Trump’s legal cases
Although Trump’s legal cases are essentially moot due to his election and the SCOTUS immunity ruling, it is important to understand his actions and the crimes for which he was indicted.
It has been claimed that this was a weaponization of the Justice system. Reading the details can help one better decide on the truth of this claim.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/trump-criminal-investigations-cases-tracker-list/
Classified Documents Case
TOP LINE: This is a federal case. Trump was indicted on 32 counts of unlawfully retaining secret documents, and covering up that illegal activity. He also was caught on tape showing secret war plans to unauthorized persons while admitting that they were secret and had not been unclassified.
Upon assuming office Trump is expected to instruct his Attorney General to drop this case.
Federal prosecutors, led by special counsel Jack Smith, have accused Trump of taking highly sensitive national security documents when he left the White House in January 2021. He stashed those documents haphazardly throughout his Mar-a-Lago resort and obstructed the government’s repeated attempts to retrieve them, prosecutors allege.
On at least two occasions, Trump showed classified documents to individuals who were not authorized to view them, prosecutors say. During one of those episodes — which was audio-recorded — Trump allegedly displayed a top-secret military plan of attack while telling visitors, “As president I could have declassified it” but “now I can’t,” adding that the document he was showing them was “still a secret.”
The charges: 32 felony counts of willful retention of national defense information in violation of the Espionage Act 6 felony counts of obstruction-related crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 1512 and 18 U.S.C. § 1519 2 felony counts of false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001
The Espionage Act makes it a crime to retain records containing sensitive national security information. The first 32 counts against Trump arise from 32 specific documents that he allegedly hoarded at Mar-a-Lago and refused to give back, even though he was no longer entitled to possess them after his presidency. Of the 32 documents, 31 were marked classified, and many concerned foreign military capabilities, military activities or nuclear weapons, according to the indictment. The remaining eight felony counts arise from Trump’s alleged efforts to stymie the investigation, including directing Nauta to move boxes in the hope that neither Trump’s own lawyer nor the FBI would discover some of the classified documents.
INDICTMENT: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000189-9975-db28-a589-9df563cd0000
The Federal Election Interference Case
Top Line: Trump was charged with 4 federal crimes for his role in the January 6 insurrection. Upon assuming office Trump is expected to instruct his Attorney General to drop this case.
Many people misunderstand the extent of Trump’s involvement in the insurrection.
According to the indictment, Trump’s false claim of election fraud provided the basis for his actions. He schemed with others to create slates of false electors in targeted states that he lost, pressured select state legislators to violate state election laws, presented falsified records, and threatened officials in a concerted effort to overturn the election and retain power. Ultimately his call for his supporters to come to Washington resulted in a riot that temporarily stopped the election certification and peaceful transfer of power.
It has been proven that he was well aware that he had lost the election and that any voter irregularities were minor and not consequential to the final election results.
Prosecutor Smith’s conclusion-
“Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”
Jack Smith has issued his final report on this – https://www.justice.gov/storage/Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-January-2025.pdf
The CHARGES:
As set forth in the original and superseding indictments, when it became clear that Mr. Trump had lost the election and that lawful means of challenging the election results had failed, he resorted to a series of criminal efforts to retain power.
This included attempts to induce state officials to ignore true vote counts; to manufacture fraudulent slates of presidential electors in seven states that he had lost; to force Justice Department officials and his own Vice President, Michael R. Pence, to act in contravention of their oaths and to instead advance Mr. Trump’s personal interests; and, on January 6, 2021, to direct an angry mob to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification of the presidential election and then leverage rioters’ violence to further delay it.
INDICTMENT: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.1.0_1.pdf
January 6 committee report: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf
Special Council Report: https://www.justice.gov/storage/Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-January-2025.pdf
The Georgia Election Interference Case
Top Line: This is a Georgia state case, regarding Trump’s role in election interference
This is a state case and cannot be dismissed by the Attorney General.
Trump’s efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election were perhaps most aggressive in the state of Georgia. Multiple recounts confirmed that Joe Biden narrowly prevailed in the race for the state’s 16 electoral votes. But Trump and his allies spread lies about voter fraud, urged Georgia officials and state lawmakers to reverse Biden’s win and plotted to send fake electors to Washington. On Jan. 2, 2021, Trump called Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, and urged him to “find” 11,780 votes — the number needed to overcome Biden’s victory. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis charged Trump and 18 of his allies for these efforts, alleging a wide-ranging criminal enterprise.
The Charges: 1 count of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 1 count of conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer 2 counts of conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree 2 counts of false statements and writings 2 counts of conspiracy to commit false statements and writings 1 count of filing false documents 1 count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents
The indictment accused 19 named defendants of criminal wrongdoing and contained a total of 41 state-law felony charges. Thirteen of those felonies were leveled against Trump. Judge Scott McAfee threw out six of the charges, including three against Trump, because McAfee found that the allegations supporting the charges were not detailed enough. But prosecutors can refile those charges with more details, and the most serious charge still stands: an alleged violation of the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO. That law allows prosecutors to package together disparate crimes if those crimes advance a single corrupt enterprise.
INDICTMENT: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000189-f730-dc32-ab89-f7fc1f760000
The Hush Money Case
Top Line: This is a NY state case. Trump is accused of concealing hush money payments to a porn star and unlawfully covering it up by falsifying business records.
This is a state case and cannot be dismissed by the US attorney general.
On May 30, 2024, Trump became the first U.S. president to become a convicted felon. After a six-week trial that sidelined him from his campaign to regain the White House, he was found guilty of falsifying business records in connection with a payoff to Stormy Daniels, a porn star who claimed she had a sexual encounter with him. By buying Daniels’ silence, the payoff avoided a possible sex scandal in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign. Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal attorney and “fixer” at the time, sent the $130,000 hush-money payment to Daniels in October 2016, and then, while Trump was president, he reimbursed Cohen in a series of installments processed by Trump’s company. A unanimous 12-person jury found that Trump fraudulently disguised those installments as corporate legal expenses in violation of New York law.
The Charges: In New York, the bare-bones crime of falsifying business records is a misdemeanor. But it becomes a felony if the defendant falsified the records with the intent to commit or conceal a separate underlying crime. Prosecutors charged Trump with felony-level falsifying business records, and they said he falsified the records to conceal a separate violation of a New York election law that prohibits conspiring to promote a political candidate (in this case, Trump himself) through “unlawful means.” The hush money to Daniels, prosecutors said, was unlawful because it violated campaign finance laws. And they said Trump’s reimbursement arrangement to Cohen violated tax laws as well.
34 felony counts of New York Penal Law § 175.10: Falsifying business records in the first degree
INDICTMENT: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000187-4d9a-dc00-a3d7-4d9f97b40000
The SCOTUS Golden Ticket
Top Line:
“The Court concludes that the separation of powers principles explicated in the Court’s precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.”
TRUMP v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 23–939. Argued April 25, 2024—Decided July 1, 2024Details: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-939
The Court concludes that the separation of powers principles explicated in the Court’s precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. -Majority ruling by SCOTUS
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and
JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting. Page 68
Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.
Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting.
In short, America has traditionally relied on the law to keep its Presidents in line. Starting today, however, Americans must rely on the courts to determine when (if at all) the criminal laws that their representatives have enacted to promote individual and collective security will operate as speedbumps to Presidential action or reaction. Once selfregulating, the Rule of Law now becomes the rule of judges, with courts pronouncing which crimes committed by a President have to be let go and which can be redressed as impermissible. So, ultimately, this Court itself will decide whether the law will be any barrier to whatever course of criminality emanates from the Oval Office in the future. The potential for great harm to American institutions and Americans themselves is obvious.
… the risks (and power) the Court has now assumed are intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly
antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms, I dissent.
In a shocking and lawless opinion, the Supreme Court granted presidents broad protections from criminal prosecution for “official acts” they undertake while in office. This ruling from the Court’s conservative supermajority pulls a new constitutional rule from thin air. And it raises daunting, unjustifiable barriers to criminally prosecuting lawbreaking presidents. Trump is now positioned to renew his push to dismiss the charges against him and evade accountability for the grave crimes he’s accused of committing against our democracy. The Court has left the rule of law in tatters — even as it looks the other way.
The Court’s 6–3 opinion — authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — attempts to set out rules to govern prosecutions of any and all future occupants of the Oval Office. Presidents, the Court rules, “may not be prosecuted for exercising [their] core constitutional powers, and [are] entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for [their] official acts.” The Court notes that presidents “enjoy[] no immunity for [their] unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official.” But the latter assertion rings hollow in the context of the opinion that surrounds it. The Court has created an elaborate system of ambiguous rules that will not only ratchet up the complexity of the case against Trump but also erode the checks on presidential illegality. It is both a roadblock to prosecution and an encouragement to more insurrection.
Trump v. United States involves Trump’s prosecution in Washington, DC, for federal crimes stemming from his alleged plot to overturn the results of the 2020 election, a driving force behind the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Special Counsel Jack Smith charged that, as part of this conspiracy, Trump and his allies promoted false claims of election fraud, pushed state officials to ignore the results of the popular vote, organized slates of false Trump electors, pressured the Justice Department to conduct sham election-crime investigations, and tried to get Vice President Mike Pence to replace authentic electors with phony ones.
SCOTUS decesion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Oral Arguments: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-939
Transcript of Oral Arguments: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_3fb4.pdf
