Tonight, the Manhattan DA’s office publicly released a list of discovery items it has produced or will soon produce to Trump. Those items include a number of recorded conversations, including one between a witness and Trump. But something else interests me more. 1/
In New York state, a defendant is entitled to receive all witness testimony before the grand jury and any and all other witness statements provided to the relevant prosecutor’s office. But here, the Manhattan DA’s office also attached this two-page list of books. 2/
Why? Because these books themselves may contain relevant witness statements. And it is quite a collection. Yes, it includes journalistic hits like those written by Maggie Haberman, Bob Woodward, Jon Karl, and @KatyTurNBC, whose book on the 2016 campaign is listed. 3/
It also includes a variety of accounts from Trump administration alums, including @KellyannePolls, Madeleine Westerhout, Stephanie Grisham, Stephanie Grisham, Jared Kushner and even one @Mike_Pence. 4/
And, of course, it contains the book that has caused more mischief for Alvin Bragg than any other: Mark Pomerantz’s account of his tenure as a special Assistant DA on the Trump investigation. 5/
But what really popped for me was a book by Dino Sajudin, a onetime Trump World Tower doorman who was paid by the National Enquirer’s parent company, American Media, for his story that Trump had a child out of wedlock with a concierge at that building. 6/
As the New York Post notes here, Sajudin’s account has been vigorously denied by the woman in question. So is it on the list to show that AMI had a habit of catching and killing stories damaging to Trump? Or for other reasons? 7/
In any event, I don’t know why Mr. Sajudin’s book is on the Manhattan DA’s discovery list, but I sure would like to find out. Watch this space. 8/
p.s. @KatiePhang’s memory FTW: She reminds me the payment to Dino Sajudin — and its mischaracterization in American Media’s books & records — is discussed in the DA’s statement of facts:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today, Stewart Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years in prison for crimes including seditious conspiracy in light of his role in Jan. 6th. And 19 years ago, Rhodes and I received diplomas together as members of the same law school class. 1/
Stewart different from many of us. He was a veteran. He was older. He did not come from privilege. And his views on politics and the Constitution were not like everyone else’s. But I wouldn’t have predicted he’d found a militia, much less inspire insurrection. 2/
The government’s sentencing memo is stark and lays bare why, despite not entering the Capitol himself, Rhodes deserves his 18-year sentence (and likely more, in my own view). But it also leaves me sad. How did we walk the same halls, only to land in 2023 like this? 3/
CARROLL: Remember when I told you DOJ seemed to want to stall any decision on how to handle the first E. Jean Carroll case, which concerns three statements Trump made in June 2019? 1/
As expected, the erascible Judge Lew Kaplan is not amused. Not only did he order speedy briefing on whether to allow Carroll to amend her complaint, as she requested earlier this week, but DOJ must get cracking on reviewing deposition/discovery materials from the last trial. 2/
Reading the tea leaves, it seems Kaplan is inclined to allow Carroll to amend and that he wants to move the case along. That means DOJ will need to make a decision sooner rather than later about the substitution issue. 3/
The Trump Team's letter to Attorney General Garland is a screamingly red herring—and purposefully so. Trump wants Garland to be his foil and to project that Garland has control over this case. 1/
But in actuality, under the regulations governing the appointment and authority of a Special Counsel, Garland has only a narrow avenue to veto any investigative or prosecutorial step Smith takes. 2/
Specifically, check out 28 CFR 600.7(b), which says Smith is NOT subject to Garland's day-to-day supervision. 3/
Good afternoon from 100 Centre Street, also known as Manhattan criminal court. It’s barely a block from the federal court where the Carroll case was tried, but it’s an entirely different world. And I’m inside for today’s hearing in the Trump criminal matter. Stay tuned.
The hearing was brief but eventful. Among the biggest moments? An otherwise dour, almost silent Trump vociferously shaking his head and waving his hands as if to signal, “No way!” when told his March 25, 2024 trial date is firm.
And he’ll be back in court no later than January 4, 2024 when the court resolves any defense motions, including a motion to dismiss the indictment. That he’ll be back in NY just days before the anniversary of Jan. 6 was not lost on my colleagues.
Just hours after E. Jean Carroll moved to amend her original defamation case against Donald Trump, Trump is back on Truth Social, reiterating the same statements about her he’s been making since 2019. 1/
What’s different now, however, is threefold. First, she already has obtained a jury verdict that he sexually assaulted her in the mid-1990s and then defamed her with substantially similar statements last year. 2/
Second, she’s now made it crystal clear that she’s not dropping her first-filed — and arguably significantly more remunerative — case, which stems from his June 2019 statements about her and also seeks punitive damages for his post-verdict speech on CNN earlier this month. 3/
E. Jean Carroll won a jury trial because Trump defamed her last year. But she still has a case that's been pending since 2019 for what Trump said about her in *that* year. And now she is seeking even more in damages because of his comments on CNN earlier this month. 1/
You can read all about her proposed amended complaint in @BenWeiserNYT's story tonight, but I want to focus you on something others might not: the role of DOJ here. 2/
Carroll initially filed her case in New York state court, only to have Trump's DOJ whisk it away to Manhattan federal court. Why? Because under a federal law called the Westfall Act, federal officials cannot be personally liable for certain types of claims. 3/