Trump again asks appeals court to move New York hush money case to federal court
(NEW YORK) — Former President Donald Trump has again asked an appeals court to transfer his New York criminal hush money case to federal court, reigniting an effort to stall his sentencing or throw out his conviction on 34 felony courts.
In a filing on late Monday, Trump’s lawyers asked the New York-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to reconsider a lower court’s September decision denying the former president’s attempt to remove the state case to federal court.
Defense lawyers argued in the filing that the jury in the case improperly saw evidence of Trump’s official acts as president which would have been protected by the Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity.
“This case presents complex first-impression issues relating to the Supremacy Clause, federal-officer removal, appearances of impropriety and conflicts in connection with an unprecedented and baseless prosecution of the leading candidate in the 2024 Presidential election, and the ability of future Presidents to serve the American people without fear of reprisal from hostile local officials,” lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove wrote in the 99-page filing.
Trump was found guilty in May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in order to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
In July, the Supreme Court ruled in a blockbuster decision that Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken while in office.
Criminal or civil cases against federal officials can be removed to federal court if the officials can prove the case centers on official conduct. When Trump sought to remove his hush money case to federal court in 2023 by arguing that the allegations related to his official acts as president, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied the move, writing that “hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President’s official acts.”
Judge Hellerstein then denied Trump’s request to reconsider his decision in September, as Trump was seeking to delay his sentencing, because the former president failed to show “good cause” for why the issue should be examined again.
“Nothing in the Supreme Court’s opinion affects my previous conclusion that the hush money payments were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority,” Judge Hellerstein wrote.
Trump is now appealing Hellerstein’s September decision, which defense lawyers argue relied on a “profoundly flawed analysis.”
Trump is scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 26, after the New York judge overseeing the case, Juan Merchan, granted Trump’s request to delay sentencing until after the November election.
In their filing Monday, Trump’s lawyers also aired grievances about an alleged conflict of interest by Judge Merchan and political motivations of the prosecutors, writing that witnesses “concocted the type of false and implausible story President Trump’s political opponents wanted to hear.”
If the effort to remove the case to federal court is successful, it could give Trump the authority to kill the prosecution if he is elected to the presidency in November. Unlike his federal criminal cases, Trump is unable to direct the prosecution or pardon himself if the case remains in state court.
The removal attempt could also impact the timing of Trump’s Nov. 26 sentencing if the motion remains unresolved by then.
Separately, Judge Merchan is expected to issue a ruling on Trump’s effort to throw out the conviction based on presidential immunity by Nov. 12.
(DELPHI, IN.) — Jury selection begins Monday in the long-awaited trial of a Delphi, Indiana, man accused of killing two teenage girls while they hiked on a local trail in broad daylight in 2017.
The case garnered national intrigue, and remained a mystery for over five years until suspect Richard Allen was arrested in October 2022. He’s pleaded not guilty to murder charges.
Here’s everything you need to know about the case.
The murders
On Feb. 13, 2017, best friends Abby Williams, 13, and Libby German, 14, were enjoying a day off from school in their hometown of Delphi, a quiet, small town of nearly 3,000 residents in central Indiana.
They were on a hiking trail, walking, chatting and snapping photos, when they disappeared.
Their bodies were found the next day.
Abby, who was raised by her single mother, hoped to pursue a career in forensic science.
Libby, a gifted athlete raised by her grandparents, wanted to work with the FBI and solve crimes.
Police have never released how the eighth graders were killed.
According to video recovered from one of the victim’s phones, Abby or Libby mentioned “gun” as a man approached them, and a .40-caliber unspent round was found less than 2 feet away from one of the bodies, according to a probable cause affidavit. But court documents also mention the involvement of a knife in the killings.
‘Down the hill’
In the aftermath of the shocking double slayings, authorities released a clip of the suspect’s voice — a recording of him saying “down the hill” — which was recovered from Libby’s phone.
According to the probable cause affidavit, a man was seen and heard telling the girls, “Guys, down the hill,” and Abby and Libby then went down the hill.
Authorities also released a grainy image of the suspect, who they say was on the trail the day the girls went missing. State police later circulated a brief video clip recovered from Libby’s phone that showed the suspect walking on the bridge near where the girls were last seen.
The arrest
For more than five years, the case remained unsolved, haunting Delphi residents.
Police released disparate sketches of possible suspects, and authorities announced that, while investigating the case, they “uncovered” a fake Snapchat and Instagram profile called “anthony_shots,” where the user used photos of a male model and communicated with underage girls in an attempt to meet them. The man suspected to be behind the “anthony_shots” account was later identified and not linked to Abby and Libby’s murders.
No suspect was named in the murders until Allen was arrested in October 2022.
Community members were shocked to learn that the suspect was a 50-year-old husband, father and Delphi resident who worked at the local CVS.
“How can somebody do that and then just go on living life like nothing happened?” Libby’s grandfather, Mike Patty, told ABC News hours after the arrest was announced.
Allen admitted to police that he was on the trail that day, but he denied any involvement in the murders, according to court documents.
Police analysis of Allen’s gun determined that the unspent round discovered within 2 feet of one of the victims “had been cycled through Richard M. Allen’s Sig Sauer Model P226,” the probable cause affidavit said.
“When asked about the unspent bullet, [Allen] did not have an explanation of why the bullet was found between” the girls’ bodies, the probable cause affidavit said.
When Allen voluntarily spoke to police on Oct. 26, 2022, he said he never allowed anyone to borrow that gun, which he said he owned since 2001, the document added.
Video from Libby’s phone showed a man wearing a dark jacket and jeans on the trail. In an October 2022 interview, Allen told investigators that he wore jeans and a blue or black Carhartt jacket that day on the trail, and Allen’s wife confirmed to police that he owns a blue Carhartt jacket, according to the probable cause affidavit.
Investigators believe Allen is the grainy suspect seen on Libby’s cellphone video. Investigators also claim he forced Abby and Libby down the hill to the spot where they were killed, according to the probable cause affidavit.
Investigators believe Allen was seen walking back to his car with “clothes that were muddy and bloody,” according to the probable cause affidavit.
Allen allegedly confessed to the killings several times in a jail phone call with his wife in April 2023, according to unsealed court documents.
“Soon after” that call with his wife, Allen’s attorneys filed an emergency motion saying his mental state had declined and he should be moved, alleging Westville Correctional Facility was unfit, the document said. He was evaluated by two psychiatrists and a psychologist who determined he didn’t need involuntary medication and didn’t need to be moved, according to the document.
The trial
The trial will be held at Delphi’s Carroll County courthouse. But jurors will be selected from residents of Allen County, which is over 100 miles away and encompasses Fort Wayne, Allen County Judge Frances Gull ruled last year.
Jury selection begins Monday in Fort Wayne, and once the jury is selected, the case will move to Delphi.
Gull said it makes sense to keep the trial in Carroll County, where witnesses and families live, saying the expense to move the proceedings would be “extraordinary.”
But she added, “It’s painfully clear that it would be impossible to find a jury in Carroll County not involved in this case.”
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday declined to say if he’s been in touch with Russian President Vladimir Putin since he left the White House but said it would have been smart if he had.
“Well, I don’t comment on that, but I will tell you that if I did, it’s a smart thing,” Trump said in an interview with Bloomberg Editor-In-Chief John Micklethwait at the Chicago Economic Club. “If I’m friendly with people, if I have a relationship with people, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing.”
Trump’s interactions with Putin have been the source of speculation since journalist Bob Woodward’s book reported that the two have communicated multiple times since Trump left the presidency in early 2021.
Throughout his presidency, Trump praised Putin, including saying he believed Russian intelligence over the U.S. intelligence community with regard to Moscow’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 election.
Trump last week flatly denied during an interview with ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that the two leaders had recently been in touch.
“So, you haven’t spoken to him since you left the White House? Karl asked Trump. “No, I have not. That’s false.”
Despite repeatedly touting his close relationship with Putin in the Tuesday interview, Trump insisted he was tough on him, again saying he terminated the Nord Stream II pipeline.
“I said I don’t comment on those things,” Trump said when Micklethwait repeatedly followed up.
Trump also insisted that the 2020 election ended with a peaceful transition of power despite the Jan. 6, 2021, attack by a pro-Trump mob on the U.S. Capitol.
“People were angry,” Trump said of the reaction to the election results before noting that he traveled home to Florida the day President Joe Biden was inaugurated.
“And it was love and peace. And some people went to the Capitol and a lot of strange things happened there. A lot of strange things with people being waved into the Capitol by police, with people screaming, ‘Go in,'” Trump said.
Looking forward to a possible second Trump administration, the former president defended his plans to slap significant tariffs on many imports, which critics have said will amount to a sales tax on American consumers.
Micklethwait opened up the conversation with a critique from multiple economists — a concern that his proposals for tax cuts would raise the national debt by trillions. Trump reiterated his claim that a major growth from his proposals would make up for the cuts, saying the auto industry and other factories will come back to the United States.
“We’re all about growth. We’re going to bring companies back to our country,” Trump said. “And we’re going to bring the companies back. We’re going to lower taxes still further for companies that are going to make their product in the USA.”
Trump claimed that he’s not going to allow foreign companies to sell a single car in the United States, throwing out self-admittedly random numbers for tariffs like “100%, 200% or 2,000%.”
“The higher the tariff, the more likely it is that the company will come into the United States and build a factory in the United States so it doesn’t have to pay the tariff,” Trump said.
(WASHINGTON) — On Wednesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a stern warning to those who would seek to harm election officials.
“I will reiterate again today, these cases are a warning if you threaten to harm or kill an election worker or official or volunteer, the Justice Department will find you and we will hold you accountable,” Garland said at a press event.
But more than three years after the Department of Justice announced a task force to “promptly and vigorously prosecute” offenders who threaten election workers, lawmakers and election officials have raised concerns about the federal government’s ability to effectively prosecute cases and deter threats ahead of the November election.
Election officials and advocates have criticized the task force for what they call a lack of transparency regarding its investigations, saying there have been yearslong delays in providing accountability, and that the task force has brought far too few cases following an onslaught of threats related to the 2020 election.
Of the more than 2,000 threats referred to the FBI by election workers, the Justice Department has opened 100 investigations, according to figures released in April. In total, the task force has charged 20 people and landed 15 convictions.
The numbers are modest, in part, because many of the threats received by election workers are protected by the First Amendment. But that’s done little to reassure the community of election workers and officials who have been left disillusioned by threats and harassment.
“It makes it really difficult to want to do the job when it also feels like your community, your state and your nation have turned on you,” said Amy Cohen, executive director of the National Association of State Election Directors. “You never know really if what you’re submitting is being investigated. You never really have any understanding of why something isn’t investigated.”
When reached for comment, a DOJ spokesperson highlighted the task force’s work engaging with election workers through more than 100 meetings and trainings, as well as helping FBI field offices and U.S. attorneys’ offices expand their capacity to investigate threats to election workers.
And ahead of the November election, Garland said “task force representatives” will be on the ground meeting with election workers and hosting events with the FBI to address issues and potential crimes.
But as Election Day approaches and threats to election workers persist, calls for action from the Justice Department have grown louder. In July, Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Georgia, launched an inquiry into the DOJ’s work protecting election workers, and a group of senators last month wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland saying that “more must be done to counter these persistent threats and ensure that election workers can do their jobs.”
As part of their inquiry, the group of senators asked the DOJ to tell them how many threats have been identified by the task force and the number of ongoing investigations and prosecutions. As of this week, the Justice Department had not responded to their request for more information about the task force’s progress.
‘Help is on the way’
The DOJ’s task force was launched in 2021 as election officials faced a torrent of threats related to the 2020 election. Led by the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section, the group was tasked with reviewing individual reports of threats, then partnering with United States attorney’s offices and FBI field offices to investigate and prosecute those cases.
“A threat to any election official, worker, or volunteer is, at bottom, a threat to democracy,” Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco wrote in a memo to prosecutors in June 2021. “We will promptly and vigorously prosecute offenders to protect the rights of American voters, to punish those who engage in this criminal behavior, and to send the unmistakable message that such conduct will not be tolerated.”
Election officials rejoiced, hoping the highly publicized announcement might serve as a deterrent and stem the tide of threats that was flooding their offices. At the time, 17% of local election officials reported having being threatened due to their job, while 32% reported feeling unsafe, according to a survey of election officials conducted in April 2021 by the bipartisan Brennan Center for Justice.
“When the DOJ announced a task force, we were thrilled in a lot of ways, because it was like, ‘Oh, there’s going to be help. Help is on the way,'” said Cohen.
But in the three years since the announcement, election officials have continued to face heightened threats, including physical violence, fentanyl-laced letters, swatting incidents, threatening voicemails, and violent threats on social media.
According to a May 2024 survey conducted by the Brennan Center, nearly 40% of local election officials reported experiencing threats, harassment, or abuse — a marked uptick from earlier surveys.
“The pressures that my colleagues fall under nationwide — over things that are literally unfounded — has become hard to deal with every day for folks who didn’t sign up for that kind of pressure,” said Dag Robinson, the county clerk in Harney County, Oregon.
‘Justice is not swift’
Despite the fanfare it received in 2021, the task force got off to a sluggish start. A year after it was formed, the Justice Department had only charged four cases despite reviewing over 1,000 referrals involving hostile or harassing contact, then-Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Polite told a meeting of election officials in 2022. Only 5% of referrals resulted in actual investigations.
While the task force’s success rate improved slightly over three years — charging 20 individuals, achieving 15 convictions, and losing one case — multiple election officials told ABC News that the modest number of cases compared to the thousands of threat referrals is disheartening.
“I could certainly recognize that my friends and colleagues across this country don’t feel supported,” said Julie Wise, the director of elections for King County, Washington.
In Colorado, officials say Secretary of State Jena Griswold has been the subject of thousands of abusive, harassing, and threatening communications over the last two years, including frequent messages calling for violence against her.
“You have a family, Jena,” one user said on social media “Think about that before you continue.”
Of the 1,140 threats referred to the Department of Justice by Griswold’s office since January 2023, 13 have led to investigations, and one case has been prosecuted, according to her office.
Election officials across the country say that in some instances, charges have been announced two or three years from the time a threat was made.
“It seems as though justice moves slowly, and I have seen that some clerks who were assaulted or threatened from the 2020 election just were [only recently] able to give their victim impact statements for the sentencing of those individuals — so justice is not swift.” said Barb Byrum, county clerk in Ingham County, Michigan.
‘Legally off the hook’
In response to election officials’ concerns, Justice Department officials say that charging cases requires a high burden of proof — and many of the threats targeting election workers are protected speech under the First Amendment. To land a conviction in a threats case, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements are likely to be reasonably perceived as threatening — known as “true threats.”
“One of the biggest challenges in bringing these criminal cases is parsing what is a true threat from what is constitutionally protected speech,” according to Jared Davidson, counsel at nonprofit Protect Democracy.
Statements that are vague, hyperbolic, or figurative can be hard to prove as threats in a criminal setting, where defense attorneys can parse out the meaning of a statement to create reasonable doubt, said Davidson.
For example, the phrase “We’re going to take you out” could be perceived in multiple ways depending on the context of the statement, according to Eugene Volokh, a professor emeritus at UCLA School of Law.
“In context, that could mean ‘kill you,’ or it could mean ‘throw you out of office,'” Volokh said.
“A ‘vast majority’ of the communications directed at election officials, however offensive, are protected by the First Amendment and cannot be prosecuted,” then-Assistant Attorney General Polite said in 2022.
After prosecutors charged a Nevada man who, following the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, allegedly made multiple calls to the Nevada secretary of state’s office — including saying that they were “all going to … die” and wishing they would “all go to jail for treason” — a jury acquitted the defendant, illustrating the challenge of proving a true threat.
Adding to the challenge of bringing these cases is a 2023 Supreme Court decision that clarified the standard for true threats by finding that a defendant needs to have some awareness that their statement would be viewed as threatening.
“If you say something ambiguous and you don’t even realize that it might be perceived as a threat, you’re legally off the hook,” said Volokh.
Cohen, who said she has been publicly raising these concerns since early 2022, told ABC News that situation has led many election officials to believe that reporting threats can be “pointless,” which has led many of them to no longer refer threats to the task force. A 2024 Brennan Center survey showed that 45% of threats to election workers are unreported.
“It’s just hard not to feel, in some ways, like no one is taking this seriously,” Cohen said.