1996, telling her she wanted Farmer to experience how nice a professional massage felt.
“She told me to get undressed,” Farmer, 16 at the time, recalled.
At some point as she lay on her back, Maxwell pulled the sheet down, exposing her naked breasts and rubbed her chest and upper breast, Farmer testified.
“Once she pulled down the sheet I felt like kind of frozen,” she testified. “It didn’t make sense to me that that would happen. I just wanted so badly to get off the table and have this massage be done.”
On her last day at the ranch Epstein bounded into her guestroom where she still lay in bed telling her he wanted to “cuddle.”
“He climbed into bed with me and kind of laid behind me and reached his arms around me and like pressed his body into me,” she said.
Feeling uncomfortable, she made an excuse to get out of bed and went to the bathroom, closing the door behind her.
Prosecutors allege a ‘pyramid scheme of abuse’
Previously in the trial, a woman identified as “Jane” said last week that Maxwell sometimes joined in on the sexualized massages and a woman identified as “Kate” testified Monday that Maxwell set up those sexual meetings.
And on Tuesday, a woman who used only her first name, Carolyn, testified that Maxwell once touched her breasts, hips and butt and told her she “had a great body for Epstein and his friends.” She was 14 at the time, she said.
The trial, which began last week, has alternated between disturbing testimony from sexual abuse victims and illuminating testimony about some of Epstein’s connections to high-profile figures such as Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew. None are alleged to have committed wrongdoing in relation to the ongoing trial.
Epstein, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to state prostitution charges, was indicted on federal sex trafficking charges in July 2019 but died by suicide in prison a month later. Maxwell, his former girlfriend, was arrested a year afterward and has pleaded not guilty.
In opening statements of her trial, prosecutors said Maxwell and Epstein created a “pyramid scheme of abuse” to lure underage girls into sexual relationships with Epstein and pay them bonuses to bring other girls into the fold. Her defense, meanwhile, said she was a “scapegoat” for Epstein’s actions and attacked the memories and motivations of the women who say they were sexually abused.
Fourth accuser read her diary entries
Farmer testified that she told her mother, Janice Swain, in the summer of 1996 that something happened to her at the New Mexico ranch without going into detail. “I told my mom I was not raped and I didn’t want to talk about it,” she said.
Swain was the last witness in the government’s case and told the jury that she spoke on the phone with Epstein to plan Annie’s trips to New York and New Mexico.
Swain testified that when the billionaire invited Farmer to go to the ranch he told the mother it would be for a “retreat” with 20 to 25 other students who Epstein would also be funding for enrichment trips abroad later that year.
Epstein told Swain that “his wife, Ghislaine” would be chaperoning the girls on what she was told was a co-ed retreat, she said. But Farmer said she was surprised when she was the only one there.
Farmer also said Friday that she years ago had confided in a boyfriend and spoke to law enforcement in 2006.
The boyfriend, David James Mulligan, testified Friday they started dating in the fall of 1996.
He said Farmer confided in him that Epstein touched her leg at the movies in New York and spoke of the massage in New Mexico. Mulligan recalled that she told him she felt “fearful and awkward and helpless” during the massage.
Farmer said she first met Epstein over the holidays in 1995 into 1996 through her older sister, who worked for him in New York. Epstein paid for her commercial flight there and tickets for the Farmer sisters to see “Phantom of the Opera” on Broadway, she testified. At some point on that trip Epstein took the sisters to see the movie “Five Monkeys,” she recalled.
Farmer read portions of January 1996 diary entries in which she wrote about Epstein holding her hand and “caressing” her foot while her sister sat on the opposite side of Epstein in the theater.
She testified that Epstein would stop touching her any time he spoke to her sister as if to hide it from her.
What appeared to be an inner struggle unfolded in the journal entry. Farmer wrote that she felt “weird” about his behavior but it was probably “normal” and “fine.”
“I know it sounds like me trying to justify him doing something weird but it isn’t,” 16-year-old Farmer wrote.
Annie Farmer also wrote that she didn’t tell her sister about the incident because her sister “worshiped” Epstein and she feared it would upset her or cost her sister her job.
‘I imagined it would be different’ with Maxwell present
Defense attorney Laura Menninger during cross examination repeatedly pointed out that Maxwell was not present on Farmer’s New York trip.
Annie Farmer recalled she wasn’t excited for the New Mexico trip in April 1996 because of the movie incident with Epstein months earlier.
However, knowing Maxwell would on the trip made her more comfortable. “I imagined it would be different this time because Maxwell was there,” she testified.
Maxwell bought her beauty cream and Epstein bought her expensive cowboy boots on a day they all went shopping, she said.
They also went to see the movie “Primal Fear” that day, where Epstein again caressed her in a more “blatant” way, seemingly making no effort to hide it from Maxwell, she recalled.
Later that day Maxwell insisted she teach Farmer how to massage Epstein’s bare feet, Farmer testified.
“She instructed me to you know, pull back his big toe, rub this part of his foot, you know, and so I did what she told me,” Farmer said in court.
Epstein “groaned” with pleasure as she methodically followed Maxwell’s lead massaging his feet, she said.
Menninger asked Farmer several questions suggesting to Farmer that she “pieced together” the timeline around her memory of the New Mexico trip by looking up when “Primal Fear” was released in theaters. Farmer acknowledged doing the research and said she had already recalled it was the spring of 1996 but wanted to be more accurate.
Farmer filed a civil lawsuit against Maxwell and Epstein in 2019 but later dropped the suit as a condition to receive $1.5 million for her claim with the Epstein Victim Compensation Program, she testified.
Menninger admitted Farmer’s black leather cowboy boots into evidence and had her review the footwear on the stand. She clarified with Farmer that she’d worn them to the point of wearing down the heels and scuffing the toes.
The defense attorney also suggested that Farmer overstated what she alleges happened to her in her public statements and on her Epstein Victim Compensation Program application for personal gain.
The judge permitted the defense to review Farmer’s victim fund application during cross examination. The claim says Farmer was “groped” during the massage by Maxwell.
Farmer responded on the stand, “Yes, I don’t see that as significantly different — rubbed, groped, massaged.”
Farmer has spoken out publicly about Epstein and Maxwell for years. She spoke in open court during both Epstein’s 2019 bail hearing and Maxwell’s bail hearing a year later.
“I was 16 years old when I had the misfortune of meeting Jeffrey Epstein here in New York,” Farmer said at the July 2019 hearing. Her voice cracked as Epstein stared at her just feet away, his gaze unwavering. “He was inappropriate with me.”
CNN’s Eric Levenson contributed to this report.
Jussie Smollett trial: Actor lied under oath and has no credibility, prosecution says in closing arguments
The criminal trial started last week as prosecutors told the jury that Smollett, who is Black and gay, directed the Osundairo brothers to carry out a fake anti-gay and racist attack on a frigid night in Chicago near Smollett’s apartment building. Five police investigators and both brothers testified for the prosecution last week.
Defense attorneys called seven witnesses of their own to testify, highlighted by Smollett himself. He testified over about 8 hours Monday and Tuesday he had not planned any such hoax, and that he was actually attacked late one night after going out to get a Subway sandwich.
After closing arguments Wednesday morning, the jury will be instructed on the law and then sent to deliberate.
The trial is the culmination of a case that began nearly three years ago when Smollett told police two men attacked him, called him the n-word, put a noose around his neck, poured bleach on him and exclaimed, “This is MAGA country.”
Celebrities, politicians and advocacy groups rallied behind the actor, and police poured significant resources into solving the case. But after interviewing the Osundairo brothers and finding other evidence, authorities instead determined that Smollett paid them $3,500 to stage the hate crime so he could get publicity and a career boost.
He was initially indicted on 16 counts of felony disorderly conduct in March 2019, but the charges were dropped weeks later. After a special prosecutor was appointed to look into the case, a grand jury indicted Smollett on new charges in February 2020.
The incident effectively ended Smollett’s acting career. His character was written off “Empire,” which ended in 2020, and though he has since directed and produced a film, he has not appeared on screen again.
Prosecution says Smollett lied on the stand
Over about two hours, Webb highlighted six specific issues that he said proved Smollett’s guilt and contrasted his testimony with what they say really happened.
“Mr. Smollett developed a plan to carry out a fake hate crime,” he said. “He then falsely reported the fake hate crime to the Chicago Police Department as a real hate crime.”
The first issue was his decision to withhold cell phone, medical, and DNA evidence from police.
“Mr. Smollett didn’t want the crime solved,” Webb told jurors. “He wanted the media exposure but he didn’t want the brothers apprehended.”
He said Smollett withheld his medical records because he “did not want the police to know he wasn’t injured that much.”
The second key piece of evidence Webb focused on was accusing Smollett of making false statements to the police on the race of the attackers.
The Osundairo brothers are Black, while Smollett initially indicated the perpetrators were White. Smollett said during testimony that he was never sure the perpetrators were White but “assumed” and that he was “certain” he was saying pale-skinned from the beginning.
“He not only told you [jurors] he assumed they were White, he told the police that,” said Webb. “He wants police to be looking for someone White.”
The third piece Webb focused on was Smollett tampering with a rope, which had been fashioned into a noose, that the attackers allegedly put around his neck. He said Smollett “monkeyed around” with the rope — a phrase that led to groans from the Smollett family, as nearly all of them shook their heads.
Smollett testified he took the rope off after the attack but then put it back on for police to see when they arrived.
“I knew that wasn’t true,” Webb said. He pointed to Smollett’s “Good Morning America” interview with Robin Roberts where he told her he kept the rope on the entire time.
It “destroys his credibility,” Webb said. “Why did he have to jimmy and monkey around with the rope?”
The fourth piece Webb emphasized was the Osundairo brothers could not have attacked Smollett without advance knowledge. The supposed attack came at 2 a.m. during the polar vortex outside Smollett’s apartment as he returned from getting food.
“It’s just a ridiculous story he made up,” Webb told jurors. “How could the brothers ever know to be right at that intersection, right at 2 a.m.?”
The fifth piece of evidence was the aforementioned medical evidence of no serious injuries.
The final aspect of the case Webb emphasized to jurors was a February 2019 police interview, weeks after the alleged hate crime took place, and a text to Bola Osundairo. Webb pointed out Smollett did not sign the criminal complaints laying out the Osundairo brothers were the ones who carried out this alleged crime.
Smollett claimed he didn’t sign, despite initially saying he would, under advice of his legal team. But Webb then called up a text message Smollett sent that day to Bola Osundairo beginning, “Brother I love you, I stand with you, I know you did nothing wrong.”
Webb told jurors Smollett wanted the brothers to know he was going to keep his mouth shut, in hopes they would keep their mouths shut too, and no one would find out.
Key moments in the trial
The stars of the prosecution’s case were the Osundairo brothers, who were extras on the “Empire” TV show. They each testified that Smollett directed them and paid them to stage the attack in an attempt to get media attention.
Bola Osundairo, who was closer to Smollett, told the court that Smollett “wanted me to fake beat him up.” He said he agreed to do so because he felt indebted to the actor.
His brother Ola Osundairo told jurors that Smollett “had this crazy idea of having two MAGA supporters attack him,” and that he wanted “to put that on social media.”
As per their plan, the brothers met Smollett at about 2 a.m. by his apartment, they testified. There, as he had instructed, they yelled “Empire, f****t, n***er, MAGA,” fake punched him, poured bleach on him and put a noose around his neck, they testified.
The defense, however, has repeatedly said Smollett was a real victim of an attack. They have suggested that the brothers were motivated by homophobia and/or an attempt to scare Smollett into hiring them as security.
Smollett took the stand to lay out his version of events. He emphatically said he did not plan the attack ahead of time and said he paid the brothers $3,500 for training and nutritional advice — not for any hoax attack.
“Have you ever planned a hoax?” his attorney asked.
“Never in my life,” Smollett said.
He also cast doubt on the brothers’ true motivations. He said he received a “hate letter” in the mail at the “Empire” studio in Chicago on January 22, 2019, seven days before the alleged attack. Afterward, Bola Osundairo approached him about becoming his personal security guard, something Osundairo had repeatedly asked him, Smollett testified.
In addition, he testified that he formed a sexual relationship with Bola Osundairo but said he was “creeped out” by Ola Osundairo. Bola Osundairo denied he had any sexual relationship with Smollett.
CNN’s Omar Jimenez and Bill Kirkos reported from Chicago, Eric Levenson wrote and reported from New York. Steve Almasy, Jason Hanna and Christina Maxouris contributed to this report.