The judges he appointed were repudiated by the public. New York's attorney general is accused of far-reaching fraud. It has been a week of legal troubles for Donald Trump, laying bare the challenges he is facing without the protections afforded by the White House.
In a legal realm dominated by evidence, where judges have looked askance at his claims and where a fraud investigation that took root when Trump was still president burst into public view, the bravado that served him well in the political arena is less useful.
If people like what you say, it will work. Chris Edelson is a presidential powers scholar and an American University government professor. There are consequences for making false statements in a way that doesn't apply in politics.
There was a clear difference between politics and law this week.
In an interview with Fox News that aired Wednesday, Trump insisted that he had the power to declassify information even if he thought about it.
An independent arbiter his own lawyers had recommended was skeptical when the Trump team refused to present any information to back up their claims that the documents had been declassified. Raymond Dearie, a veteran federal judge, said that Trump's team was trying to have its cake and eat it, too, and that, absent information to back up the claims, he was inclined to regard the records as classified.
The New York State attorney general accused Trump of padding his net worth by billions of dollars and misrepresenting the value of prized assets. The lawsuit, the culmination of a three-year investigation that began when he was president, also named as defendants three of his adult children and sought to bar them from ever again running a company in the state. Trump denied doing anything wrong.
The Mar-a-Lago investigation was lost by three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
He had argued that he was entitled to have the special master review the documents taken during the FBI search.
The ruling allowed the Justice Department to resume using the classified records in its investigation. The Mar-a-Lago matter had been the sole bright spot for the former president, despite the fact that a lower court judge had placed a hold on the case. She struck the parts of her order that required the Justice Department to give access to the classified records.
Between Dearie's position and the appeals court ruling, I think there may be a developing consensus that the government has the stronger position in a lot of these issues.
Trump is hardly a stranger to courtroom dramas, having been deposed in numerous lawsuits throughout his decades-long business career, and he has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to survive.
His lawyers did not reply to the request.
There was a perilous investigation in the White House into whether or not Trump had obstruction of justice. The power of the presidency made it possible for him to be protected at least in part.
He was impeached twice by the House of Representatives, once over a phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the second over the Capitol riot.
It's not clear if any of the investigations will result in criminal charges. The New York lawsuit is not a criminal case.
Even though he has leaned on an expansive view of executive power to defend his retention of records, Trump no longer enjoys the legal shield of the presidency.
The records had been declassified, but the Justice Department and the federal appeals court didn't pay much attention to it. The idea that Trump took any steps to declassify the records has not been supported by any formal information.
Declassifying a record would not transform it from a government document into a personal one according to the appeals court. The basis of the Justice Department's investigation does not mention classified information.
Trump's lawyers didn't say in court or in legal briefs that the records were declassified. They told Dearie that they should not have to reveal their stance on that issue now because it could be used in their defense.
Some legal experts who have supported Trump in his legal fights are not sure of his claims.
Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who testified as a Republican witness in the impeachment proceedings, said he was struck by the lack of a coherent and consistent position from the former president.
He said that the courts are unlikely to embrace the claim of declassifying things with a thought.
That's right.
There are more investigations related to Donald Trump.
There is a person with the name _____.
You can follow Eric Tucker on social networking sites.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
