Donald Trump’s Other Legal Woes, Explained

Charges in New York may be the least of the former president’s legal worries.

By
38
Former President Donald Trump arrives for his arraignment at Manhattan Criminal Court Tuesday in New York City. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Former President Donald Trump was formally arraigned Tuesday in Manhattan on 34 charges of falsifying business records.

But the case against Trump in New York may be the least of his legal worries: He could soon face serious accusations in Georgia for attempted interference in the 2020 election and in federal court for mishandling classified documents.

Here is where those cases stand.

Classified documents.

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
38
By
Comments (38)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Raincheck

    All of these cases will hard to try and get a conviction. The thing is, it shouldn’t matter. We should still care about character and behavior even if it doesn’t result in criminal conviction.

    Imagine, in the not too distant past, a candidate who cheated on his wife with a porn star, had his sleazy attorney pay her off, and tired to pass it off as a legal expense. And that this was part of a known pattern of behavior by a guy who bragged he could grab women by the private parts.

    Imagine a candidate who decided before the election that he would not accept the results if he lost. Who mounted a campaign of transparent and often absurd lies. Who ruled up his base to the extent that they marched on the Capitol to prevent a peaceful transfer of power. And violently breached the capitol.

    I could go on, but you get the point, in the old America, in the old GOP, this guy would be dumped in a huge cloud shame and his political career would be over. We wouldn’t have needed grand juries to end his career.

    Can we bring back shame? I always liked it.

    Collapse
    1. Paulkohlhoff

      Like many people, when I first heard talk of Trump running for the GOP nomination I thought it’d be a short lived circus. Surely, someone with such known character issues, lack of serious understanding of issues and business practicing such as using eminent domain to take property from widows wouldn’t survive past the first primary. What I didn’t understand is 20 to 30% of the population don’t care a bit about character, intellect, temperament, etc which is enough to win an open GOP primary.

      Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    Great summary. This will give Republicans a head start into their work to rationalize these charges away.

    Collapse
  3. Pishposh

    I'll make you a bet that they wait until just after the nomination is settled to indict him on anything else.

    Collapse
  4. Joe1776

    You say this:
    "including a call to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger asking him to “find 11,780 votes” almost a month after the state legislature certified the results (and the state’s electoral college votes)."

    But I have read he never asked Raffensperger to do this. Instead he claimed that he claimed he (Trump) could provide evidence that there were at least that many illegal or irregular votes.

    Here are some quotes from Margot Cleveland:

    "But as I’ve been forced to detail time and again because the corrupt media continue to lie about the conversation, the transcript of the call established that Trump “did not request that Raffensperger ‘find 11,780 votes.’ Period. It never happened.” Rather, during that “telephone conversation between Trump’s legal team and the Secretary of State’s office, Trump’s lawyer explained to Raffensperger that ‘the court is not acting on our petition. They haven’t even assigned a judge.’”

    https://thefederalist.com/2023/02/22/oops-georgias-get-trump-grand-jury-forewoman-accidentally-confirms-the-recommended-charges-are-bunk/
    See also:
    "Further, as the transcript of the conversation confirmed, Trump’s legal team told Raffensperger that it had solid evidence of illegal votes easily exceeding the official margin of Biden’s victory of 11,779. Under Georgia election law, if the “evidence establishe[s] that there are more illegal or irregular votes than the margin of victory, the remedy is a new election,” which is why Trump focused on his need to find 11,800 votes throughout his conversation with Raffensperger.

    Trump repeated that refrain several times during the call, stating, “I have to find 12,000 votes and I have them times a lot. And therefore, I won the state.” Not once during their conversation did Trump ask Raffensperger “‘to find 11,780 votes’ in the former President’s favor.” Rather, Trump spoke of his own desire “to find 11,780 votes,” and did so in the context of highlighting the tens of thousands of illegal votes for which his legal team had ample evidence and they asked merely that the secretary of state review their evidence of illegal voting."
    https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/09/georgia-prosecutor-targeting-trump-bases-court-filing-on-fake-news/

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Todd T

      You can claim the sky is falling all you want. But the judicial wheels are in motion. And the political wheels too. He’s likely going to face more charges. None of this is a net gain for Trump.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      George.Skinner

      The problem is that Trump went on to suggest that Raffensperger could face criminal charges if he didn't "find those votes." There's also strong evidence that Trump had been told multiple times by multiple people there was no evidence of fraud. You can grasp at a benign interpretation, but the broader context tells you that Trump was trying to tamper with the vote total.

      Collapse
      1. Joe1776

        No he didn't. Why are you repeating this falsehood? Here is a link to the transcript:
        https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

        You say well "the context" was there, because he never said what you wish he said. Trump said he thought there could have been illegal activity going on with the votes and if they Raffensperger knew about or let it happen he could be charged. But there was absolutely nothing like if you don't find these votes I will have my doj prosecute you. Nothing in the context supports that lie.

        The conversation was pretty much
        Trump saying: I have all sorts of evidence that there were way more than the 11,000 votes needed to reverse the result.
        Raffensperger saying: nope that is not what we are showing.

        And so they agreed to try to talk through why they have these different views - within the limits of Georgia law.

        No threats that Trump would file criminal charges if Raffensberger didn't do something. And nowhere does Trump say he wants Raffensberger to find these votes. That is simply false yet continually repeated by anti-trumpers. Trump is saying repeatedly he has evidence that there was way more than 11,000 votes needed and so he has already cleared that legal hurdle. He - Trump and his investigators already found over that number of faulty ballots.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          George.Skinner

          “ And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk.”

          Throughout that whole call, Trump is *asking* for more votes, suggesting ways Raffensperger can “find” them.
          The Georgia officials keep shooting down each one with a factual rebuttal, and Trump keeps suggesting more. He tries to cajole them into doing it, saying people are angry or laughing at them. Finally he raises the prospect of criminal prosecution for not doing what he wants. Trump and his investigators *never* found that number of faulty ballots because they didn’t exist.

          Collapse
          1. Joe1776

            You claim
            "The problem is that Trump went on to suggest that Raffensperger could face criminal charges if he didn't 'find those votes.'"
            Clearly this would suggest blackmail or bribery or some other immoral quid pro quo where trump is threatening criminal charges if he doesn't come up with votes.

            I say that is false and you then quote Trump simply saying he believes that if they look into this *they* will find that it is criminal activity going on (shredding ballots) and that they will be implicated if they know about it and he is telling him it happened so they are on notice. Of course if they were shredding current ballots in this election and they knew about it then they would be criminally liable. Stating this obvious truth is not a criminal offense.

            These may seem the same to you but legally and morally they are very different.

            An no Trump never once asked Raffensperger for more votes. He was continuously saying he (Trump) has evidence that there are way more votes than the threshold and Raffensperger should look into it. They end with an agreement to compare what information they are both receiving to try to rectify the conflicting factual claims.
            This is how it ended:

            "So, look, can you get together tomorrow? And Brad. We just want the truth. It’s simple. And everyone’s going to look very good if the truth comes out. It’s OK. It takes a little while but let the truth come out. And the real truth is I won by 400,000 votes. At least. That’s the real truth. But we don’t need 400,000. We need less than 2,000 votes. And are you guys able to meet tomorrow Ryan?"


            Look you can continue to take this out of context all you want and claim there is some criminal violation (without ever mentioning a statute) but you are just kidding yourself and helping Trump. Neither of us wants Trump to win the primary. Stop helping him by continually claiming you have proof he committed crimes when you don't.

            Collapse
  5. Joe1776

    "But the case against Trump in New York may be the least of his legal worries: He could soon face serious accusations in Georgia for attempted interference in the 2020 election and in federal court for mishandling classified documents."

    Those other cases all seem just as bad.
    https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/04/why-all-the-other-get-trump-cases-are-just-as-weak-as-the-manhattan-das/

    It is sad that we all knew they wouldn't pursue him on classified documents as soon as we knew Biden was guilty of the same offence. (We all knew it before Pence's issue even came up.) This shows how obvious the political bias and targeting is in our DOJ. And of course Hillary had an entire scheme to deliberately mishandle documents when she was in office that many people were party too. Including it appears Obama who used an alias when emailing her at her server.

    So now we are turning to more process crimes. Obstruction of justice huh? Ok. But it is the same double standard. Please explain how Hillary staff taking sledgehammers to phones and bleaching subpoenaed files is not obstruction.

    Is this whataboutism? No I am not saying what Trump did was ok because Hillary did worse. I am pointing out gross political bias in how our justice department is targeting people. Half of the American public is not going to stand for these politically motivated prosecutions.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Njh2005

      Did you read the transcript you linked to? Here are a couple of examples of Trump doing exactly what you claim he did not:

      “ And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

      And flipping the state is a great testament to our country because, cause you know, this is — it’s a testament that they can admit to a mistake or whatever you want to call it. If it was a mistake, I don’t know. A lot of people think it wasn’t a mistake. It was much more criminal than that. But it’s a big problem in Georgia and it’s not a problem that’s going away. I mean, you know, it’s not a problem that’s going away.”

      Then:

      “ So what are we going to do here folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break. You know, we have that in spades already. Or we can keep it going but that’s not fair to the voters of Georgia because they’re going to see what happened and they’re going to see what happened. I mean, I’ll, I’ll take on to anybody you want with regard to [name] and her lovely daughter, a very lovely young lady, I’m sure. But, but [name] … I will take on anybody you want. And the minimum, there were 18,000 ballots but they used them three times. So that’s, you know, a lot of votes. …and that one event… And they were all to Biden, by the way, that’s the other thing we didn’t say. You know, [name] , the one thing I forgot to say which was the most important. You know that every single ballot she did went to Biden. You know that, right? Do you know that, by the way, Brad?”

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Kizedek

      “Please explain how Hillary staff taking sledgehammers to phones and bleaching subpoenaed files is not obstruction.”

      Not much to explain. That seems to be standard procedure for hard drives. In fact, that is exactly what the Secret Service claimed when their devices were subpoenaed by the Jan 6th Committee to corroborate Hutchinson, etc. “Too late, they’re already gone in the hand over.” Despite being told prior to Jan 20th or whenever to hang on to them.

      You return paper files, you destroy hard drives. Keeps people from hacking hard drives and soft files, because there’s nothing to hack.

      Apparently, Ivanka and co. also used private devices and mail server to conduct state business, despite knowing the brouhaha they stirred up to get elected. And despite daddy having to override security concerns to get them their “jobs” (which, let’s face it, was basically to sell access and influence through the promotion and use of Trump properties, where Trump held court almost every week — they even tried to host a G7/20 Summit, which was a little too obvious for even the GOP congressmen).

      Collapse
    3. Hikingguy

      More than half of the American people consider Trump a dirtbag. And they are correct. Trumpism is not nearly as popular as you seem to think. But do keep supporting Trump. It's an in-kind contribution to the Democrats and we appreciate it.

      Collapse
      1. Joe1776

        I do not support Trump at all. I want *anyone* other than him to win the primary. Continuing to make these garbage claims about him that are clearly politically motivated helps him.

        I care about our justice system and our country. Our dislike of a candidate should not lead us to say it is fine to have political prosecutions. That is exactly what the soviets did. Someone would get prosecuted on a BS charge and they would say Oh well you know this person is a really bad person anyway. They do all these other nasty things so why are you defending him? Are you in favor of all these other nasty things?

        Justice in America needs to remain blind. Legitimizing political prosecutions is a huge step toward disaster.

        Seriously I go to other conservative websites and they say I must be a RINO because I don't like trump and here everyone says I am defending him just because I am against legitimizing/normalizing political prosecutions.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Skinnygramps

          So, a political prosecution is bad but a political non-prosecution is good? That's what your position is. For someone who claims not to support Trump, you sure look like you are defending him.

          Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      DougCLE

      "A new CNN poll finds that 1 in 5 Republicans approve of the indictment and 1 in 4 conservatives do. Majorities of independents (62 percent) and Democrats (94 percent) approve. Overall, 6 in 10 Americans support the indictment."

      And that was for the least compelling, most obviously politically-motivated of the multiple cases against him. I don't think the "American public" is who you think they are.

      Collapse
      1. Joe1776

        You left out that polls show most Americans agree that politics played a role in this indictment. That is the problem.

        "In the Quinnipiac poll, 62% of Americans — 93% of Republicans and 70% of independents — thought the indictment was mainly motivated by politics. 66% of Democrats said it was mainly motivated by the law."
        https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/polls-most-americans-support-trump-indictment-but-say-politics-played-role/ar-AA19qfcP

        I am not even claiming whether he did something technically illegal or not. The problem is this is a *political* prosecution. The party in power is using our police forces for political gain instead of applying justice blindly. That is what Americans are unhappy with.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kizedek

          “You left out that polls show most Americans agree that politics played a role in this indictment. That is the problem…. The problem is this is a *political* prosecution”

          No, the problem is that in a polarized partisan environment, *anything* will look “political” no matter what; because, you can’t get away from the fact that any decision to prosecute is a decision that some people will like, and some people won’t. One side is going to think it’s more or less just, and one side is going to think it’s unjust.

          What needs to happen is that judges themselves remain aloof and impartial and we can see that they are sorting through the facts in a case. They seem fine.

          But, Trump has tried to trash judges and any confidence in judges by constantly insulting and undermining them. He’s not even clear about how they are supposed to operate: he thinks the judges he appointed are “his” judges. He is making slurs about the ethnicity of this judge, again (emphasizing middle name, as he did with Obama); he called another one “Mexican” though he is of course a US citizen.

          It’s no wonder his supporters are going bananas. They have already decided he won’t get fair trials, because he has said so in his effort to try the cases in the court of public opinion with no facts before he even starts.

          *That* is “Banana Republic”. Undermining confidence in judges is Third World politics.

          Collapse
          1. Joe1776

            No judges are just as political as anyone else. You think there are safeguards from government officials using police power for political gain but those are like tissue. See my comment to DougCLE. All of our past 10 presidents (and opposing candidates) could have been arrested by a politically motivated prosecutors. Starting down that path where whoever is in power uses the police to start arresting the opposition is a very dangerous path.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          DougCLE

          So, between the two polling results, we can conclude that many Americans - especially among moderates and Independents - agree that politics played a role in this indictment... but don't care.

          I am one of those. As I said in a post yesterday, Bragg's motivations for bringing the case don't change the facts of the case. They don't change the fact that Trump did commit the crime of which he is accused. He could easily have avoided this "persecution" by not screwing a porn star, using campaign funds to hush it up, and then posting fraudulent descriptions of the payments in his books.

          The flimsiness of his legal theory looks bad on Bragg, but that doesn't translate into it looking good for Trump. He's no innocent victim. And regardless of whether Bragg manages to make his case or not, his motivations for bringing it - whether politics, or raw ambition, or that Trump once said something bad about his mother - don't mean diddly to whether the case itself is valid.

          Collapse
          1. Joe1776

            They aren't just saying politics played "a" role. The majority see that bringing this case was mainly motivated by politics as opposed to the law.

            It is a huge deal for elected officials to use the police force for political gain. You likely do not understand prosecutorial discretion if you do not see how this is a major problem. Our world is so full of regulations that a prosecutor could likely arrest 99% of the population if they set out to search for a crime. And then once the investigation starts there are all sorts of procedural crimes that could be committed.

            If people do not care then that is also a huge problem. We do not want the party in power to immediately start arresting the opposing front runner. That is the path we are down. If you do not understand the problems with this talk to Alexei Navalny.

            Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      I wish I could "pin" this comment to demonstrate why Trump is going to win the GOP nomination... No, "wait for Georgia and the Fed" isn't a viable strategy. Trump can literally shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue....

      Collapse
    6. Avatar photo
      George.Skinner

      Having a subpoena in hand when you choose to hide the stuff makes a pretty big difference.

      Collapse
      1. Joe1776

        Hillary deleted the emails after the subpoena as well.
        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/09/07/fact-check-fbi-files-hillary-clinton-emails/89969424/

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          George.Skinner

          Fine - I’m ok with charging Hillary as well. Of course, there’s some differences as well: a House subpoena vs a court order, and a defense that a technician deleted them vs Trump apparently rummaging through boxes after being ordered to produce the documents to decide what to keep and hide.

          Collapse
          1. Joe1776

            We both wish they were both tried and convicted.

            But the problem we have is that the FBI specifically covered for Hillary. They literally changed the language of their statement explaining why they would not prosecute so that it didn't match the *exact* standard in the statute.
            https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/363194-former-fbi-agent-changed-comeys-language-of-clinton-email-use-to/
            I couldn't make this up if I tried! It is so political it is sickening.

            Now you are going to say well we are going to suddenly get tough on these issues with the Republican front runner? I can't tell you how much it pains me to say that he is the front runner, but he is. This is the path of madness.

            Republicans know what I am telling you even if you don't because you don't read conservative news other than the dispatch.

            Our DOJ is in a bad spot. They need some sort of reset. They really do need to be cleaned out at least at the top. The majority of American's know these are politically motivated prosecutions and this is a very ugly path. It is the path to one party politics. I don't want republicans suddenly prosecuting democrats when they get in office. Nor do I want the reverse. But that is where this is going and it is truly a threat to our democracy.

            I wish everyone would stop take a deep breath and stop trying to get the other side. We need to understand the underlying problems and then try to deal with them, instead of pretending they are not there.

            Collapse
  6. Goatprairie

    The NYC case is screwy and fraudulent, but the other ones have a good basis to them.
    The thing is that it’s not just one thing, it’s a pile of things that make supporting Trump so exhausting.
    If this were a Dem pol who had done all these things, cultists would demanding his or her head on a platter.
    Hopefully, Trump can get convicted on some of the more serious charges before next years election. I don’t know what the rules are about a substitute candidate if he were to be thrown into the crossbar hotel the day or week before the election, but I’d be happy to find out.

    Collapse
    1. BenP

      If this were a Dem, the party would have dumped him a while ago, a la Edwards and Frankin. Even Clinton, who is the most comparable to Trump on the classified documents thing, is pretty much done among Democrats. Unlike Trump, who loses an election and is still the favorite to get the next nomination.

      Collapse
      1. Goatprairie

        Clinton’s poll numbers soared during and after the trial. Clearly Dems didn’t care a whit about him diddling an intern in the WH.
        BTW I voted for Clinton twice when I was still a Dem. He caused me to switch parties,

        Collapse
    2. Joe1776

      No all these bogus charges will only help Trump. Since he was elected the left has made innumerable vague claims of criminal activities just like this article. Rarely will an actual criminal statute be quoted. Rather there will be some claim like "Trump asked Raffensperger to find 11,780 votes." which will later be shown to be false. And Trump will continue to correctly say the left and anti-trump republicans are simply out to get him. And instead of the left and anti-trump political class backing off and being reasonable they do all they can to prove he is correct.

      Many republicans and independents can see that the left once in power use our police to pursue their political ends. So all these nonsense cases just help martyr Trump. It may actually work for the left just like the democrats supporting Trumpy candidates in 2022 worked for them.

      Personally any article from the left or the right that claims someone violated a criminal law better quote the statute and provide the factual basis or I treat it as fake news.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kizedek

        If carrying out an arrest (following the recommendations of a grand jury) is “using the police to pursue political ends”, then I suppose the right can get over their distaste for popular votes and propose a measure whereby the *whole country* votes on an arrest rather than just a secret grand jury. It’s a bit unwieldy, and the wheels of Justice will turn even more slowly than they do, but, hey, it won’t be “political”, right?

        But, to your point: it doesn’t matter what an article says. It’s up to a grand jury to get it started, then the court to try the case and come to a conclusion. That’s why the cases Trump brought about “voter fraud” didn’t amount to anything and went nowhere — because he was short on any factual basis, and long on fake news.

        Anyway, as far as the facts go in this case, no-one, including the GOP, really dispute the basic facts as they’ve been presented in articles. Trump made the payments and falsified the business records. But it’s going to be scrutinized and weighed in court regardless.

        Collapse
  7. Jen.Crouch

    It seems to me that demonstrating Donald Trump had personal knowledge of the documents in question would go further to proving a violation of the espionage act (18 usc 793e) rather than the obstruction statute (18 usc 1519). Not a lawyer, could be wrong

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Francesca

    I found this helpful as an explainer.

    Collapse