Allegations Of Inciting Violence
Research suggests Trump’s rhetoric caused an increased incidence of hate crimes. During his 2016 campaign, he urged or praised physical attacks against protesters or reporters. Since then, some defendants prosecuted for hate crimes or violent acts cited Trump’s rhetoric in arguing that they were not culpable or should receive a lighter sentence. In May 2020, a nationwide review by ABC News identified at least 54 criminal cases from August 2015 to April 2020 in which Trump was invoked in direct connection with violence or threats of violence by mostly white men against mostly members of minority groups. On January 13, 2021, the House of Representatives impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection for his actions prior to the storming of the U.S. Capitol by a violent mob of his supporters who acted in his name.
Litigation Tracker: Pending Criminal And Civil Cases Against Donald Trump
Originally published on Feb. 28, 2021 updated on Oct. 5, 2021.
On both the criminal and civil litigation fronts, former President Donald Trump faces a bevy of lawsuits and investigations, with more cases likely to follow. Some are civil suits stemming from his pre-presidential business dealings. Others are defamation claims from women he allegedly assaulted. More still are criminal probes and civil actions that scrutinize his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The Chart below tracks all these cases. It will be continually updated as major legal developments occur.
These cases bear on two pressing questions. First, will Trump maintain his long streak of eluding legal liability in the face of so many lawsuits? Second, if Trump is held to account for illegal conduct, what impact will such a development have on hisand his familyspolitical and business fortunes?
The civil cases could certainly do their fair share of damage as well, directly or indirectly. If Trump falters in one of his business-related suits, his companies may be subject to massive penalties, orworse. Even apart from such sanctions, his empire is reportedly struggling under looming debt obligations and reduced revenues, a slump which could worsen if his reputation continues to deteriorate.
Key Takeaways
Update: On Oct. 4, 2021, the trial court ruled that Trump could be deposed before Dec. 23, 2021.
Update: On Sept. 15, 2021, the parties agreed to end the lawsuit.
Trump Wrong About Officer Who Shot Jan 6 Rioter Ashli Babbitt Law Enforcement Official Says
Former President Donald Trump suggested Sunday that the U.S. Capitol Police officer who shot Ashli Babbitt during the at the Capitol was the “head of security” for a “high-ranking” Democratic member of Congress.
That is false, according to a senior law enforcement official briefed on the matter.
The official said the officer who shot Babbitt, 35, was not a member of a security detail provided to a specific member of Congress, adding that the officer has not yet returned to duty.
Trump made the statements on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” program, hosted by Maria Bartiromo.
“Who shot Ashli Babbitt? People want to know and why,” Trump said.
Bartiromo asked Trump who he thought shot her.
“I will tell you they know who shot Ashli Babbitt. They’re protecting that person,” he replied. “I’ve heard also that it was the head of security for a certain high official a Democrat and we’ll see, because it’s going to come out. It’s going to come out.”
Bartiromo later said: “I want you to know that my team reached out to Sen. Chuck Schumer’s office to check on what he may know about who shot Ashli Babbitt. We have not heard back from Chuck Schumer’s office.”
Trump interrupted, saying, “I wonder why.”
Schumer’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A representative for Fox News did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Read Also: How Many Times Has Trump Lied
Donald Trumps Odds Of Going To Prison Just Skyrocketed
- Save Story
To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.
- Save Story
To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.
Three years after it began its criminal investigation of Donald Trumps Trump Organization and its executives, the Manhattan District Attorneys Office is reportedly expected to charge the ex-presidents company and its chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, with tax-related crimes on Thursday, according TheWall Street Journal. Obviously this marks a major escalation of the probe, and Trump will presumably respond to the news by lashing out like a man increasingly concerned that prison may be in his future.
According to the Journal, Weisselberg and the company are expected to be hit with charges related to allegedly avoiding paying taxes on fringe benefits. For months Cyrus Vance Jr.s office has been investigating whether the perks the CFO was awarded, including cars, corporate apartments, and private school tuition, were a way of evading money owed to the IRS. In addition to reportedly obtaining Weisselbergs personal tax returns, the D.A.s office scored a trove of financial documents from his ex-daughter-in-law, Jennifer Weisselberg, whose former husband, Barry Weisselberg, is also a longtime employee of the company.
Meanwhile, per the Journal:
As Weisselbergs ex-daughter-in-law told Air Mail in April, Trump doesnt care about Allen, but Allen knows every bad thing he ever did.
More Great Stories From
Former President Donald Trump Reveals He Had Pfizer Vaccine Before He Left Office And Might Get Booster Shot ‘if I Felt That It Was Necessary’
- Former President Donald Trump revealed that he got the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, and that he might get a booster shot if he ‘ it was necessary’
- Trump and First Lady Melania were quietly vaccinated in January – two months later, their inoculation was reported. President Joe Biden got his on live TV
- ‘I got the Pfizer and I would have been happy with any of them,’ Trump told Yahoo Finance Live
- Trump had also accused the FDA of favoring Pfizer and Moderna after officials paused distribution of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in April
- ‘I think it is very suspect what they did with Johnson & Johnson – because the only people that are happy about that are Pfizer and Moderna’, he said
- On Friday, deaths from COVID-19 in America exceeded 700,000
You May Like: Where To Get Trump 2020 Signs
Relationship With The Press
Throughout his career, Trump has sought media attention, with a “lovehate” relationship with the press. Trump began promoting himself in the press in the 1970s. Fox News anchor Bret Baier and former House speaker Paul Ryan have characterized Trump as a “troll” who makes controversial statements to see people’s “heads explode.”
In the 2016 campaign, Trump benefited from a record amount of free media coverage, elevating his standing in the Republican primaries.New York Times writer Amy Chozick wrote in 2018 that Trump’s media dominance, which enthralls the public and creates “can’t miss” reality television-type coverage, was politically beneficial for him.
As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently accused the press of bias, calling it the “fake news media” and “the enemy of the people.” In 2018, journalist Lesley Stahl recounted Trump’s saying he intentionally demeaned and discredited the media “so when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.”
As president, Trump deployed the legal system to intimidate the press. In early 2020, the Trump campaign sued The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN for alleged defamation in opinion pieces about Russian election interference. Legal experts said that the lawsuits lacked merit and were not likely to succeed. By March 2021, the lawsuits against The New York Times and CNN had been dismissed.
Dc Attorney General Incitement Investigation For Attack On Us Capitol
Prosecuting Office: DC Attorney General
Case Summary: DC Attorney General Karl Racine has said he is exploring whether to charge Trump with incitement. So far, his office has focused on a DC statute that makes it a misdemeanor to incite or provoke violence where there is a likelihood that such violence will ensue. Presumably, DC prosecutors are looking into Trumps statements and tweets before and during the riot, gauging whether they amount to criminal incitement.
That said, Racine has cautioned that prosecuting Trump would be an uphill battle. Though the former president no longer could claim presidential immunity, the First Amendment may still shield his speech from prosecution. Under Brandenburgthe controlling case herea speaker can be prosecuted for incitement only when their speech is both intended and likely to cause imminent lawless action. This is a notoriously difficult standard to meet, especially on the intent side. Even though some rioters haveclaimed they were following Trumps instructions, Racine would need to actually prove it was Trumps actual goal for them to do so. Despite the trailofincriminatingstatements Trump left behind, Racine may still have trouble meeting such a high bar.
Case Status: Racines office is investigating Trumps conduct but has not filed charges.
Don’t Miss: Is Trump In Palm Beach This Weekend
Second Capitol Police Suit Over The Jan 6 Riots
Smith v. Trump, No. 21-cv-02265
Plaintiff: Seven Capitol Police officers
Case Summary: On Aug. 26, 2021, a second group of Capitol Police officers filed suit over injuries they suffered while defending the Capitol on Jan. 6. The officers allege that Trump and his co-defendantsincluding the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepersconspired to incite a riot and attack the Capitol, leaving the officers physically and emotionally injured.
Like the other Jan. 6 lawsuits against Trump, the complaint asserts that Trump violated the KKK Act by conspiring to instigate the riots. The complaint also alleges that unnamed defendantslisted as John Does who carried out the attackphysically assaulted the officers at Trumps provocation, which could make Trump liable for the officers injuries.
The plaintiffs also add in a unique claim not found in other Jan. 6 lawsuits against Trump: that the defendants violated the DC Bias-Related Crimes Act, a local hate-crime statute. According to the complaint, the defendants were motivated by political bias against the Democratic Party when they instigated and executed the Capitol attack.
Case Status: The officers filed their suit in DC federal court on Aug 26, 2021.
What You Need To Know About Stephanie Grisham
Stephanie Grisham, 45, is a former White House official who worked for the Trump administration for a majority of Trump’s four-year term.
Prior to that, she was a press aide to Trump’s 2016 campaign and was also a member of the presidential transition team.
Grisham was in office as the 32nd White House Press Secretary from July 1, 2019 to April 7, 2020 during which she never held a single press conference.
In her book, Grisham offers an explanation for her absence from the briefing room: “I knew that sooner or later the president would want me to tell the public something that was not true or that would make me sound like a lunatic.”
READ MORE:Woman reports missing boyfriend but police say he doesn’t exist
Grisham acted as Press Secretary for the First Lady as well as Chief of Staff to the First Lady from April 7, 2020 to January 6, 2021, when she resigned from both positions two weeks before the Trump administration was set to end as Trump supporters attacked the United States Capitol.
Don’t Miss: What Is The Latest Trump Approval Rating
Doe V The Trump Corporation Class Action
Doe v. Trump Corp., No. 18-cv-09936 , appeal docketed, No. 20-01706
Plaintiffs: Jane Doe, Luke Loe, Mary Moe, Richard Roe
Case Summary: On Oct. 30, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Trump Corporation, Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump. The complaint alleges that the defendants used their brand name to defraud thousands of working class individuals by promoting numerous businesses in exchange for secret payments. The companies include ACN Opportunity, LLC , the Trump Network, LLC , and Business Strategies Group, LLC . The lawsuit also claims that the defendants are liable for a pattern of racketeering activity violating the RICO Act as well as activity violating numerous state consumer protection laws concerning fair business practices and competition.
On July 24, 2019, the District Court judge partially granted the defendants motion to dismiss. The judge dismissed the RICO claims because the Complaint did not sufficiently plead that Defendants conduct was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs losses. However, she ruled that the other claims concerning the state laws will not be dismissed under Class Action Fairness Act .
