Tag Archives: Subpoenas

Google founder, former Disney exec to get subpoenas in JPMorgan Epstein lawsuit – CNBC

  1. Google founder, former Disney exec to get subpoenas in JPMorgan Epstein lawsuit CNBC
  2. Google Co-Founder, Other Billionaires Are Issued Subpoenas in Lawsuit Over JPMorgan’s Ties to Jeffrey Epstein – WSJ The Wall Street Journal
  3. JP Morgan CEO will testify about his knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking Raw Story
  4. Live news updates from March 28: Dimon to be deposed in Epstein lawsuits, Alibaba to split into six Financial Times
  5. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon to testify on bank’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein: Reports Yahoo Finance
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read original article here

Special counsel subpoenas Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger in January 6 probe



CNN
 — 

Special counsel Jack Smith has subpoenaed Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger as part of the Justice Department’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the US Capitol attack on January 6, 2021.

Mike Hassinger, public information officer with the Georgia secretary of state’s office, confirmed that Raffensperger’s office has received a subpoena from Smith.

“At the request of the Justice Department, we have no further comment,” Hassinger said in an email to CNN.

The grand jury activity expands on previous investigative steps the Justice Department has taken to understand efforts by former President Donald Trump and his allies in battleground states after the election.

Since Thanksgiving, Smith has brought a number of close Trump associates before a grand jury in Washington, DC, including two former White House lawyers, three of Trump’s closest aides, and his former speechwriter Stephen Miller.

Smith has also issued a flurry of subpoenas, including to election officials in battleground states where Trump tried to overturn his loss in 2020.

But Raffensperger could prove to be a particularly compelling witness. His profile grew after the 2020 election when he resisted Trump’s efforts to pressure him to “find” the votes necessary for Trump to win Georgia in an infamous January 2021 phone call.

In excerpts of the one-hour call, Trump lambasted his fellow Republican for refusing to falsely say that he won the election in Georgia and repeatedly touted baseless claims of election fraud.

“The people of Georgia are angry, the people of the country are angry. And there’s nothing wrong with saying that, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated,” Trump said in one part of the call.

Raffensperger responded, “Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong.”

The Georgia Republican has already spoken with the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection, and he testified publicly this summer about the threats he received after standing up to Trump.

It’s unclear how long Smith, who will also oversee the investigation into the potential mishandling of federal records taken to Mar-a-Lago after Trump left the White House, may continue to work before deciding on any charges in the probes. While the investigations may result in charges within months, Smith could still spend time organizing and expanding his team, and continuing to pick through information that’s been collected, according to people familiar with parts of the probe.

This story has been updated with additional information Monday.

Read original article here

Special counsel Jack Smith subpoenas Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin officials for Trump communications in Jan. 6 probe

Comment

Special counsel Jack Smith has sent grand-jury subpoenas to local officials in Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin — three states that were central to former president Donald Trump’s failed plan to stay in power following the 2020 election — seeking any and all communications with Trump, his campaign and a long list of aides and allies.

The requests for records arrived in Dane County, Wis.; Maricopa County, Ariz.; and Wayne County, Mich., late last week, and in Milwaukee on Monday, officials said. They are among the first known subpoenas issued since Smith was named last month by Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee the Jan. 6 Capitol attack case as well as the criminal probe of Trump’s possible mishandling of classified documents at his Florida home.

The subpoenas, at least three of which are dated Nov. 22, indicates that the Justice Department is extending its examination of the circumstances leading up to the Capitol attack to include local election officials and their potential interactions with the former president and his representatives. The virtually identical requests to Arizona and Wisconsin name Trump individually, in addition to employees, agents and attorneys for his campaign. Details of the Michigan subpoena, confirmed by Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, were not immediately available.

“I’m happy to participate in this process,” said George Christenson, the Milwaukee clerk, who confirmed the subpoena in a telephone interview Tuesday and provided a copy to The Washington Post.

The subpoena asks for communication with Trump and his campaign, including several key allies.

Christenson said he is not aware of any communications with his office that have not already been made public. But he speculated that federal investigators are hunting for new details about the Trump campaign’s efforts to convene illegitimate electors in key battleground states that Joe Biden narrowly won.

Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell confirmed receiving a similar subpoena.

“I am not aware of any significant communications that have not already been made public,” said McDonell, whose county encompasses Madison, the state capital.

Fields Moseley, a spokesman for Maricopa County, said, “We have received a subpoena and will comply.”

Officials in Wayne County — home of Detroit — did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.

The Justice Department’s Mar-a-Lago criminal investigation began this spring, after months of disagreement between Trump and the National Archives and Records Administration over boxes of documents that followed Trump from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, his Florida residence and private club.

Court papers say more than 300 documents marked classified were eventually recovered from Trump’s home, more than 100 of them taken during an Aug. 8 FBI search of the property. Some contained extremely sensitive government secrets.

The longer-running Jan. 6 case, meanwhile, has moved beyond the pool of people who directly took part in the bloody riot at the U.S. Capitol. For months, prosecutors have been scrutinizing the fundraising, organizing, and apocalyptic rhetoric that preceded that violent assault on the seat of government. The inquiry has also looked at failed efforts to authorize alternate slates of electors so Trump could be named the winner of the 2020 election.

Previous subpoenas, in Arizona and other battleground states targeted by Trump, have been issued to key Republican players seen as allies in his pressure campaign to reverse the results of the 2020 election. Maricopa County, the sprawling Arizona jurisdiction that is home to Phoenix and more than half the state’s voters, was among several localities on the receiving end of that pressure.

The Arizona subpoena was addressed to Maricopa County’s elections department, while the Wisconsin versions were addressed to the Milwaukee and Dane clerks. All seek communications from June 1, 2020, through Jan. 20, 2021.

The requested communications include those with Trump’s campaign manager, Bill Stepien, and other advisers, such as Boris Epshteyn. Attorneys identified include Trump campaign lawyers, such as Justin Clark and Matthew Morgan, as well as those serving in other capacities, such as John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Cleta Mitchell.

Those three subpoenas, while issued by Smith, were also signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Matt Burke.

Trump and key allies sought to avert his narrow loss in six battleground states through a lengthy pressure campaign. In Maricopa County, the pressure focused heavily on urging the GOP-controlled governing board to not certify the results.

The attack: The Jan. 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol was neither a spontaneous act nor an isolated event

Then-Supervisor Steve Chucri, a Republican, has said he met with Giuliani at the state Capitol in mid-to-late November 2020. In December, Giuliani tried to reach Republican supervisors Bill Gates, Jack Sellers and Clint Hickman by phone. Days later, Trump himself twice tried to speak to Hickman, then chair of the governing board.

The calls came on Dec. 31, 2020, as Hickman was at dinner with his wife and friends and again on Jan. 3, 2021, the same day The Post broke news of Trump’s conversation with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Trump had urged the Georgia election director to “find” enough votes to reverse his loss there.

Hickman, who had been told by Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward to expect outreach by Trump, let both calls go to voice mail. “Hello, sir. This is the White House operator I was calling to let you know that the president’s available to take your call if you’re free,” one voice mail said. “If you could please give us a call back, sir, that’d be great. You have a good evening.”

After the county board ultimately certified the election results, making them formal, Trump and his allies sought to discredit them by favoring what would become a months-long inspection of ballots and voting equipment ordered by the GOP-led state Senate. That haphazard review in 2021 affirmed Trump’s loss.

Some of the figures named in the subpoena were either involved in, or encouraged, that review.

Marley reported from Madison, Wis. and Wingett Sanchez from Phoenix. Matthew Brown in Atlanta and Rosalind S. Helderman, Perry Stein and Emma Brown in Washington contributed to this report.

Read original article here

Cheney: Jan. 6 panel won’t take live TV testimony from Trump

WASHINGTON (AP) — Raising the stakes on its extraordinary subpoena to Donald Trump, the House committee investigating the Capitol riot indicated Sunday it would not consider letting the former president testify live on television about the direct role that congressional investigators say he played in trying to overturn the 2020 election.

The committee is demanding Trump’s testimony under oath next month as well as records relevant to its investigation. To avoid a complicated and protracted legal battle, Trump reportedly had told associates he might consider complying with the subpoena if he could answer questions during live testimony.

But Rep. Liz Cheney, the committee’s vice chair, on Sunday rejected the possibility. She said the committee, which makes its major decisions with unanimous consent, would not allow Trump’s testimony to turn into a “food fight” on TV and she warned that the committee will take action if he does not comply with the subpoena.

“We are going to proceed in terms of the questioning of the former president under oath,” Cheney, R-Wyo., said on “Meet the Press” on NBC. “It may take multiple days, and it will be done with a level of rigor and discipline and seriousness that it deserves. We are not going to allow — he’s not going to turn this into a circus.”

“We have many, many alternatives that we will consider if the former president decides he is not going to comply with his legal obligation, a legal obligation every American citizen has to comply with a subpoena,” she said.

It is unclear how Trump and his legal team will ultimately respond. He could comply or negotiate with the committee, announce he will defy the subpoena or ignore it altogether. He could go to court and try to stop it.

Still, there remains little legal advantage for Trump to cooperate with the committee at a time when he faces other legal battles in various jurisdictions, including over his family business in New York and the handling of presidential records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

It’s possible his lawyers could simply run out the clock on the subpoena if they go to court to try to squash it as the committee of two Republicans and seven Democrats is required to finish its work by the end of the year.

Cheney, in the television interview, made her position clear that Trump had committed “multiple criminal offenses” and should be prosecuted. She cited his repeated efforts as outlined by the Jan. 6 committee to undermine democracy by denying his election loss to Democrat Joe Biden and by spurring his supporters in the violent attack on the Capitol.

“We’ve been very clear about a number of different criminal offenses that are likely at issue here,” Cheney said. “If the Department of Justice determines that they have the evidence that we believe is there and they make a decision not to prosecute, I think that really calls into question whether or not we’re a nation of laws.”

Cheney, who lost in Wyoming’s August primary after becoming Trump’s fiercest GOP critic, expressed dismay over the number of Republican candidates in the Nov. 8 midterms who deny the legitimacy of the 2020 election. She acknowledged that the Jan. 6 committee’s investigation will be permanently ended in January if Republicans retake control of the House.

While saying it may take “a couple of election cycles,” Cheney insisted the Republican Party can find its way back as a defender of democracy and the Constitution, as she put it. She pointed to the 2024 presidential campaign as a pivotal moment.

“I think that the party has either got to come back from where we are right now, which is a very dangerous, toxic place, or the party will splinter and there will be a new conservative party that rises,” she said. “And if Donald Trump is the nominee of the Republican Party, the party will shatter and there will be a conservative party that rises in its place.”

She said Trump has shown “his willingness to use force to attempt to stop the peaceful transition of power. And there are simply many, many millions more Americans who, despite any party affiliation, understand how dangerous that is.”

___

For full coverage of the Jan. 6 hearings, go to https://www.apnews.com/capitol-siege

Read original article here

January 6 committee announces it has sent a subpoena to former President Donald Trump



CNN
 — 

The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol announced on Friday that the panel has officially sent a subpoena to former President Donald Trump as it paints him as the central figure in the multi-step plan to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The committee issued the subpoena to try to compel Trump to sit for a deposition under oath and to provide documents. The panel is ordering Trump turn over documents by November 4 and either appear in person or virtually for “one or more days of deposition testimony beginning on or about November 14.”

Trump’s attorneys said Friday afternoon that they will review the subpoena “and respond as appropriate to this unprecedented action.”

While it is not clear if Trump will comply with the subpoena, the action serves as a way for the committee to set down a marker and make clear they want information directly from Trump as the panel investigates the attack. Trump could also fight the subpoena in court, possibly setting up a hugely significant battle that could go to the highest level of the nation’s Judicial Branch, but it’s also possible such a legal challenge would outlast the committee’s mandate.

Ahead of the subpoena’s release, the committee’s vice chairwoman, Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming said at a Harvard event earlier this week she assumes Trump will fulfill his legal obligation and honor the committee’s subpoena, “but if that doesn’t happen, then we’ll take the steps we need to take after that, but I don’t want to go too far down that path at this point.”

Unlike with previous subpoena announcements, the committee released on Friday the entire subpoena it sent to Trump along with the documents it is requesting.

“As demonstrated in our hearings, we have assembled overwhelming evidence, including from dozens of your former appointees and staff, that you personally orchestrated and oversaw a multi-part effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election and to obstruct the peaceful transition of power,” Cheney and Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the committee’s chairman, write in the subpoena letter.

The panel summarizes what it presented in its hearings to demonstrate why it believes Trump “personally orchestrated and oversaw” the efforts to overturn the election.

It says Trump “purposely and maliciously” disseminated false claims that the 2020 election was stolen in order to help his plan to overturn the election and to solicit contributions. The committee paints Trump as “orchestrating and overseeing” the effort to obtain false state electors. On pressure campaigns Trump enacted, the panel highlight says Trump attempted to “corrupt the Department of Justice,” by getting officials to make “false statements,” illegally pressured state officials to change election results, pressured former Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes on January 6 “despite knowing specifically that it was illegal,” and pressured members of Congress to object to valid electors.

Trump’s attorney David Warrington released a statement Friday afternoon, saying, “We are going to be handling this matter as counsel for President Donald J. Trump. We understand that, once again, flouting norms and appropriate and customary process, the Committee has publicly released a copy of its subpoena. As with any similar matter, we will review and analyze it, and will respond as appropriate to this unprecedented action.”

Trump reacts to committee’s unanimous vote to subpoena him

The former president posted a lengthy response criticizing the committee on Truth Social after members voted unanimously to subpoena him but did not say whether he would comply. Trump also recently shared a Fox story on Truth Social that claimed he “loves the idea of testifying.” But Trump could also fight the subpoena in court, and such a legal challenge would likely outlast the committee’s mandate.

In its subpoena, the committee specifically demands Trump turn over any communications, sent or received during the period of November 3, 2020, to January 20, 2021, with more than a dozen of his close allies who have emerged as key players in the broader plan to overturn the 2020 election:

  • Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser
  • Roger Stone, a long-time Republican operative, pardoned by Trump
  • Stephen Bannon, former Trump adviser, convicted of contempt of Congress
  • Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s former attorney
  • Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official
  • John Eastman, a conservative attorney who worked with Trump to overturn 2020 election
  • Christina Bobb, a former One America News Network host and current Trump lawyer
  • Jenna Ellis, a former member of Trump’s legal team
  • Sidney Powell, a former member of Trump’s legal team
  • Kenneth Chesebro, an attorney behind legal theories for overturning 2020 election
  • Boris Epshteyn, a Trump adviser
  • Cleta Mitchell, an attorney who worked with Trump campaign after 2020 election
  • Patrick Byrne, a former Overstock CEO and election denier

The panel’s request for communications includes Trump’s Signal communications. The committee also notes that it wants Trump to testify about his interactions with several individuals, including people on the same list, who invoked their Fifth Amendment rights when questioned by the committee about their dealings with the former President.

“This subpoena calls for testimony regarding your dealings with multiple individuals who have now themselves invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination regarding their communications with you, including Roger Stone, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, U.S. Army (Retired), John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark and Kelli Ward,” the committee wrote in a letter to Trump.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat who serves on the committee, was asked Friday if she and her colleagues are open to the former President testifying before the panel. She told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room” that it’s “subject to negotiation,” but reiterated that Trump must respond to the subpoena first.

“We asked for the documents first, so that we can consider what additional questions we may wish to pose to him,” Lofgren added.

The House committee latest public hearing, where members voted to subpoena him, served as a closing argument to the American public ahead of the midterm election that Trump is at the center of the multifaceted plot to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

“It is our obligation to seek Donald Trump’s testimony,” Thompson said ahead of the subpoena vote during the hearing.

Cheney said during the hearing that seeking Trump’s testimony under oath remains “a key task” because several witnesses closest to the former President invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to their interactions with Trump.

“We are obligated to seek answers directly from the man who set this all in motion,” Cheney said, referring to Trump.

This story has been updated with additional developments.

Read original article here

Jan. 6 panel: Live updates from hearing

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Jan. 6 committee voted unanimously Thursday to subpoena former President Donald Trump, demanding his personal testimony as it unveiled startling new video and described his multi-part plan to overturn his 2020 election loss, which led to his supporters’ fierce assault on the U.S. Capitol.

With alarming messages from the U.S. Secret Service warning of violence and vivid new video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other congressional leaders pleading for help, the panel showed the raw desperation at the Capitol. Using language frequently seen in criminal indictments, the panel said Trump had acted in a “premeditated” way ahead of Jan. 6, 2021, despite countless aides and officials telling him he had lost.

Trump is almost certain to fight the subpoena and decline to testify. On his social media outlet he blasted members for not asking him earlier — though he didn’t say he would have complied — and called the panel “a total BUST.”

“We must seek the testimony under oath of January 6′s central player,” said Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the committee’s vice chair, ahead of the vote.

In the committee’s 10th public session, just weeks before the congressional midterm elections, the panel summed up Trump’s “staggering betrayal” of his oath of office, as Chairman Bennie Thompson put it, describing the then-president’s unprecedented attempt to stop Congress from certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory.

While the effort to subpoena Trump may languish, more a nod to history than an effective summons, the committee has made clear it is considering whether to send its findings in a criminal referral to the Justice Department.

In one of its most riveting exhibits, the panel showed previously unseen footage of congressional leaders phoning for help during the assault as Trump refused to call off the mob.

Pelosi can be seen on a call with the governor of neighboring Virginia, explaining as she shelters with Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and others that the governor of Maryland has also been contacted. Later, the video shows Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders as the group asks the Defense Department for help.

“They’re breaking the law in many different ways,” Pelosi says at one point. “And quite frankly, much of it at the instigation of the president of the United States.”

The footage also portrays Vice President Mike Pence — not Trump — stepping in to help calm the violence, telling Pelosi and the others he has spoken with Capitol Police, as Congress plans to resume its session that night to certify Biden’s election.

The video was from Pelosi’s daughter, Alexandra, a documentary filmmaker.

In never-before-seen Secret Service messages, the panel produced evidence that extremist groups provided the muscle in the fight for Trump’s presidency, planning weeks before the attack to send a violent force to Washington.

The Secret Service warned in a Dec. 26, 2020, email of a tip that members of the right-wing Proud Boys planned to outnumber the police in a march in Washington on Jan. 6.

“It felt like the calm before the storm,” one Secret Service agent wrote in a group chat.

To describe the president’s mindset, the committee presented new and previously seen material, including interviews with Trump’s top aides and Cabinet officials — including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Attorney General William Barr and Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia — in which some described the president acknowledging he had lost.

Ex-White House official Alyssa Farah Griffin said Trump once looked up at a television and said, “Can you believe I lost to this (expletive) guy?”

Cabinet members also said in interviews shown at the hearing that they believed that once legal avenues had been exhausted, that should have been the end of Trump’s efforts to remain in power.

“In my view, that was the end of the matter,” Barr said of the Dec. 14 vote of the Electoral College.

But rather than the end of Trump’s efforts, it was only the beginning — as the president summoned the crowd to Washington on Jan. 6.

The panel showed clips of Trump at his rally near the White House that day saying the opposite of what he had been told. He then tells supporters he will march with them to the Capitol. That never happened.

“There is no defense that Donald Trump was duped or irrational,” said Cheney. “No president can defy the rule of law and act this way in our constitutional republic, period.”

Thursday’s hearing opened at a mostly empty Capitol complex, with most lawmakers at home campaigning. Several people who were among the thousands around the Capitol on Jan. 6 are now running for congressional office, some with Trump’s backing. Police officers who fought the mob filled the hearing room’s front row.

The House panel said the insurrection at the Capitol was not an isolated incident but a warning of the fragility of the nation’s democracy in the post-Trump era.

“None of this is normal,” Cheney said.

Along with interviews, the committee is drawing on the trove of 1.5 million pages of documents it received from the Secret Service, including an email from Dec. 11, 2020, the day the Supreme Court rejected one of the main lawsuits Trump’s team had brought against the election results.

“Just fyi. POTUS is pissed,” the Secret Service message said.

White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to then-chief of staff Mark Meadows, recalled Trump being “fired up” about the court’s ruling.

Trump told Meadows “something to the effect of: ‘I don’t want people to know we lost, Mark. This is embarrassing. Figure it out,’” Hutchinson told the panel in a recorded interview.

Thursday’s session served as a closing argument for the panel’s two Republican lawmakers, Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, who have essentially been shunned by Trump and their party and will not be returning in the new Congress. Cheney lost her primary election, and Kinzinger decided not to run.

The committee, having conducted more than 1,000 interviews and obtained countless documents, has produced a sweeping probe of Trump’s activities from his defeat in the November election to the Capitol attack.

Under committee rules, the Jan. 6 panel is to produce a report of its findings, likely in December. The committee will dissolve 30 days after publication of that report, and with the new Congress in January.

At least five people died in the Jan. 6 attack and its aftermath, including a Trump supporter shot and killed by Capitol Police.

More than 850 people have been charged by the Justice Department, some receiving lengthy prison sentences for their roles. Several leaders and associates of the extremist Oath Keepers and Proud Boys have been charged with sedition.

Trump faces various state and federal investigations over his actions in the election and its aftermath.

___

Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Jill Colvin, Kevin Freking and Michael Balsamo contributed to this report.

More on Donald Trump-related investigations: https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump

Read original article here

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton denies he ‘ran’ to avoid subpoenas

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) “ran” from his home and took off in a truck with his wife, a state senator, when a process server showed up to the residence Monday morning to serve Paxton with subpoenas in an ongoing lawsuit, according to an affidavit filed later that day.

The subpoenas for Paxton’s testimony are part of a lawsuit filed in August by reproductive health groups looking to protect their ability to help patients access legal abortions in states outside of Texas, where performing nearly all abortions became illegal following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in June.

On Monday evening, Paxton addressed the process server’s claims, writing on Twitter that, earlier in the day, he had been avoiding a “stranger lingering outside my home” and was concerned for his and his family’s safety.

“This is a ridiculous waste of time and the media should be ashamed of themselves,” Paxton wrote in response to the Texas Tribune, which earlier reported the story. “All across the country, conservatives have faced threats to their safety — many threats that received scant coverage or condemnation from the mainstream media.”

Paxton’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Washington Post late Monday. A representative for Paxton’s wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton (R), also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Abortion is now banned in these states. See where laws have changed.

In the affidavit signed and filed on Monday, process server Ernesto Martin Herrera said that he arrived at Paxton’s residence in McKinney around 8:30 a.m., parking on the street in front of the house. Seeing the silhouette of a man in the living room, Herrera knocked on the front door, according to the affidavit.

A woman answered it, Herrera said, and he explained that he needed to deliver legal documents to Paxton. The woman, who eventually identified herself as “Angela,” said that Paxton was on the phone and was in a “hurry to leave,” the affidavit states. Herrera added that he saw a black Chevrolet truck parked in the driveway. He could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday morning.

Herrera said he went back to his car and waited, “per my client’s instructions,” according to the affidavit. Around 9:20 a.m., he saw a different vehicle — a black Chevrolet Tahoe — drive up to the home and back into the driveway. About 20 minutes later, Herrera said he saw Paxton walk out of the garage, so he approached Paxton and called him by name.

“As soon as he saw me and heard me call his name out, he turned around and RAN back inside the house through the same door in the garage,” Herrera stated in the affidavit, emphasizing the word “ran” with bold type and an underline.

Less than 10 minutes later, “Angela” emerged from the house and opened one of the truck’s rear doors before getting into the driver’s seat and starting the vehicle, Herrera said in the affidavit. Paxton then ran from his home to the truck, as Herrera called out his name and said he had court documents for him, Herrera claimed.

“Mr. Paxton ignored me and kept heading for the truck,” Herrera stated.

Herrera said he told Paxton that he was going to put the documents on the ground, and then did so beside the truck.

Paxton “got in the truck leaving the documents on the ground, and then both vehicles left,” Herrera wrote.

The subpoenas are seeking Paxton’s appearance and testimony at a court hearing scheduled for Tuesday morning. As of early Tuesday, the hearing remained on the court’s schedule.



Read original article here

Exclusive: Mark Meadows complied with DOJ subpoena in January 6 probe



CNN
 — 

Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has complied with a subpoena from the Justice Department’s investigation into events surrounding January 6, 2021, sources familiar with the matter tell CNN, making him the highest-ranking Trump official known to have responded to a subpoena in the federal investigation.

Meadows turned over the same materials he provided to the House select committee investigating the US Capitol attack, one source said, meeting the obligations of the Justice Department subpoena, which has not been previously reported.

Last year, Meadows turned over thousands of text messages and emails to the House committee, before he stopped cooperating. The texts he handed over between Election Day 2020 and Joe Biden’s inauguration, which CNN previously obtained, provided a window into his dealings at the White House, though he withheld hundreds of messages, citing executive privilege.

Lawyer explains the DOJ subpoena ‘blitzkrieg’ ahead of midterm elections

In addition to Trump’s former chief of staff, one of Meadows’ top deputies in the White House, Ben Williamson, also recently received a grand jury subpoena, another source familiar with the matter tells CNN. That subpoena was similar to what others in Trump’s orbit received. It asked for testimony and records relating to January 6 and efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Williamson previously cooperated with the January 6 committee. He declined to comment to CNN.

Meadows’ compliance with the subpoena comes as the Justice Department has ramped up its investigation related to January 6, which now touches nearly every aspect of former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss – including the fraudulent electors plot, efforts to push baseless election fraud claims and how money flowed to support these various efforts, CNN reported this week.

An attorney for Meadows declined comment. The Justice Department did not respond to CNN requests for comment.

Federal investigators have issued at least 30 subpoenas to individuals with connections to Trump, including top officials from his fundraising and former campaign operation.

As White House chief of staff, Meadows was in the middle of Trump’s efforts to overturn the election in the two months between Election Day and Biden’s inauguration. Meadows communicated with numerous officials who tried to find election fraud and pushed various schemes to try to overturn the election, according to text messages obtained by CNN that Meadows turned over to the House select committee. Meadows also shared baseless conspiracy theories with Justice Department leaders as Trump tried to enlist DOJ’s help in his push to claim the election was stolen from him.

After Meadows stopped cooperating with the House committee, Congress referred him to the Justice Department for contempt of Congress. DOJ declined to prosecute him for contempt earlier this year.

It’s not yet clear whether the Justice Department will seek more materials from Meadows as part of the ongoing criminal investigation, which could lead to a legal fight over executive privilege.

Following last month’s FBI search of Trump’s Florida residence and resort, Meadows handed over texts and emails to the National Archives that he had not previously turned over from his time in the administration, CNN previously reported. Last year, Meadows spoke with Trump about the documents he brought to Mar-a-Lago that the National Archives wanted returned.

Trump has been counseled to cut contact with Meadows, and some of Trump’s attorneys believe Meadows could also be in investigators’ crosshairs and are concerned he could become a fact witness if he’s pushed to cooperate, CNN reported last month. Still, Trump and Meadows have spoken a number of times, according to a source familiar with their relationship.

Another source described their relationship as “not the same as it once was” while in the White House, but said they still have maintained a relationship, even as Trump has complained about Meadows to others.

Read original article here

Trump’s PAC faces scrutiny amid intensifying legal probes

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sitting on top of more than $115 million across several political committees, Donald Trump has positioned himself as a uniquely indomitable force in the GOP who would almost certainly have the resources to swamp his rivals if he launched another presidential campaign.

But that massive pile of money is also emerging as a potential vulnerability. His chief fundraising vehicle, Save America PAC, is under new legal scrutiny after the Justice Department issued a round of grand jury subpoenas that sought information about the political action committee’s fundraising practices.

The scope of the probe is unclear. Grand jury subpoenas and search warrants issued by the Justice Department in recent days were related to numerous topics, including Trump’s PAC, according to people familiar with the matter who requested anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. The subpoenas seek records as well as testimony and ask at least some of the recipients about their knowledge of efforts to engage in election fraud, according to one of the people.

The subpoenas also ask for records of communication with Trump-allied lawyers who supported efforts to overturn the election results and plotted to line up fake electors in battleground states. A particular area of focus appears to be on the “Save America Rally” that preceded the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the person said.

The investigation is one of several criminal probes Trump currently faces, including scrutiny of how documents with classified markings wound up at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago club. Regardless of Save America’s ultimate role in the investigations, the flurry of developments has drawn attention to the PAC’s management, how it has raised money and where those funds have been directed.

Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich slammed the subpoenas, saying a “weaponized and politicized Justice Department” was “casting a blind net to intimidate and silence Republicans who are fighting for his America First agenda.” Representatives for the Justice Department have declined to comment.

While Trump has more than $115 million held across various committees, the vast majority of it is stored at Save America. The PAC ended July with more than $99 million cash-on-hand, according to fundraising records — more than the Republican and Democratic national campaign committees combined.

Trump has continued to shovel up small-dollar donations in the months since, frustrating other Republicans who have been struggling to raise money ahead of the November midterm elections.

Save America is set up as a “leadership PAC” designed to allow political figures to fundraise for other campaigns. But the groups are often used by would-be candidates to fund political travel, polling and staff as they “test the waters” ahead of potential presidential runs. The accounts can also be used to contribute money to other candidates and party organizations, helping would-be candidates build political capital.

Much of the money Trump has amassed was raised in the days and weeks after the 2020 election. That’s when Trump supporters were bombarded with a nonstop stream of emails and texts, many containing all-caps lettering and blatant lies about a stolen 2020 election, soliciting cash for an “election defense fund.”

But no such fund ever existed. Instead, Trump has dedicated the money to other uses. He’s financed dozens of rallies, paid staff and used the money to travel as he’s teased an expected 2024 presidential run.

Other expenses have been more unusual. There was the $1 million donated last year to the Conservative Partnership Institute, a nonprofit that employs Cleta Mitchell and former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, both of whom encouraged Trump’s failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

There was the $650,000 “charitable contribution” in July to the Smithsonian Institution to help fund portraits of Trump and the former first lady that will one day hang in the National Portrait Gallery, according to the Smithsonian spokesperson Linda St. Thomas.

Much of the money has also funded a different sort of defense fund — one that has paid the legal expenses of Trump confidants and aides who have been called to testify before the Jan. 6 committee.

Overall, Trump’s sprawling political operation has spent at least $8 million on “legal consulting” and “legal expenses” to at least 40 law firms since the insurrection, according to an analysis of campaign finance disclosures.

It’s unclear how much of that money went to legal fees for staffers after a congressional committee started investigating the origins of the attack. But at least $1.1 million has been paid to Elections LLC, a firm started by former Trump White House ethics lawyer Stefan Passantino, according to campaign finance and business records. An additional $1 million was paid to a legal trust housed at the same address as Passantino’s firm. Passantino did not respond to a request for comment Monday night. Payments have also been made to firms that specialize in environmental regulation and real estate matters.

As of July, only about $750,000 had been doled out to candidates for Congress, with an additional $150,000 given to candidates for state office, records show. Trump is expected to ramp up his political spending now that general-election season has entered full swing, though it remains unclear exactly how much the notoriously thrifty former president will ultimately agree to spend.

Trump has long played coy about his 2024 plans, saying a formal announcement would trigger campaign finance rules that would, in part, force him to create a new campaign committee that would be bound by strict fundraising limits.

In the meantime, Trump aides have been discussing the prospect of creating a new super PAC or repurposing one that already exists as gets he closer to an expected announcement. While Trump could not use Save America to fund campaign activity after launching a run, aides have discussed the possibility of moving at least some of that money into a super PAC, according to people familiar with the talks.

Campaign finance experts are mixed on the legality of such a move. Some, like Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia Law School and an expert in campaign finance, said he didn’t see a problem.

“There may be some hoops he has to jump through,” he said. But “I don’t see a problem with it going from one PAC to another … I don’t see what would block it.”

Others disagree.

“It is illegal for a candidate to transfer a significant amount of money from a leadership PAC to a super PAC. You certainly can’t do $100 million,” said Adav Noti, a former Federal Election Commission attorney who now works for the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington-based good governance group focused on money and politics.

And whether or not Trump would face any consequences is a different matter.

For years, the FEC, which polices campaign finance laws, has been gridlocked. The commission is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, and a majority vote is needed to take any enforcement action against a candidate.

Indeed, legal experts say Trump has repeatedly flouted campaign finance law since launching his 2016 White House run, with no consequence.

More than 50 separate complaints alleging Trump broke campaign finance laws have been filed against him since his 2016 campaign. In roughly half of those instances, FEC lawyers have concluded that there was reason to believe that he may have broken the law. But the commission, which now includes three Trump-appointed Republicans, has repeatedly deadlocked.

The list of dismissed complaints against Trump is extensive. In 2021, Republicans on the commission rejected the claim, supported by the FEC’s staff attorneys, that a Trump orchestrated hush-money payment by his former lawyer to pornographic film star Stormy Daniels amounted to an unreported in-kind contribution. In May, the commission similarly deadlocked over whether his campaign broke the law by hiding how it was spending cash during the 2020 campaign.

And over the summer, the commission rejected complaints stemming from Trump’s threat to withhold $391 million in aid for the Ukraine unless the Ukrainian officials opened an investigation into the relationship President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden had with a Ukrainian gas company called Burisma, which the FEC’s attorney’s determined was a potential violation of campaign finance law.

“There is no legal basis whatsoever for believing that Congress intended the FEC to police official acts of the government that may be intended to assist an officeholder’s reelection,” the commission’s three Republicans said in a written statement late last month.

That means any enforcement action would likely have to come from the Justice Department.

“He has nothing to fear from the Federal Election Commission until either its structure is changed or there is turnover among the FEC Commissioners,” said Brett G. Kappel, a longtime campaign finance attorney who works at the Washington-based firm Harmon Curran and has represented both Republicans and Democrats. “That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have anything to fear from the Justice Department, which is already apparently investigating Save America. From what I can see, there are multiple wire fraud allegations that could be the subject of a Justice Department investigation.”

In the meantime, Trump and Save America continue to rake in contributions from grassroots supporters, blasting out fundraising solicitations with aggressive demands like “this needs to be taken care of NOW” and threatening donors that their “Voter Verification” canvass surveys are “OUT OF DATE,” even as some of the Republican Senate contenders Trump endorsed and helped drag across the finish line in primaries are struggling to raise cash.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has urged those candidates to ask Trump for money, which the former president has so far proven reluctant to provide. That has left the candidates, some of whom presented themselves as McConnell antagonists during their primaries, to grovel to McConnell and the Senate Leadership Fund, the super PAC he controls and has $100 million in reserve.

It also strengthens McConnell’s hand in his long-simmering feud with Trump, who has urged GOP senators to oust the Kentucky Republican. Some close to Trump acknowledge the candidates could use the money, but said he doesn’t see it as his responsibility to fill the void.

___

Colvin reported from New York.

Read original article here

Bannon trial set to begin over failure to comply with Jan. 6 committee subpoenas

Proceedings began Monday with jury selection at the federal courthouse in Washington, DC. Twenty-two potential jurors have been found, and the 12 that make up the jury and two alternates will be selected Tuesday morning. Opening arguments will begin soon after.

The polarizing long-time Trump ally has always been at the top of the January 6 witness list for House investigators. But Justice Department prosecutors say the trial is intended to punish Bannon for noncompliance with the subpoenas, rather than coerce him into sharing information.
The case is a major test of what leverage Congress has when a witness evades a House subpoena. Bannon’s is the first of two similar House select committee subpoena cases to head to trial; a contempt case against former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro is still in its early stages.
Bannon’s trial also carries special relevance for the House panel as it continues to negotiate bringing in additional witnesses, and as it prepares for a major primetime hearing Thursday night intended to spotlight what committee members have called former President Donald Trump’s “dereliction of duty” on January 6.

Jurors asked about House investigation

During Monday’s jury selection process, potential jurors were not pressed about their general feelings about Bannon or Trump.

They were, however, asked about their news consumption of the House investigation and about this case itself. Some said they’ve consumed a little of the House hearings, if that.

Many of the potential jurors said they’ve heard minimally about Bannon’s case, yet a large number of them have taken in at least some of the select committee public hearings. But awareness alone isn’t enough for them to be tossed from the jury pool.

Among the jurors who qualified for the 22, there is a man who works with Covid-19 testing, a woman retired from working for a union who’s now writing a dissertation and a self-described “recovering” lawyer who now works at the State Department.

The lawyer-turned-government-official told the judge she thought executive privilege might be part of the case, and that the case was about whether Bannon had to testify, or was protected.

It’s not clear if Bannon’s legal team will be able to make any arguments that even mention executive privilege to the jury. The judge, US District Judge Carl Nichols, allowed her to continue being a potential juror because her knowledge of the case was limited.

Bannon’s team has repeatedly argued that pre-trial publicity, especially with the congressional hearings, should prompt his case at least to be delayed.

But many potential jurors said they haven’t formed an opinion or know little of the details and weren’t quizzed extensively about Bannon’s political history.

One potential juror said she had a “high-level awareness” of the select committee proceedings and the case, and heard not everyone had responded to subpoenas they received — even if they should have. But “the whole story we haven’t heard yet,” the legal aid worker told the judge. “I’m presuming you’ll have to explain the law to us.”

She remained in the jury pool.

Another potential juror was tossed from the pool after he told the judge he watched all the select committee hearings, then criticized Republicans who say the election was stolen, and, looking toward Bannon, said, “I do believe he’s guilty.”

Trial expected to go quickly

Prosecutors pledge that their case against Bannon will be presented succinctly, over just a few days, with only two or three prosecution witnesses. That list includes House committee investigators.

It’s unknown how extensive Bannon’s defense will be, or if he will want to take the stand in his own defense. He will not be able to force House members to testify, the judge has said.
Early in the case, Bannon vowed to make the proceedings the “misdemeanor from hell for (Attorney General) Merrick Garland, (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi and (President) Joe Biden.” But at a recent court hearing, his defense attorney David Schoen complained, “What’s the point of going to trial here if there is no defense?”
Bannon — who accepted an 11th-hour pardon from Trump in 2021 as he was facing conspiracy wire fraud and money laundering charges in Manhattan’s federal court related to a border wall fundraising scheme — has made a series of attempts in court in recent days to stop the trial, to fashion more of a defense, or to prepare for possible appeals.
So far, Nichols has overwhelmingly sided with the Justice Department on what evidence the jury can hear, cutting off Bannon’s ability to try to defer to advice his attorney gave him or to use internal DOJ policies on presidential advisers that he hoped might protect him.
In recent weeks, Trump indicated he wanted to waive any executive privilege that might have applied to Bannon, and Bannon suggested he may be interested in speaking with the House committee — a series of events that Bannon’s team now wants to try to show to the jury. But his ability to bring up arguments about executive privilege will be, at best, severely limited. Bannon was not a government official during the period the committee is probing.
A federal grand jury indicted the right-wing figure in November on two counts of criminal contempt — one for his failure to provide testimony demanded by the House select committee’s subpoena in the fall and the other for his failure to produce documents. A key issue at trial will be whether the jury agrees with prosecutors and the House that Bannon’s October subpoena deadlines were final, and that he deliberately disregarded them.

Both charges he faces are misdemeanors. But if he is found guilty, each carries a mandatory minimum of 30 days in jail.

Bannon was one of the first potential January 6 witnesses the House committee subpoenaed — and he is one of a handful of people the committee has held in contempt. The committee said it wanted to obtain his documents and ask him questions because Bannon had contact with Trump, was in the so-called war room of Trump allies at the Willard hotel in Washington as the riot unfolded, and made a prediction on his podcast before the riot that “all hell” was “going to break loose.”

“In short, Mr. Bannon appears to have played a multi-faceted role in the events of January 6th, and the American people are entitled to hear his first-hand testimony regarding his actions,” the House committee said in its report putting forward a contempt resolution against Bannon.

When Bannon was facing deadlines in October, his attorney Robert Costello told the committee Bannon would not be cooperating with the investigation because of instructions from Trump that said he should, “where appropriate, invoke any immunities and privileges he may have.”
Since then, criminal investigators have interviewed Costello, as well as a Trump lawyer, Justin Clark, in building their case. According to their description of Clark’s statements, he told Costello Trump couldn’t shield Bannon from total noncompliance with the subpoenas.

Ahead of Bannon’s trial, the House committee has featured details about him in some of its public presentations. At a hearing last Tuesday, the committee revealed White House phone logs indicating Bannon and Trump spoke twice on January 5, 2021, including once before Bannon made his predictions about the next day on the podcast.

The committee has another hearing planned for primetime Thursday evening. Depending on the pace of the proceedings at DC’s federal courthouse, and the length of his defense presentation and jury deliberations, Bannon’s trial could be over by then.

This story has been updated with additional details.

Read original article here

The Ultimate News Site