Former President Donald Trump's attorney Alina Habba is not looking forward to the verdict in her client's civil fraud case, she revealed in an interview this week with Newsmax's Eric Bolling.
The case, brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, claims that Trump and his two adult sons systematically made fraudulent property valuations to manipulate their tax liability and loan terms, something they vigorously denied at trial. But Judge Arthur Engoron has already held Trump liable for fraud in a summary judgment, with the trial largely to decide damages.
Engoron is expected to rule on it Friday.
James is seeking $370 million in fines and a ban on the Trump Organization doing business in the state of New York.
"If I could file the appeal now, I would," Habba told Bolling. "There's no surprises coming here. It's much of the same that we've seen in New York. And I'll be loud and booming after we get the decision. I mean, I'm not — I don't have high hopes."
"I do believe that there is some, you know, ethics left, I hope that Judge Engoron sees through this," she continued. "But quite honestly, I've seen it time and time again, I've been on weeks and weeks and weeks of trial in New York, and the corruption runs deep, the Trump Derangement Syndrome, frankly, runs even deeper. And they can't see straight, they can't apply law to fact. There was absolutely no laws broken."
Habba, who recently proclaimed she'd "rather be pretty than smart" because she can "fake" being smart, was frequently scolded by Engoron for her and her client's antics in the courtroom. Trump appears dissatisfied with Habba over how she handled his other recent civil trial involving the E. Jean Carroll defamation judgment, and he has said he is interviewing new attorneys to handle that appeal.
When the New York judge issues a verdict in Trump's civil fraud case, not only could he be banned from doing business in the Empire State, but the total he would be on the hook to pay could surpass $370 million.
Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo, appearing on CNN's "The Source" with Kaitlan Collins, said she believes former President Donald Trump and his eponymous company could be forced to shell out as much as $500 million.
"Yeah, that's going to be hugely significant to him personally because it could be half $1 billion when you add interest and fees and everything else that is at stake here," she said.
The case, brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, proved to the judge that Trump and company duped banks and insurers by hyping up the bottom lines and valuations of assets to notch favorable deals and loans.
Engoron has since ordered an independent monitor to keep tabs on the Trump Organization's operations.
The expected verdict is based on the disgorgement of profits from illegal or wrongful acts.
Trump's legal team is appealing the judge's ruling. But should it fail, the former president could lose the power decide the fate of his real estate empire and its properties.
Agnifilo explained that whatever ruling is made in terms of the amount Trump may owe, it won't hinder Trump's freedom as it is a civil case while he is still facing 91 charges across four criminal cases.
"And so what's happening in the other cases he could be a convicted felon by the time he the election in November if these other cases go to trial," she said.
The New York prosecutor leading Donald Trump’s civil fraud case sent the former president a heart of a poem on Valentine’s Day.
“Roses are red,” wrote Attorney General Letitia James. “Violets Are blue. No one is above the law. Even when you think the rules don’t apply to you.”
This poem came out about noon Wednesday, hours after Trump shared his own Valentine’s Day missive to his wife that included all-caps complaints about witch hunts, indictments, and arrests.
James’ poem charmed and delighted some followers who expressed their gratitude that the Attorney General was holding Trump accountable for the fraud of which he was found liable last year.
“Love this!” wrote Beth Caruso. “Justice will prevail.”
“From another Tish,” added Tish Metcalfe, “thanks for all you do to hold people accountable.”
But MAGA users on X were not quite so thrilled with the poem’s last two lines. They replied by accusing James of corruption and nefarious political motivations.
“Remember you said that when you are indicted for election interference,” scoffed Aaron L Schulte, echoing the Trump theory that civil and criminal prosecutions against him are evidence of the political witch hunt he referenced in his love letter to Melania.
“We WILL see your comeuppance,” @psychforensic said. “It will be glorious.”
Comeuppance is what legal expert Lisa Rubin says Trump could face on Friday, when Judge Arthur Engoron is expected to deliver his ruling in the $370 million case.
Wrote Rubin, mocking the former president's favorite word, "The consequences could be, well, yuge."
Rubin took to X Wednesday to explain the vital role Barbara Jones, the court-appointed former judge overseeing Trump's finances, could be about to play with Engoron's ruling expected Friday.
"The consequences could be, well, huge," wrote Rubin.
Jones was named the independent monitor for Trump, the Trump Organization and his two sons under a court order in November 2022, Rubin explained.
That order restricts Trump from selling, transferring, or disposing of any non-cash assets listed on his 2021 Statement of Financial Condition without giving 14 days written notice to Attorney General Letitia James and Engoron, Rubin said.
"Defendants are hereby ordered to provide the monitor, at least 30 days in advance, information regarding any planned or anticipated restructuring of the Trump Organization, its subsidiaries and all other affiliates, or of any plans for disposing or refinancing of significant Trump Organization assets, or disposing of significant liquidity," the order also says.
Rubin explains this means the Trump Organization "cannot just play three-card Monty and move their buildings or golf courses or even their cash around so they wind up in new business entities outside New York."
"Instead, at best, they have to give their adversaries, a court, and the court-appointed monitor a two-week head start, in which time they could be further enjoined," Rubin wrote. "The bottom line is they’re mostly stuck in place—and on Friday, it could get much, much worse."
In a wild rant on Wednesday, Donald Trump recounted selective details about his New York fraud case.
The former president expressed outrage on his social media platform just days before New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron was expected to hand down a ruling that could see Trump barred from doing business in the state. He could also be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars.
"We've already WON the NO Jury Allowed Engoron case in the Appellate Division," Trump ranted. "Statute of Limitations and Ivanka released from the CORRUPT Attorney General litigation. Judge Engoron has been overturned FOUR TIMES in this case (WOW!), A RECORD."
Trump claimed he had "Great Financial Statements" containing "buyer beware" disclaimers.
"No Victims, No Damages, a Never Used Statute, Unconstitutional Gag Order, happy banks and insurance companies (All made lots of money!), No Complaints, Fully DISCREDITED STAR WITNESS WHO ADMITTED TO LYING ON THE STAND, NO CASE!!!" he exclaimed. "A Biden directed Political Witch Hunt for the purpose of Election Interference. Violent Crime at ALL TIME HIGH, AS BUSINESSES FLEE NEW YORK IN RECORD NUMBERS. I PAID OVER $300,000,000 in Taxes during dates in question, but they stupidly want me gone. MAGA!!!"
Judge Arthur Engoron is expected to issue his long-awaited ruling in former President Donald Trump's $370 million civil fraud trial on Friday, a source told the New York Daily News Tuesday.
"Barring unforeseen circumstances," of course.
The ruling will arrive on the heels of a testy back-and-forth spat between the New York City civil court judge and Trump's attorneys over a co-defendant's reported perjury plea deal that may have stalled Engoron's decision.
Last week, Engoron asked both Trump's legal team and the New York Attorney General's office for more information about Allen Weisselberg's reported negotiations with the Manhattan District Attorney's office over testimony he gave in the fraud trial.
Engoron snapped back with a letter of his own calling their response "completely out of bounds."
The judge has already found Trump, who denies wrongdoing, liable for fraud. The decision expected Friday will determine the damages Trump will be ordered to pay.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) made a last-ditch effort to disrupt the civil fraud case against Donald Trump by filing an ethics complaint against New York Attorney General Letitia James Tuesday.
The New York Republican, who's considered to be a leading candidate to become Trump's running mate, alleged in a complaint to the state bar association that James is "conducting a biased investigation and prosecution" of Trump and "attacking" him through "extrajudicial statements."
"In just the first five weeks of the trial that began in October 2023 — before I stopped counting — Ms. James made over 50 highly inappropriate and prejudicial comments on social media," Stefanik wrote in a 64-page letter to the New York Committee on Professional Standards.
"This complaint respectfully requests that the Attorney Grievance Committee conduct an investigation and issue an immediate interim suspension, disbar Ms. James as an attorney and counselor-at-law, or suspend Ms. James."
James sued Trump and the Trump Organization for fraud, saying that it overvalued its properties in an attempt to secure favorable loans and insurance. Judge Arthur Engoron found the defendants liable, but held a trial to decide damages. That decision is imminent.
Stefanik has filed multiple ethics complaints against judges overseeing cases involving the former president, including Engoron.
"While all Americans possess the right to express their opinions on matters of public interest, attorneys — particularly state attorneys general — are held to a higher standard due to their unique role as officers of the court," Stefanik said in a statement.
Justice Arthur Engoron, the New York jurist presiding over former President Donald Trump's civil fraud trial, is fed up with the former president and his legal team, legal analyst Lisa Rubin explained on MSNBC Friday.
This comes as Allen Weisselberg, the former chief accountant for the Trump Organization, is reportedly in talks to plea guilty to perjury — all as Engoron tries to wrap up the civil fraud trial against Trump and his adult sons for allegedly falsifying property valuations to manipulate loan and tax treatment.
"Judge Engoron fired off a terse letter to Trump's team over the question of whether Trump's CFO Allen Weisselberg perjured himself," said anchor Alicia Menendez, reading off what the judge wrote. "'When I sent my straightforward, narrow request for information about possible perjury by Allen Weisselberg, I was not seeking to initiate a wide-ranging debate with counsel. However, your misleading response grossly mischaracterizes the letter I wrote and I felt compelled to respond and said, you and your co-counsel have been questioning my impartiality since the early days of this case presumably because I sometimes rule against your clients. That whole approach ... it would seem to be getting old.'"
"I think Justice Engoron was frustrated with the lack of candor, or the lack of information — I shouldn't say candor because we don't know what the Trump lawyers in the civil case actually learned," said Rubin. "However, based on their own due diligence and the facts irrespective they've had with Weisselberg, they likely know whether Allen Weisselberg did, in fact, perjure himself during his testimony, and they are obligated to report whatever they know about that to the extent that there were falsehoods told on the stand to the judge in keeping with their ethical obligations under New York rules governing attorneys."
"I should note Alina Habba and Cliff Robert, the attorneys who it was written to, are New York licensed lawyers, they have that responsibility," Rubin continued. "And Engoron is frustrated neither one of them gave him any information. And on top of that as you noted, they took the opportunity to make some attacks on Engoron, saying he's perpetually been biased against them, that he doesn't take issue, for example, with the fact that Michael Cohen, who was a witness for the attorney general, also perjured himself on the stand, he doesn't seem to be having a problem with that, and yet is attacking poor Allen Weisselberg."
According to MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin, attorney Alina Habba's curious response to a letter from Judge Arthur Engoron over perjury allegations levied against Allen Weisselberg, the ex-chief financial officer for the Trump Organization, should be raising eyebrows.
At issue, she noted, is that the controversial Habba not only has Donald Trump as a client but also defended Weisselberg, who pleaded guilty to 15 counts that included grand larceny, falsifying business records and criminal tax fraud.
Judge Arthur Engoron, who is presiding over Donald Trump's financial fraud trial, earlier this week responded to a New York Times report stating Weisselberg is suspected of perjury and demanded some answers from Trump's legal team.
However, attorney Rubin pointed to the response to this demand from Habba that she found curious.
In her letter, Habba wrote, "We do not represent him [Weisselberg] in connection with any criminal matters. I have not spoken with the New York District Attorney’s Office (DANY) about any of the matters discussed in the New York Times article. Further, in an abundance of caution, I have conferred with my ethics counsel and have been advised that I am constrained by my professional ethical obligations from providing any further detail."
As Rubin wrote, "Notably, she does not deny conferring with Weisselberg and/or his criminal defense counsel about the plea negotiations. She also does not deny that some portion of his testimony was knowingly false."
That, the MSNBC analyst suggested, could mean that Habba may be in violation of Rule 3.3 concerning her ethical obligations to all of her clients — not just Donald Trump.
"For now, it’s not clear what ethical obligations she’s referring to," argued Rubin. "After all, Engoron — in an emailed response to counsel Thursday — reaffirmed Habba’s duties under Rule 3.3. And he ended with a stern warning: '[I]f someone pleads guilty to committing perjury in a case over which I am presiding, I want to know about it.'"
And that, she suggested, may become an issue for Habba as Engoron continued to ponder the hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties requested by New York Attorney General Letitia James as part of her civil suit.
The judge in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case has taken a step that puts former President Donald Trump on a timer to post bond for the damages, reportedMSNBC legal commentator Lisa Rubin on Thursday.
Carroll sued former President Donald Trump after he called her allegation he raped her in a Manhattan department store a lie, claimed he had no idea who she was, and said she was making it up to sell books. A jury awarded her $83.3 million in the case, which was presided over by Judge Lewis Kaplan.
"Judge Kaplan has at least entered judgment in the second Carroll trial," wrote Rubin on X. "That starts the clock for Trump's post-trial motions and for him to post a bond."
"Specifically, federal rules governing civil cases stay a plaintiff's execution on a judgment for 30 days after the entry of judgment, which effectively means he has 30 days to provide a bond or other security to lengthen that stay pending an appeal," Rubin continued. "Trump also has 28 days after the entry of judgment to move for a new trial or to 'alter or amend' the judgment."
The judgment affirms the award the jury said Carroll deserves.
Lawyers for Donald Trump in the New York fraud case tried to falsely implicate Michael Cohen again in emails to Judge Arthur Engoron, who was presiding over the New York fraud trial. It backfired again.
Allen Howard Weisselberg, former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, was reported to have lied in Engoron's courtroom during his testimony, prompting the District Attorney's office to explore perjury charges. Raw Story explained on Wednesday that this isn't the first time Weisselberg has been purportedly caught in a lie, the first of which being in Michael Cohen's case.
The New York Times article about Weisselberg's plea deal "simply does not provide any principled basis for the Court to reopen the record or question the veracity of Mr. Weisselberg's testimony in this case,” Trump's lawyer, Cliff Roberts, wrote in the letter to Engoron. They chastised Engoron for paying attention to the news and believing the Times article.
Engoron never said he believed the report; rather, he asked about it and asked that information be provided to him about whether it was true.
Further, he blasted the lawyers for having the temerity to challenge his request for information about someone who reportedly lied in his courtroom during a proceeding under which he was presiding.
Instead of directly answering whether or not the story was true, Roberts responded with legalese amounting to claiming Cohen lied in court.
Cohen never lied in Engoron's court, rather he lied when he accepted his plea agreement in the hush money case. Cohen has been open about it, flagging that the Southern District of New York forced him to take the false plea deal or they would go after his family.
Trump frequently conflates that with Cohen admitting to lying about the facts in the fraud case, which is false. He even went so far as to claim that Cohen had "recanted" his entire testimony. That is also false.
Engoron was not amused: "Your invocation of Michael Cohen's testimony and veracity is completely out of bounds. You have already submitted your post-trial briefs and made your final arguments. I am not reopening the case, but if someone pleads guilty to committing perjury in a case over which I am presiding, I want to know about it."
"The facts continue to speak for themselves," Cohen told Raw Story on Thursday. "Allen Weisselberg lied again to the court which we know to be true based upon him pleading guilty to the offense."
The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s $370 million civil fraud suit sent a “scathing” letter to the former president’s lawyer over
a “crazy” reply to his inquiry about potential perjury during the trial.
Arthur Engoron slammed Cliff Robert Thursday over his response to the New York City judge’s request for information about Trump’s co-defendant Allen Weisselberg’s
reported perjury plea deal negotiations with the Manhattan District Attorney's office.
“If someone pleads guilty to committing perjury in a case over which I am presiding, I want to know about it,”
Engoron wrote. “You and your co-counsel have been questioning my impartiality since the early days of this case, presumably because I sometimes rule against your clients. That whole approach is getting old.”
Engoron, tasked with determining an appropriate penalty after finding Trump liable for fraud, accused Robert of “grossly mischaracterizing” his request for more information about potentially false testimony in his courtroom, as reported by the New York Times earlier this month.
“I have not taken, do not plan to take, and did not suggest or hint that I would take judicial notice of the subject New York Times article,” Engoron writes. “However, if, tomorrow, Mr. Weisselberg publicly confesses to having committed perjury about a significant matter in the case before me, or if he pleads guilty to such perjury at any time before I issue my final decision, I will research and consider what the law allows.”
“You have already submitted your post-trial briefs and made your final arguments,” said Engoron. “Your invocation of Michael Cohen's testimony and veracity is completely out of bounds.”
Trump repeatedly denied wrongdoing, after New York Attorney General Letitia James accused him of defrauding investors by inflating the value of his assets, and called the civil trial a political "witch hunt."
Tensions have only mounted as Trump's presidential campaign trial wound its way through Engoron's courtroom.
Courthouse News reporter Erik Uebelacker, who
shared the letter on X Thursday, expressed surprise at Engoron's harsh tone that he called "SCATHING."
Now, there’s a legitimate chance Donald Trump could be running for president, or even serving as commander in chief, from behind bars.
Two overriding factors contribute to this bizarre reality.
Firstly, there’s very little — legally speaking — preventing Trump from doing so.
Secondly, Trump himself has offered no indication he’ll step away. To the contrary, he’s as emboldened as ever to run for and win the presidency he lost in 2020.
Thus far, juries have found Trump civilly liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll. He’s been ordered to pay more than $88 million combined in damages.
New York Judge Arthur Engoron also found Trump and associates of his business empire liable for fraudulently inflating the value of the Trump Organization’s assets. Determination of damages in the civil fraud trial are expected this month — and could be well into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
And then there's the felony charges: 91 in total across four cases. If convicted, Trump could face significant prison time — totaling more than 700 years combined.
His trials are scheduled in the midst of the Republican presidential primary.
The indictments:
For the first time in U.S. history, a grand jury on June 8, 2023, federally indicted a former president — Trump — on 37 felony counts related to the alleged willful retention of classified documents and conspiracy to conceal them. District Judge Aileen Cannon set trial to begin May 20, but in February, special counsel questioned whether the FBI missed searching some rooms at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence, ABC reported.
Then it happened again on Aug. 1 when Trump was indicted on four separate federal counts related to his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. He was set to be tried starting March 4, but U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan delayed the trial's start as Trump — unsuccessfully, so far — petitioned a federal appeals court to rule that he enjoys presidential immunity from such prosecution.
Trump also faces a criminal trial in Georgia related to election interference in the state, with trial requested for Aug. 5. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis admitted in February to having a romantic relationship with a special prosecutor overseeing the case but denied any tainting of the case, Raw Story reported.
Separately, Trump is charged in New York with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in relation to payments the Trump Organization made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. His trial is slated for March 25.
Such a laundry list of legal woes would seemingly sabotage any politician’s campaign efforts. But the cases haven’t slowed Trump down in his pursuit of a second term as president or slashed his chances — now as good as ever — of winning the 2024 Republican nomination.
Trump, who has handily won in the Republican primaries thus far, is almost certain to become the Republican nominee — and has made it clear he has no intention of dropping out of the race no matter how severe his legal battles become.
“I see no case in which I would do that,” Trump said in June during an appearance on a radio show hosted by political strategist Roger Stone, a longtime confidant. “I just wouldn't do it. I wouldn't do it. I had opportunities in 2016 to do it, and I didn't do it.”
But Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American University, said campaigning for president and defending himself against criminal charges are two very different endeavors.
“He thinks he can win this case in the court of public opinion, but the truth is, Trump can huff, and Trump can puff, but he can't blow the courthouse down,” Lichtman said. “It’s a very, very different game once you enter a federal courthouse or a state courthouse. You can't just bluster. Anything that you present has to be proven, and you're subject to perjury.”
Still, Trump can continue to run his campaign while facing these charges — and he could even do so from prison in the event he were to be tried, convicted and sentenced before the 2024 election.
“Trump’s legal problems shouldn’t affect his campaign. Many of his supporters believe that he is being treated unfairly, and there is no prohibition against a defendant under indictment or even a convicted felon from serving as president,” said Neama Rahmani, a former assistant U.S. attorney and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers. “Theoretically, Trump could even be president while in prison.”
Indeed, the U.S. Constitution stipulates only that a presidential candidate be a natural-born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old and a U.S. resident for 14 years. Trump easily checks all those boxes. And congressional Democrats’ strongest efforts to potentially disqualify Trump from ever again seeking the presidency — convicting him following impeachment trials — failed.
So, what would it take for Trump to run a presidential campaign — or govern the nation — from prison?
Raw Story interviewed historians, legal experts, political operatives and former government leaders who pieced together a playbook for how he could do it — and the peril that he’d face along the way as he stands to secure the GOP nomination ahead of a general election rematch with President Joe Biden in November.
Campaigning from a cell
Each of the charges Trump faces in the classified documents federal indictment carries maximum prison sentences between five and 20 years. Across all four indictments, potential prison time could span hundreds of years.
Being behind bars would, of course, prevent Trump from campaigning in his signature fashion: at big, rowdy MAGA rallies.
But Amani Wells-Onyioha, operations director at Democratic political firm Sole Strategies, envisions Trump still figuring out ways to communicate with potential voters.
“There's no doubt in my mind that he would have some recorded press from the little prison phone. There's no doubt in my mind that he would set up press opportunities whenever he's out on the yard getting his recreational use in, that there would be cameras there,” Wells-Onyioha said. “He would be using every opportunity to campaign. I don't see him stopping at all, and I only see him using this as fuel to make him go harder.”
Keeping up his Truth Social posts from prison might not be such a challenge for Trump, Wells-Onyioha said, as some jails and prisons might allow internet access.
“I do see him using the internet because that's all that he has, and he's great at that already,” Wells-Onyioha said. “He's a huge internet, TV personality type of guy, so it really would just force him to be in a position to do something that he's the best at, which is unfortunate for the country, but as far as he's concerned, I think he thinks that this is political gold for himself.”
Plus, Trump isn’t building a campaign from scratch. His 2024 presidential campaign is flush with staffers. He enjoys the support of super PACs, which may raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on his behalf to promote the former president and attack his opponents.
He also has a roster of high-profile MAGA acolytes — from Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Elise Stefanik (R-NY) to Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem — who gladly serve as Trump surrogates.
And save for former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who remains in the race despite losses in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, with dim prospects going forward, Trump has already vanquished his other main GOP challengers, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Vice President Mike Pence and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy.
Meanwhile, few politicians are as good as Trump at presenting himself as a victim — he’s single-handedly vaulted the terms “witch hunt,” “deep state,” “hoax” and “fake news” into the contemporary political lexicon. As an inmate, Trump could become a martyr to the MAGA cause.
“You’re obviously handicapped to campaign, but in this electronic age, you can certainly campaign virtually, plus Trump's pretty well known. It’s not like he has to introduce himself to the American people,” Lichtman said.
If not prison, maybe jail
Former President Donald Trump arrives for his arraignment at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 04 in New York City. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
Although it seems unlikely Trump will be serving an active prison sentence before the November election, it’s conceivable he could wind up in pretrial confinement of some sort while campaigning.
This, several legal experts said, will depend on Trump himself.
“He has to behave himself during a trial, and that's not beyond the realm of possibility that he'll act up, thinking that somehow he can win over the jury, but that would be a mistake,” said Kevin O’Brien, a former assistant U.S. attorney and partner at Ford O’Brien Landy LLP who specializes in white-collar criminal defense.
His social media antics stand to put him in potential violation of pretrial instructions and release terms, raising the question of whether a judge would dare throw the former president in jail. So far, he’s been fined thousands for violating gag orders.
Brazenly defying a judge’s order or attempting to intimidate witnesses are among the more common ways a defendant can get himself thrown in jail or home confinement before or during his trial.
This isn’t merely conceptual, said Mike Lawlor, a criminal justice professor at the University of New Haven and former member of the Connecticut House of Representatives, who helped lead impeachment hearings against then-Gov. John Rowland, who ultimately pleaded guilty in federal court to political corruption.
Knowing Trump’s penchant for cutting outbursts, Lawlor can envision a judge sanctioning Trump for defying directives. Trump not only has one judge with whom to contend, but several, given the multiple legal actions against him.
“The opportunity to engage in contempt of court or witness tampering or obstruction of justice is fraught at this point. I’m not sure he has the self-control to keep himself from doing something that would get him confined pre-trial,” Lawlor said.
The U.S. House Jan. 6 select committee accused Trump of potential witness tampering, and Lawlor says he’s monitoring similar allegations here, especially because so many of the witnesses are GOP staffers of the former president.
“It’s so easy to imagine a situation where someone could be contacted and intimidated,” Lawlor said. “I think the temptation to do that for a guy like Trump is probably irresistible. I’m not sure his attorneys or the advisors he listens to can stop him from doing so. I don’t rule it out. As I said, it’s unlikely, but I can definitely see it happening.”
Using legal danger to fuel fundraising
The Trump campaign wasted no time in exploiting the indictments to raise money, leaning into a familiar claim that the candidate is a victim of a Democratic witch hunt.
Only one day after news broke about Trump’s first federal indictment, a fundraising appeal built around the charges appeared on the campaign website prominently displayed in a column on the left-hand side of the page, suggesting contribution amounts ranging from $24 to $3,300. The message lays out a bill of particulars with the former president at the center of the persecution narrative, beginning with the apocalyptic opener: “We are watching our Republic DIE before our very eyes.”
Trump Save America, the beneficiary, is a joint fundraising committee for Donald J. Trump for President 2024 and the Save America PAC, which supports Trump.
The fundraising appeal contends that a “witch hunt began when the FBI RAIDED my home and then staged it to look like a made-for-TV crime scene with police sirens and flashing red and blue lights.”
Alluding to his previous indictment in New York state, the appeals continued: “So, after a state prosecutor failed to break us, the Deep State sharpened their attacks and unleashed a FEDERAL prosecutor to TRY and take us down.”
Notwithstanding Trump’s claim, the charges in New York state remain pending, and Jack Smith, the special prosecutor appointed by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, was investigating Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents four months before a grand jury in New Manhattan returned an indictment on the state charges related to the Stormy Daniels affair.
Minutes after the Aug. 1 indictment dropped, Trump started fundraising again, selling "I Stand With Trump" T-shirts featuring the indictment date, and Trump's mugshot from his booking at the Fulton County Jail helped him bring in more than $7 million after the Georgia indictment as he quickly took to selling mugs, shirts and other merchandise with the photo.
At least one prominent surrogate helped retail the fundraising push.
Kari Lake, a fellow election denier who lost her race for governor of Arizona in 2022, joined a Twitter Spaces co-hosted by Dustin Stockton and Jennifer Lynn Lawrence on the night news broke about Trump’s indictment on charges of mishandling classified documents.
Stockton and Lawrence helped organize the rally that provided the springboard for the Jan. 6 insurrection. During her appearance on Stockton and Lawrence’s Twitter Space, Lake, who is now running for U.S. Senate, told more than 1,300 listeners she had just gotten off the phone with Trump shortly after news broke about the indictment on June 8. Lake said it wasn’t enough for Republican voters to just say they stand with Trump or condemn the indictment.
“And if we really stand with him, we need to go to DonaldTrump.com and make a donation tonight,” said Lake, who is herselfpreparing a 2024 U.S. Senate run in Arizona. “Everybody, whether it’s $5, $10, $500 — whatever you can afford. Because if we’re gonna stand with him, we need to put our money where our mouth is tonight.”
The political monetization of Trump’s legal woes grows deeper by the month. Go to Trump’s campaign website and you’ll find several items on sale — a black-and-white ceramic coffee mug is $24 — featuring a fake mugshot of Trump above the words “NOT GUILTY”. Of late, Trump hassuggested that he would “end” his campaign in a deceptive bid to squeeze money from supporters.
The Federal Election Commission, which enforces federal campaign finance laws, would have no grounds to intervene in Trump’s fundraising efforts while facing criminal charges or even time in jail or prison, said Ann Ravel, who served as an FEC commissioner from 2013 to 2017, including one year as the commission’s chairwoman.
Trump's campaign is selling these black-and-white ceramic coffee mugs for $24. (Screen grab)
Trump’s campaign could easily continue sending supporters incessant fundraising emails and text messages in Trump’s name.
“The only problems for him would be if there's failure to disclose, or if people are giving more than the limits, all of the things that are traditional FEC issues, but they don't have the authority to do anything with regard to a person who's been indicted and is still fundraising,” Ravel said. “That in and of itself is not sufficient for the FEC to take any action.”
Lessons of Eugene Debs, incarcerated presidential candidate
Trump wouldn’t be the first candidate to run for president from prison if he were convicted.
In the weeks before the 1920 election, Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist Party candidate for president of the United States and an inmate in federal prison, touched on the significance of the moment.
“Has there ever been anything like it in American history before?” Debs said, as reported by the socialist newspaper Appeal to Reason. “Will there ever be anything like it in American history again? We must impress it upon the people that this scene is symbolic of what has befallen this country.”
There has been one other. Lyndon LaRouche, whom The New Republiccalled “The Godfather of Political Paranoia,” ran from prison in 1992 after being convicted of tax evasion and mail fraud.
His vice presidential running mate, the Rev. James Bevel, did most of the campaigning. This suggests that a jailed Trump could lean heavily on the presence of a charismatic vice presidential candidate — be it someone such as Lake of Arizona, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia or even banished Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
LaRouche received .02% of the popular vote — 26,334.
Debs, who was serving a 10-year sentence for decrying the United States’ involvement in World War I, received 3.4% of the popular vote — 919,799.
He received 6% of the vote as a candidate eight years earlier, in 1912.
While emphasizing that she’s speaking as an individual, Allison Duerk, director of the Eugene V. Debs Museum, located in Debs’ home in Terre Haute, Ind., said she cringes at comparisons between Debs and Trump. In material ways, the two men are polar opposites.
“I bristle at recent casual references to the 1920 campaign — not because they are inaccurate on the surface, but because these two men and their respective projects are diametrically opposed,” she told Raw Story.
Duerk does believe Debs predicted the emergence of American political leaders such as Trump.
Illustration of Eugene Debs while running for president in prison. Indiana State University archives
“Take this quote from the speech that got him locked up,” she said, quoting Debs: “‘In every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the people.’"
In an Appeal to Reason article, Debs said he believed in change “but by perfectly peaceful and orderly means.” He added, “Never in my life have I broken a law or advised others to do so.”
Unlike Trump, who nurses grievances daily, the article said of Debs, “Nothing embitters him. Injustice, oppression, persecution, savagery do not embitter him. It is a stirring, an uplifting thing to find a man who has suffered so much and remains so ardent and so pure.”
The U.S. government and the prison warden made small accommodations to Debs’ candidacy. He was, for one, allowed a single written message per week to voters.
“Where Debs had once stormed the country in a verbal torrent,” wrote Ernest Freeberg, author of Democracy’s Prisoner, “he would now have five hundred words a week.”
Debs still had some of the trappings of a political campaign, including a button that had his photo from prison with the words, “For President - Convict No. 9653.” He had printed material that said, “From Atlanta to the White House, 1920,” a reference to his residency inside the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary.
On election night, Debs received the results in the warden’s office and soon conceded the election to President-elect Warren Harding.
In his book Walls and Bars, Debs wrote that the question came up in the room about his potential ability to pardon himself as president — an action over which Trump has reportedly mused.
“We all found some mirth in debating it,” Debs wrote.
Serving as president from prison
If Trump ran a successful campaign from jail or prison, is there anything stopping him from assuming the Oval Office if he were elected president?
“There is nothing in our traditions or the Constitution that prevents someone who is indicted or convicted or, in fact, serving in jail, from also serving as the president,” said Harold Krent, law professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, who formerly worked for the Department of Justice. “Does it make any sense? No. But there is no Constitutional disablement from that happening. So, you could think of a scenario in which the case goes to trial, maybe after the primary and results in a prison time with President Trump and then he is inaugurated, and he gets to serve as president from some prison farm somewhere.”
Lichtman said “of course” Trump would just pardon himself of any federal crimes were he reelected president. There’s also the possibility of Trump attempting to preemptively pardon himself, with then-President Gerald Ford’s pardoning of Richard Nixon serving as an imperfect template.
But if Trump is convicted on any state-level charges, where federal pardons do not apply, that’s a different story.
“That's unprecedented, but the pardon power is pretty absolute,” Lichtman. “He can’t pardon himself for the New York case because that’s a state case. If he's convicted in New York, he's stuck. If ... he's convicted in Georgia, he can’t pardon himself from that either, because that's also a state case.”
Trump’s ability to pardon himself is widely debated in the academic community, Krent said.Federal document listing indictment counts against former President Donald Trump. U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
“There's no law on the books that says you can't. You just have to reason from the idea of separation of powers and the Constitution or to think that it doesn't make any sense to have one person aggregate or accumulate so much power,” Krent said. “As a constitutional matter, I think that that would be too much of a conflict of interest to be able to pardon yourself.”
Interestingly, the classified documents federal indictment didn’t include counts related to 18 U.S.Code 2071, which deals with the concealment, removal or destruction of government documents. This would disqualify anyone found in violation of the code from running for office, Rahmani said.
“That particular provision was passed after Nixon as a disqualification provision that prevents anyone convicted of it from holding public office,” Rahmani said. “Trump's lawyers would have said that it's unconstitutional because only the Constitution can place limits on who could be president. You can be a felon. You can be in prison and still theoretically be president of the United States.”
The Constitution could be interpreted — ostensibly by the U.S. Supreme Court — that an imprisoned president wouldn’t qualify as capable of carrying out his duties, preventing him from taking the office, Ravel said.
“There's nothing to stop him from becoming president either because the provisions in the Constitution about the presidency and the requirements for presidency don't reflect any concern if a president has been indicted or is in jail,” Ravel said. “Although if he goes to jail, it would create a problem for him because the Constitution does have concerns about the inability to carry out the obligations of the office, which he certainly wouldn't be able to do in jail.”
Specifically, Section 4 of the Constitution’s 25th Amendment potentially empowers Congress to determine — via a two-thirds vote of both chambers — that a president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” and thereby transfer presidential powers to the vice president.
But if Trump is elected in November, and trials end up taking place after the general election, some of his legal peril could subside — at least at the federal level.
“There's clear Department of Justice memos and policies. It's pretty clear that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted,” Rahmani said.
If Trump won and was convicted but on appeal, he would “probably” still be able to get inaugurated, Krent said.
“The question is whether they would stop the appeal and let him serve out the presidency before it would continue,” Krent said. “Uncharted waters in terms of how this would go. It's gonna affect the primary. It would affect the general election, and it certainly would affect his ability to conduct a presidency.”
Editor’s note: A version of this article was originally published on June 13, 2023, and has been updated to reflect numerous legal and political developments involving Trump.
Former President Donald Trump arrives for his arraignment at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 04 in New York City. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
Trump's campaign is selling these black-and-white ceramic coffee mugs for $24. (Screen grab)
Illustration of Eugene Debs while running for president in prison. Indiana State University archives
Federal document listing indictment counts against former President Donald Trump. U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida