Special counsel asks judge to pause his appeal in Trump’s classified documents case
SimpleImages/Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — Special counsel Jack Smith on Wednesday asked a federal appeals court to pause his appeal of the dismissal of President-elect Donald Trump’s classified documents case.
The move is part of Smith’s winding down of his two cases against Trump — the classified documents case and the federal election interference case — due to longstanding Department of Justice policy that prohibits a sitting president from facing criminal prosecution while in office.
“As a result of the election held on November 5, 2024, one of the defendants in this case, Donald J. Trump, is expected to be certified as President-elect on January 6, 2025, and inaugurated on January 20, 2025,” the filing said.
Smith asked to hold the appeal in abeyance and push the next filing deadline until Dec. 2 to “to afford the Government time to assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy.”
Trump pleaded not guilty last year to 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House, after prosecutors said he repeatedly refused to return hundreds of documents containing classified information and took steps to thwart the government’s efforts to get the documents back.
District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, dismissed the case against Trump and his co-defendants this summer, ruling that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional because he was not appointed by the president or confirmed by Congress.
Prosecutors then appealed that decision to the Atlanta-based United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The judge in Trump’s federal election interference case paused all upcoming deadlines in that case last week, following a request from Smith.
(WASHINGTON) — Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign and Jewish advocacy groups on Friday forcefully criticized what they called former President Donald Trump’s “dangerous” and “antisemitic” comments saying Jewish voters would be to blame if he lost the presidential election.
“I’ll put it to you very simply and as gently as I can: I wasn’t treated properly by the voters who happen to be Jewish,” Trump said at an event Thursday night in Washington that was meant to highlight antisemitism. “I don’t know. Do they know what the hell is happening if I don’t win this election? And the Jewish people would really have a lot to do with that if that happens, because at 40% that means 60% of the people are voting for the enemy.”
The backlash was fierce.
“Donald Trump is resorting to the oldest antisemitic tropes in the book because he’s weak and can’t stand the fact that the majority of America is going to reject him in November. But we know that words like these can have dangerous consequences,” Harris campaign national security spokesperson Morgan Finkelstein said in a statement. “As Trump has proven, including over the past few weeks with his lies about Springfield, Ohio, he will cling to fearmongering and intimidation, no matter the cost.”
Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, have in recent days pushed the baseless claim that Haitian migrants in Springfield, most of whom are legally there, of stealing and eating neighbors’ pets — an accusation roundly refuted by local officials.
“When Donald Trump loses this election, it will be because Americans from all faiths, ethnicities, and backgrounds came together to turn the page on the divisiveness he demonstrates every day,” Finkelstein added.
Harris’ husband, second gentleman Doug Emhoff, who is Jewish himself, wrote on X Friday that Jewish Americans would not be “intimidated” by Trump’s attacks. “Last night, Donald Trump once again fanned the flames of antisemitism by trafficking in tropes blaming and scapegoating Jews. He even did it at an event purporting to fight antisemitism, no less,” Emhoff wrote. “This is dangerous and must be condemned. We will not be intimidated and will continue to live openly, proudly, and without fear as Jews.”
Non-partisan Jewish advocacy organizations also vocalized their strong opposition to Trump’s comment.
“Whoever a majority of the Jewish community votes for, Jews — roughly 2 percent of the U.S. population — cannot and should not be blamed for the outcome of the election,” the American Jewish Committee wrote in a statement. “Setting up anyone to say, ‘we lost because of the Jews’ is outrageous and dangerous. Thousands of years of history have shown that scapegoating Jews can lead to antisemitic hate and violence.”
Some Jewish voters will vote for Harris, and some will vote for Trump, the AJC said, adding that “None of us, by supporting the candidate we choose, is ‘voting for the enemy.'”
Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblat wrote on social media that Trump’s comments contradicted the message of the antisemitic event at which he was speaking and can make it worse for Jewish Americans.
“Preemptively blaming American Jews for your potential election loss does zero to help American Jews. It increases their sense of alienation in a moment of vulnerability when right-wing extremists and left-wing antizionists continually demonize and slander Jews,” Greenblat wrote “Let’s be clear, this speech likely will spark more hostility and further inflame an already bad situation.”
Amy Spitalnick, who leads the progressive-leaning Jewish Council for Public Affairs, encouraged more people to join growing chorus slamming Trump’s comment.
“Last night, Trump preemptively blamed the Jews for his possible electoral loss, after spending months calling Jews who don’t support him ‘crazy’ & ‘disloyal.’ Speaking out against this isn’t about partisan politics — it’s about fundamental Jewish safety,” Spitalnick wrote. “We need everyone to do so.”
Trump did receive backing from some on the political right. The Republican Jewish Coalition, a major Jewish political group that has endorsed Trump, praised Trump for his remarks on combatting antisemitism.
Matt Brooks, the CEO of the organization, told ABC News in a phone interview that he thought the comments about Jewish voters and the election were about motivating Jewish voters, and that Democratic claims otherwise are a deflection.
“I think what it was is the president trying to motivate the Jewish community,” Brooks said, adding that Trump “realizes what’s at stake” for American Jews, who feel unsafe in America due to a rise in antisemitism. (Brooks pointed to intimidation faced by Jewish students on college campuses as one example.)
“This is an absolute distraction, to deflect that [Trump] made many significant and important contributions to the Jewish community,” Brooks said.
He added that Trump was also indicating how close of an election it may be in battleground states, where given the likely slim margin, “if the Jewish vote doesn’t move in his favor, it may cost him the election.”
(NEW YORK) With just weeks to go until the presidential election, a Georgia judge has ruled that certification of election results by county officials in the state is “mandatory” — a new ruling that is likely to be heralded by election experts amid rising fears that rogue election officials could seek to delay or decline to certify results after Election Day due to allegations of fraud or error.
“Election superintendents in Georgia have a mandatory fixed obligation to certify election results,” the order states.
Judge Robert McBurney, as part of an ongoing election case, found that the law is clear: “the superintendent must certify and must do so by a certain time.”
“There are no exceptions,” he wrote in the Monday night ruling.
The ruling comes after Georgia’s controversial State Election Board recently passed new rules that some voting rights activists are concerned would cause chaos in the certification process. One of those new rules allows election officials to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” prior to certification.
Specifically, McBurney’s ruling Monday noted that certification by the county superintendents must occur, even in the case where there are concerns about fraud or error.
“While the superintendent must investigate concerns about miscounts and must report those concerns to a prosecutor if they persist after she investigates, the existence of those concerns, those doubts, and those worries is not cause to delay or decline certification,” McBurney wrote. “That is simply not an option for this particular ministerial function in the superintendent’s broader portfolio of functions.”
Broadly, McBurney noted that the election officials must still certify the results, but report concerns to authorities:
“And if in the course of her canvassing, counting, and investigating, a superintendent should discover what appears to her to be fraud or systemic error, she still must count all votes — despite the perceived fraud — and report her concerns about fraud or error to the appropriate district attorney,” the judge wrote.
Miguel J. Rodriguez Carrillo / AFP via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — In the tumultuous weeks following the 2020 election, former President Donald Trump and his allies scrambled to challenge his election loss with a flurry of lawsuits.
Their efforts failed, with judges across the country condemning their scattershot claims. But as Election Day 2024 approaches, Trump and the Republican National Committee have adopted what they say is a more aggressive pre-election legal strategy.
“Trump learned his lesson from 2020, and he has a really good legal team at the campaign and the RNC,” said Mike Davis, a lawyer and Trump ally who has been floated for a potential appointment in a Trump administration. “We are so much better prepared.”
Earlier this year, the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign announced what they described as an “historic” “election integrity” program with the mission of deploying 100,000 volunteers and attorneys in battleground states, and implementing what they called a “proactive litigation effort.”
According to a Republican National Committee official, in recent months the program has engaged in over 130 election lawsuits across 26 states, and recruited approximately 5,000 volunteer attorneys who are ready to be activated on Election Day.
Democrats, too, have taken on an offensive posture. They have aggressively pushed back in the courts, intervening in “dozens of baseless Republican lawsuits to debunk their lies and defeat them in court,” according to an internal memo prepared by Vice President Kamala Harris’ chief attorney, Dana Remus.
“We know how to defeat Trump’s tactics,” said the memo, a copy of which was obtained by ABC News.
Some election experts have also expressed concern about the GOP-led legal strategy, accusing some Republicans of peddling lies and seeking to create confusion about voting laws in order to sow chaos should Trump lose the election.
Wendy Weiser, who directs the Democracy Program at the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice, told ABC News that the 2024 election has become “both the disinformation and the litigation election.”
“We’re seeing a record number of lawsuits filed before the election — nearly every day — in a seemingly coordinated push to use the legitimacy of the courts to lay the groundwork for discrediting an unfavorable result,” Weiser said. “The lawsuits are not about getting legal relief, but about spreading conspiracy theories.”
Following the 2020 election, Trump and his allies filed over 60 lawsuits challenging the election’s outcome based on allegations of fraud, despite no evidence of widespread fraud that could have impacted the result. Nearly every single lawsuit was rejected, thrown out, or withdrawn— including two denials from the Supreme Court. In some cases, judges dismissed the lawsuits while expressing frustration over the lack of evidence, and some attorneys who publicly represented the president have since been disbarred, faced defamation claims, or been criminally charged.
Allies of the former president say that this time, they’re determined to be more aggressive in the lead-up to Election Day.
“If you wait till after the election to take legal action, you’re not going to get a judge to side with you,” Davis said. “You need to get injunctions ahead of time on signature verification and other issues, because if you wait till after the election, good luck.”
Some issues have already begun bubbling up in one of the most hotly contested states: Arizona. The Arizona Republican Party recently announced that it had brought in attorney and Trump loyalist Harmeet Dhillon to take over its election integrity operation.
Dhillon’s name was announced following the resignation of Kory Langhofer, who had served as chief legal counsel for the Arizona operation until the first week of October.
Sources familiar with the situation tell ABC News that Langhofer had long planned to hand over the reins. The move, however, reflects what sources said is a broader concern among some Republican lawyers in Arizona who have grown weary about the party’s legal strategies in the state, with some involved already having to halt others from bringing frivolous legal complaints.
Republicans in Arizona have set up a team tasked with receiving and sorting through reported election issues from around the state, which one source familiar with the operation described as a “daily turn of frivolous problems.”
On election night, the RNC is planning to have volunteer attorneys help staff a hotline where poll watchers and others on the ground can report issues, the RNC official said. In some states, there will be lawyers on the ground as well. Already, staff is on the ground in 18 states to handle the “election integrity” effort, the RNC official said.
Responding to critics, the RNC’s Election Integrity communications director Claire Zunk said their “unprecedented election integrity operation is committed to defending the law and protecting every legal vote” and that they will “continue to fight for a fair and transparent election for all Americans.”
Republicans’ efforts this year come after the RNC in 2018 was released from its decadeslong consent decree that had blocked it engaging in “ballot security” measures since the early 1980s.
The Harris campaign, meantime, has marshaled a centralized legal team of over half a dozen lawyers to handle election claims.
“The 2024 presidential election is already the most litigated in American history,” according to the internal Harris campaign memo, “but we are also the most prepared campaign in history for what we face.”
The group is led by Dana Remus, who provides overall strategic direction and leads the campaign’s legal election protection programs. Lawyers including Seth Waxman of Wilmer Hale, Don Verrilli of Munger, Tolles & Olson, and John Devaney of Perkins Coie are litigating cases and working with local counsel in battleground states. Lawyers including Bob Bauer and Marc Elias are also advising the team.
It’s part of an effort that lawyers from the Harris campaign told ABC News they’ve been building up for years, since President Joe Biden took office in 2021 and they immediately began planning for the next cycle. One of the first things that was done when Biden launched his reelection effort in 2023, the lawyers said, was to call a meeting to start putting together the post-election plan.
“We’ve brainstormed the worst scenarios, and are ready to go if we see them,” said Maury Riggan, the general counsel for the campaign, in an interview with ABC News.
“The veteran lawyers who fought and won in 2020 have been preparing for dozens of scenarios, drafting thousands of pages of legal briefs, and working directly with hundreds of lawyers and experts on the ground in battleground states so we are ready for whatever the other side throws our way,” the Harris campaign’s internal memo said.
Together, the Democratic National Committee, with support from the Harris campaign, is involved in 35 lawsuits around the country, lawyers with the Harris campaign told ABC News.
Earlier this month, for example, the DNC, filed a lawsuit in Georgia after the state’s pro-Trump State Election Board passed a series of controversial voting rules over the objection of some of the highest Republican elections officials in the state.
The Democrats won the suit last week after a judge struck down a controversial “hand count” rule that would have required election workers to hand count the ballots on election night — a process they said would invite “chaos” on election night and beyond. Six other rules were struck down as well.
“From the beginning, this rule was an effort to delay election results to sow doubt in the outcome, and our democracy is stronger thanks to this decision to block it,” said a joint statement from the Harris campaign, the DNC, and Georgia Democrats. “We will continue fighting to ensure that voters can cast their ballot knowing it will count.”
The RNC has appealed the decision, with RNC Chairman Michael Whatley saying the judge “exemplified the very worst of judicial activism.”
The Democrats’ aggressive legal posture has trickled down to the individual states. In the battleground state of Nevada, the Democrat secretary of state said his office has started pre-drafting legal filings with his attorney general to try to anticipate any issues that may come up — a process he likened to a game of “Mad Libs.”
“You know the county, you fill in the county name, you fill in the date, you fill in the facts,” said Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar in an interview with ABC News’ Terry Moran. “And you file that thing as soon as you can before the Nevada Supreme Court.”
According to Marc Elias, a prominent election litigation lawyer brought on by the Harris campaign this cycle, there have been almost 180 election lawsuits filed around the country this year — a number he said is “a record for the most new cases ever filed in a single year.”
Active litigation is pending in 39 states, Elias said in a recent post on X, with prominent battleground states seeing the most activity. Georgia leads the way with 23 lawsuits, followed by Pennsylvania with 16.
