(NEW YORK) — Former President Donald Trump is on trial in New York in a $250 million civil lawsuit that could alter the personal fortune and real estate empire that helped propel Trump to the White House.
Trump, his sons Eric Trump and and Donald Trump Jr., and other top Trump Organization executives are accused by New York Attorney General Letitia James of engaging in a decade-long scheme in which they used “numerous acts of fraud and misrepresentation” to inflate Trump’s net worth in order get more favorable loan terms. The trial comes after the judge in the case ruled in a partial summary judgment that Trump had submitted “fraudulent valuations” for his assets, leaving the trial to determine additional actions and what penalty, if any, the defendants should receive.
The former president has denied all wrongdoing and his attorneys have argued that Trump’s alleged inflated valuations were a product of his business skill.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Dec 12, 9:36 AM EST
Trump’s defense expected to rest its case today
After presenting four weeks of testimony, Donald Trump’s lawyers are scheduled to rest their case in the former president’s civil fraud trial today.
With Trump no longer testifying as a defense witness, New York University accounting professor Eli Bartov will be Trump’s final witness.
Resuming his cross-examination this morning, Bartov is likely to face questions about inconsistencies and potential bias in his analysis of Trump’s financial statements. Paid an hourly rate of $1,350 for 650 hours of work, Bartov said last week that he received payments from both the Trump Organization and Trump’s Save America PAC.
Bartov strongly defended Trump’s statements of financial condition, the documents at the center of the New York attorney general’s case, during his testimony last week, saying that he could find “no evidence whatsoever for any accounting fraud.” Bartov also argued the documents were insignificant to the banks that loaned Trump money, which he said used their own analysis to make their loan decisions.
“It is impossible to argue — it is really absurd to argue — that Deutsche Bank or any bank or any lender would make lending decisions based on the statements of financial condition,” Bartov said. “This should close the book on this case.”
Dr. Claudine Gay, president of Harvard University, testifies before the House Education and Workforce Committee at the Rayburn House Office Building on Dec. 05, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Embattled Harvard President Claudine Gay cleared a hurdle to keeping her job after the Harvard Corporation board issued a statement unanimously affirming its support for her amid backlash over her response at a congressional hearing to a question about the “genocide of Jews.”
“As members of the Harvard Corporation, we today reaffirm our support for President Gay’s continued leadership of Harvard University,” the Harvard Corporation said in a statement to the university community on Monday. “Our extensive deliberations affirm our confidence that President Gay is the right leader to help our community heal and to address the very serious societal issues we are facing.”
The board added, “In this tumultuous and difficult time, we unanimously stand in support of President Gay.”
(WASHINGTON) — Special counsel Jack Smith’s team has asked the Supreme Court to step in and decide the issue of presidential immunity regarding former President Donald Trump’s federal election interference charges.
Hours after Smith filed his request Monday, the court said it would consider the request on an expedited basis.
“Petitioner’s motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is granted, and respondent is directed to file a response to the petition on or before 4 p.m. (EST) on Wednesday, December 20, 2023,” the court wrote.
The response does not mean the court will take up the case — only that it will consider the request in an expedited fashion.
Smith is asking the court to immediately resolve the immunity issue, to prevent any delay of the March 4 trial date.
“It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,” the special counsel wrote in his filing Monday.
In October, Trump’s legal team filed its first motion to dismiss the case, citing what Trump’s lawyers claim is his “absolute immunity” from prosecution for actions taken while serving in the nation’s highest office.
The judge overseeing the case, D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, rejected the motion.
Trump has appealed to the circuit court and asked for all proceedings to be stayed in the matter, pending appeal. Over the weekend, Smith’s team said the district court should deny the request to halt the proceedings.
The case Smith cites in asking the Supreme Court to step in by using “certiorari before judgment” — essentially a line-skip before an appeals court has a chance to weigh in — is the United States v. Nixon, when President Richard Nixon refused to hand over secret White House tape recordings to a special prosecutor during the Watergate scandal.
Historically, the rare procedure is only granted in cases that are of “imperative” importance to the public, as Smith himself acknowledges.
“The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request,” Smith’s filing says. “This is an extraordinary case.”
“Smith is willing to try for a Hail Mary by racing to the Supreme Court and attempting to bypass the appellate process,” a spokesperson for Trump said in a statement. “There is absolutely no reason to rush this sham to trial except to injure President Trump and tens of millions of his supporters.”
The move could represent an enormous risk for Smith, whose entire case against Trump could hinge on a landmark decision from the Supreme Court that could — for the first time in American history — determine whether a former U.S. president can be prosecuted for actions taken while in office.
“It requires no extended discussion to confirm that this case — involving charges that respondent sought to thwart the peaceful transfer of power through violations of federal criminal law — is at the apex of public importance,” Smith writes.
“The charges implicate a central tenet of our democracy,” Smith says in the filing. “And the charges allege that respondent conspired to transgress the law in manifold ways: by intentionally using fraudulent means to obstruct the presidential electoral process; by obstructing constitutionally prescribed processes in Congress for counting electoral votes; and by seeking to deprive millions of voters of their electoral choice for President.”
Trump in August pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called “fake electors,” using the Justice Department to conduct “sham election crime investigations,” trying to enlist the vice president to “alter the election results,” and promoting false claims of a stolen election as the Jan. 6 riot raged — all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.
(NEW YORK) — Texas’ Supreme Court on Monday ruled against a woman who sued for an emergency abortion in her home state, overturning a lower court’s ruling last week.
Kate Cox, 31, filed a lawsuit after she said she was denied an abortion for a pregnancy with a severe anomaly.
In its opinion, released Monday night, the Texas Supreme Court acknowledged that Cox’s pregnancy “has been extremely complicated” and “parents would be devastated to learn of their unborn child’s trisomy 18 diagnosis.” In its opinion, though, the judges wrote that “[s]ome difficulties in pregnancy, however, even serious ones, do not pose the heightened risks to the mother the exception encompasses. The exception requires a doctor to decide whether Ms. Cox’s difficulties pose such risks. [Cox’s doctor] asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox’s condition poses the risks the exception requires.”
Earlier on Monday, Cox was reportedly leaving the state to get care, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing her.
Last Friday, the state’s Supreme Court temporarily put the lower court’s decision on hold, saying it needed more time to consider the case, according to court documents.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had asked the high court to reverse Travis County District Court Judge Maya Guerra Gamble’s decision granting Cox’s request for an abortion for a pregnancy with a severe fetal anomaly.
The state’s Supreme Court said Monday night in its opinion, that going forward, its decision should not prohibit any woman “who meets the medical-necessity exception” from obtaining an abortion without seeking a court order.
“Under the law, it is a doctor who must decide that a woman is suffering from a life-threatening condition during a pregnancy, raising the necessity for an abortion to save her life or to prevent impairment of a major bodily function,” the opinion read. “The law leaves to physicians—not judges—both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient.”
Earlier on Monday, Nancy Northup, president and CEO for the CRR, said the “legal limbo” in court has been difficult for Cox.
“This past week of legal limbo has been hellish for Kate,” Northup’s statement read. “Her health is on the line. She’s been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn’t wait any longer. … Kate’s case has shown the world that abortion bans are dangerous for pregnant people, and exceptions don’t work. She desperately wanted to be able to get care where she lives and recover at home surrounded by family. While Kate had the ability to leave the state, most people do not, and a situation like this could be a death sentence.”
Cox’s representatives had asked that the Texas Supreme Court still issue a ruling, even though she is getting an abortion out of state.
“Because the issues in this case are capable of repetition yet evading review, the Plaintiffs nonetheless intend to proceed with their case,” Molly Duane, Cox’s lawyer from the CRR, said in a letter to clerk of the Texas Supreme Court earlier Monday.
Cox has received offers to help her access abortion in other states, such as Colorado, and other countries, including Canada, according to the CRR. It has not been disclosed where she is receiving abortion care.
In Cox’s original lawsuit, she said her baby received a diagnosis of full trisomy 18, which is a condition with a very high likelihood of miscarriage or stillbirth and low survival rates.
According to Marc Hearron, senior counsel at CRR, Cox has been told by physicians that they can provide her with an induction of labor if the baby’s heart stops beating. Cox — already a mother of a 3-year-old and a 1-year-old — has had two cesarean deliveries, and was told that an “induction carries serious risk of uterine rupture,” according to the lawsuit.
“I do not want to put my body through the risks of continuing this pregnancy. I do not want to continue until my baby dies in my belly or I have to deliver a stillborn baby or one where life will be measured in hours or days, full of medical tubes and machinery,” Cox said in the lawsuit.
“Trisomy 18 babies that survive birth often suffer cardiac or respiratory failure. I do not want my baby to arrive in this world only to watch her suffer a heart attack of suffocation. I desperately want the change to try for another baby and want to access the medical care now that gives me the best chance at another baby,” Cox said in the lawsuit.
The CRR also alleged that Cox’s health is at risk and that she “risks debilitating health complications” if she continues her pregnancy, including potential loss of fertility.
Texas has multiple abortion bans in place and is one of 16 states that has ceased nearly all abortion services since the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision overturning Roe v. Wade, ending federal protections for abortion rights, according to an ABC News tally.
Texas’ bans include exceptions that allow abortions in cases of medical emergencies and fatal fetal diagnoses, but doctors and patients claim, in another lawsuit filed in March, that they are unable to provide care or have been denied care, respectively, under the laws. Under Texas’ bans, it is a second-degree felony to perform or attempt an abortion, punishable by up to life in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. The law also allows private citizens to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion.
Plaintiffs allege that the laws are confusing and do not define the exception to bans — which allow abortions to save the life of the mother or preserve bodily function — and wager significant penalties against doctors, up to life in prison.
In a new court filing Sunday, Attorney General Paxton told the state’s high court that fertility risks don’t qualify as a life-threatening condition that would allow a patient to get an abortion under Texas laws. His office argued that a fatal fetal abnormality also wouldn’t qualify.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump sits at the defense table with his attorneys Christopher Kise (L) and Alina Habba (R) in New York State Supreme Court on Dec. 7, 2023 in New York City. (Eduardo Munoz Alvarez-Pool/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Donald Trump was nearly halfway through his testimony in his civil fraud trial last month when he pulled a rumpled note from his jacket.
“I would love to read this, Your Honor, if I could. Am I allowed to do that?” Trump asked the judge, waiving the folded note in the air.
“No, not at this point,” Judge Arthur Engoron responded, to Trump’s apparent irritation.
The note that Trump was not allowed to read at the time — about the disclaimer causes in his statements of financial condition — has underpinned his defense in a case where he and his sons stand accused of defrauding lenders and enriching themselves by roughly $375 million.
After four weeks of defense testimony, Donald Trump’s lawyers are set to rest their case Tuesday after calling 19 witnesses — including experts who Trump paid a total of at least $2.5 million.
The former president faces an uphill battle after Judge Engoron, in a pretrial partial summary judgment ruling, found Trump liable for using fraudulent statements to conduct business.
“I am sure the judge will rule against me, because he always rules against me,” Trump complained when he testified last month, adding on social media that Engoron will likely find him “guilty as hell.”
But the former president has embraced a more optimistic tone in recent weeks, touting the testimony of the defense’s accounting expert and declaring that his firm “did nothing wrong” when he announced Sunday that he no longer planned to testify in his own defense the next day.
Here are three of the main arguments Trump’s team has presented in his defense:
Trump’s ‘worthless clause’
Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly touted a section of his financial statements that Trump refers to as his “worthless clause.”
“It says, very strongly, ‘Do your own due diligence. Do your own work. Do your own study. Don’t take anything from this statement for granted,'” Trump testified during the state’s case last month.
Trump’s lawyers have used this disclaimer in an attempt to insulate Trump from any alleged wrongdoing, since he warned his lenders that the statements might be incorrect — an argument reinforced by testimony from defense experts.
“I never saw anything that is clearer than that. Even my nine-year-old granddaughter Emma would understand this language,” the defense’s accounting expert, Eli Bartov, testified about Trump’s disclaimer. Another expert, Jason Flemmons, said that Trump disclosed that 95% of his financial statement departed from generally accepted accounting principles.
However, Engoron has generally been dismissive of Trump’s disclaimer argument, as he stated in his partial summary judgment.
“Defendants’ reliance on these ‘worthless’ disclaimers is worthless. The clause does not use the words ‘worthless’ or ‘useless’ or ‘ignore’ or ‘disregard’ or any similar words,” Engoron wrote.
While Engoron has repeatedly indicated that he stands by his ruling, he nevertheless signaled some flexibility after Bartov strongly defended Trump’s use of disclaimers.
“I am fairly liberal in reconsidering my opinions,” Engoron said.
‘No evidence’ of a conspiracy
Trump’s lawyers have argued that state attorneys have failed to prove their allegation that the former president engaged in a conspiracy to inflate his net worth.
“There is no evidence in the record of agreement — a fundamental premise to support the conspiracy claims,” Trump attorney Chris Kise argued in court.
Defense lawyers highlighted that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, the state’s main witness who claimed Trump directed him to inflate his net worth, cannot be trusted due to his history of false testimony.
“He was caught lying like no one has ever lied. It was better than a Perry Mason moment, and that should be the end of the case,” Trump said after defense lawyers Alina Habba and Clifford Robert cross-examined Cohen.
Patrick Birney, a Trump Organization vice president, also testified that he received direction from then-CFO Allen Weisselberg to increase Trump’s net worth — but when he was recalled as a defense witness, Birney clarified that he never increased the values in Trump’s financial statement without having evidence to support the change.
‘Happy’ bankers
A central pillar of Trump’s defense has been the claim that his lenders were happy to do business with the former president, despite his allegedly inflated valuations.
Former Deutsche Bank managing director Rosemary Vrablic testified that the bank was eager to get Trump’s business, courting him in order to earn millions in interest and fees from his loans. Defense expert Robert Unell testified that even if Trump’s net worth was a fraction of what he claimed, he would have still qualified for his loans.
Unell added that the bank’s internal valuation group determined that Trump overstated his net worth by roughly $2.4 billion when they decided to offer him loans — suggesting that whatever inflated valuations that existed were not relevant to lenders.
Engoron, however, cast doubt on the viability of that argument, suggesting that pleasing his lenders does not clear Trump of wrongdoing.
“The mere fact that the lenders were happy doesn’t mean the statute wasn’t violated,” Engoron said in court.
(ARLINGTON, Texas) — A stadium employee who was working at AT&T Stadium during the Dallas Cowboys and Philadelphia Eagles game has been arrested for illegally letting people into the stadium in exchange for cash, police said.
NFC East rivals and two of the top teams in the NFL, the Dallas Cowboys and the Philadelphia Eagles, squared off in primetime on Sunday night at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, in front of 93,752 people, according to ESPN.
However, thanks to 19-year-old Diego Soto, that number at AT&T Stadium may not be completely accurate after he reportedly let in an undetermined number of people into the stadium in exchange for cash which he pocketed, according to ABC News’ Houston affiliate KTRK-TV.
Soto’s job was to scan spectators’ tickets after they passed through the security checkpoint, according to Arlington police. But sometime during his shift, he allegedly let in a group of people into the stadium in exchange for cash, according to the Arlington Police Department via KTRK.
Soto was subsequently arrested for his infraction and admitted to accepting the money to let a group of ticketless fans into the stadium after being questioned by a detective, KTRK said.
Soto has since been charged with commercial bribery. A court date has not yet been set.
The Cowboys ended up defeating the Eagles 33-13 in the Sunday Night Football matchup leaving both teams with a record of 10-3 with the Cowboys sitting atop the NFC East and only four games to go until the end of the regular season.
(NEW YORK) — After hours of searching the rubble of a partial building collapse in the Bronx, the New York Fire Department said no victims were found.
Two people sustained minor injuries — the only report of injuries in the incident — as the building was evacuated.
Authorities said they were first alerted that the corner of a building in the Bronx had collapsed around 3:38 p.m. ET.
Responding to the scene within two minutes, the fire department evacuated the rest of the building and began searching through the rubble.
At a news briefing, Fire Department Commissioner Laura Kavanagh said the team would not stop the search until they found someone or confirmed there was no one under the rubble. Emergency responders used their hands, drones, robotics and canine units during the search.
Just after 10 p.m. ET, the Fire Department confirmed no victims had been found.
“For hours, FDNY members searched for potential victims of the partial building collapse at 1915 Billingsley Terrace,” read a post on the fire department’s X social media page. “They have gone through a large pile of debris, 12 feet high in spots, and found no victims. Two civilians sustained minor injuries during the evacuation.”
Kavanagh said the department was thankful there were no serious injuries in the collapse.
“Miraculously, no one was severely injured at the partial building collapse at 1915 Billingsley Terrace,” Kavanagh wrote on X Monday night. “From looking at the scene and surveillance footage, it could have been so much worse. We waited anxiously as @FDNY members methodically went through the debris pile.”
(WASHINGTON) — Ten teens were charged on Monday in a string of carjackings in Washington, D.C., authorities said, amid what law enforcement calls a sharp rise in the crime in the nation’s capital.
The 10 suspects are believed to be involved in two separate carjacking rings in D.C., authorities said: The teens, who are being charged as adults, are allegedly responsible for at least 15 vehicle thefts and held victims at gunpoint, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Matthew Graves, said at a news conference.
The charges represented the largest federal carjacking arrest in D.C. this year, Graves said.
He said the charges were a “serious response to show people that this is not a game. This is the real world and there will be real-world consequences.”
The teenagers allegedly had a group chat “discussing some of the carjackings covered by these indictments,” Graves told reporters on Monday, adding, “One defendant wrote ‘GTA IRL,’ which we allege means ‘Grand Theft Auto’ in real life.”
Carjackings have skyrocketed in the nation’s capital, according to officials: With a few days left in the calendar year, there have been 932 carjackings in 2023 in Washington — 77% of which involved guns. Only 167 people have been arrested for carjacking in the district and of those arrests, 62% were juveniles, according to authorities.
One of the teens charged on Monday allegedly shot a ride-share driver multiple times during an attempted carjacking, law enforcement said. His victim miraculously survived his injuries.
One of the groups of teens that has been charged is suspected of working together to target victims ranging from a dentist who was on the way to work to a mother with small children in her car in front of an elementary school to an elderly couple pulling into their driveway, officials said Monday.
“What we want to say very loudly and very clearly … is it is a really big deal and it will be prosecuted as such,” Graves said Monday.
Last week, Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser and Police Chief Pamela Smith testified in a closed-door bipartisan briefing to lawmakers about rising crime in the district.
House Oversight and Accountability Chair James Comer, R-Ky., said after the meeting that the conversation focused on “the rising, unchecked crime impacting the nation’s capital city.” Comer described the meeting as a meaningful and “productive and bipartisan discussion about rising crime.”
However, he took aim at the district’s governing council and at Graves, arguing they “have failed their basic responsibility to keep Americans safe and criminals off the streets.”
Earlier this year Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, was carjacked in Washington and Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., was assaulted in her apartment building.
A day after the congressional briefing, Bowser announced a new real-time crime center, which will be a joint clearinghouse to tackle crime in and around the nation’s capital. The new effort will launch in February.
In it, D.C. police will serve alongside federal and local authorities in an effort to reduce crime in 2024.
On Monday, Graves criticized the district’s slowness to update its public-safety laws, which he said haven’t been comprehensively revised since 1901. The most recent effort to update the laws was rejected by Congress, which has oversight over the district in an unusual arrangement because it is not a state.
Graves said he has worked with Bowser and council members to come up with some solutions for combating crime.
(NEW YORK) — Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is on trial in Washington, D.C., this week for defaming Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss in the aftermath of the 2020 election. Giuliani, acting on behalf of former President Donald Trump, accused the mother and daughter of committing election fraud while the two were counting ballots on Election Day in Georgia’s Fulton County.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in August awarded a default judgment to the two women, leaving this week’s trial to determine the full scope of the damages and any penalties Giuliani will have to pay.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Dec 11, 11:03 PM EST
In filing, plaintiffs’ attorneys slam Giuliani’s remarks to press
In a filing late Monday, attorneys for Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss are accusing Rudy Giuliani and his attorney of crafting arguments at trial that run afoul of the court’s prior ruling that Giuliani’s defamatory statements about the mother and daughter were false.
The filing cites ABC News’ reporting on correspondent Terry Moran’s exchange with Giuliani as the former mayor departed court, during which Giuliani said that he “told the truth” about Freeman and Moss “changing votes,” and that he should not be held accountable for the conduct of “other people overreacting.”
“According to public news reports, upon leaving the courthouse, Defendant Giuliani stopped to say to an assembled group of the press: ‘When I testify, the whole story will be definitively clear that what I said was true, and that, whatever happened to them — which is unfortunate about other people overreacting — everything I said about them is true,'” the filing says, quoting ABC News’ report.
“Needless to say,” attorneys for Freeman and Moss write, “were Defendant Giuliani to testify in a manner remotely resembling those comments, he would be in plain violation of the Court’s prior orders in this case conclusively affirming, and reaffirming, that all elements of liability have been established, including that Defendant Giuliani’s defamatory statements were false.”
Judge Howell in August awarded a default judgment to the plaintiffs, leaving the current trial to determine the amount of damages and any penalties Giuliani will have to pay. In their late Monday filing, the plaintiffs’ attorneys urged Howell to “instruct counsel for Defendant Giuliani that he has violated and is prohibited from further violating the Court’s orders by making arguments contrary to its prior evidentiary rulings.”
Dec 11, 6:31 PM EST
Giuliani insists Freeman, Moss were ‘changing votes’
Departing court after the first day of the trial, Rudy Giuliani told ABC News’ Terry Moran that he has no regrets about his treatment of Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss — and he doubled down on his core allegations about them.
“When I testify, the whole story will be definitively clear that what I said was true, and that, whatever happened to them — which is unfortunate about other people overreacting — everything I said about them is true,” Giuliani told reporters.
“Do you regret what you did to Ruby and Shaye?” Moran asked.
“Of course I don’t regret it,” Giuliani said. “I told the truth. They were engaged in changing votes.”
“There’s no proof of that,” Moran responded.
“You’re damn right there is,” Giuliani retorted. “Stay tuned.”
Court will resume Tuesday at 9 a.m. ET.
Dec 11, 4:51 PM EST
Expert describes racist content ‘on a level we don’t see’
Plaintiffs’ first witness in the case is a social media monitor who testified about the deluge of “racist and graphic material” targeting Freeman and Moss that appeared online after Giuliani began accusing them by name.
Regina Scott, a retired Chicago Police Department official who now works as a security and risk analyst, testified that negative mentions about Freeman and Moss surfaced online at a prodigious rate.
A report Scott prepared identified more than 710,000 mentions of Freeman and Moss between November 2020 and May 2023, and 320,000 mentions between Aug. 18, 2023, and Nov. 11, 2023.
“The type of violent and racist and graphic material, that’s on a level we don’t see at all in our work,” Scott said.
-ABC News’ Laura Romero
Dec 11, 3:49 PM EST
Damages sought are ‘civil equivalent of death penalty,’ says attorney
Joseph Sibley, an attorney for Rudy Giuliani, implored jurors to withhold judgment of his client and consider a “fair and proportionate” monetary penalty when the trial concludes, framing the $43 million sought by Freeman and Moss as a “truly incredible” figure.
“What the plaintiffs’ counsel are asking for in this case is the civil equivalent of a death penalty,” Sibley told jurors in brief opening remarks.
Sibley, in making his case to the jury, ceding before arguments even began that Giuliani made defamatory comments about Freeman and Moss — but he refuted the notion that his comments led to the abuse that followed.
“There’s really no question that these plaintiffs were harmed,” Sibley said. “They’re good people, they didn’t deserve what happened to them.”
But Sibley urged jurors to consider only “what can actually be attributed to Mr. Giuliani.”
“He never promoted violence against these women, never made racist statements about them,” Sibley said of Giuliani. “That was other random people.”
Dec 11, 3:38 PM EST
Damage to plaintiffs should cost Giuliani ’10s of millions’
Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss suffered a “perpetual nightmare,” their attorney Michael Gottlieb told the jury during his opening remarks, saying that the damage they suffered warrants an “award in the tens of millions of dollars.”
Gottlieb told jurors his clients suffered three types of damages — reputation, emotional and punitive — due to Giuliani’s “defamation campaign.”
In addition to the costs to “repair their reputation,” Gottlieb told jurors that Freeman and Moss’ award should account for lost wages, forced relocation, security expenses, and more.
-ABC News’ Laura Romero
Dec 11, 3:00 PM EST
Giuliani used accusers as ‘cornerstone’ of conspiracy, says lawyer
Rudy Giuliani sought to use Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss “as a cornerstone” of his campaign to denigrate the 2020 presidential election, prompting his followers to turn their ire toward the two election workers, their attorney, Von DuBose, told the jury in his opening remarks.
DuBose described how Giuliani slandered Freeman and Moss to his “massive national audience” and accused the mother and daughter of rigging ballots in President Joe Biden’s favor.
“None of that — none of that — is true. But the millions of people who heard the lies didn’t wait for confirmation,” DuBose said. “And the response from those Giuliani called to action was swift. It was racist.”
Dubose played audio recordings of several voicemails left on Freeman and Moss’ phones after Giuliani targeted them by name, including threats of violence and racist name-calling.
Many of the voicemails cited the USB drive Giuliani falsely told Georgia state legislators that the two were “surreptitiously passing around … as if they’re vials of heroin or cocaine.”
Then, DuBose said, “Words turned into action.”
“Strange people” showed up at Freeman and Moss’ home looking for them, DuBose said, with some attempting to “make citizens’ arrests.”
“This case is about how Giuliani … made their names a call to action for millions of people who did not want to believe” the results of the 2020 election, DuBose said.
Dec 11, 2:42 PM EST
Jury instructed on Giuliani’s defamatory comments
Judge Beryl Howell, following a break, delivered a lengthy statement to jurors about details of the case — including her determination that Rudy Giuliani has already been found liable for his defamatory comments.
Howell emphasized that the panel must assume that Giuliani failed to cooperate with his discovery requirements in the case in an effort to “artificially deflate” his net worth, and that jurors must understand that Giuliani benefitted financially from his defamatory comments about Freeman and Moss.
“Your job, ladies and gentlemen, is to determine the facts,” Howell said.
Howell reminded jurors that their sole responsibility is to determine the damages associated with Giuliani’s comments.
As Howell ticked through jury instructions, Giuliani intermittently shook his head and exchanged glances with his attorney.
Dec 11, 11:11 AM EST
Judge asks juror prospects about MAGA, QAnon slogans
Prospective jurors are commonly asked to divulge any affiliations with parties in the case, or preconceived views about them. But in this case — a heavily politicized matter involving election lies — Judge Howell’s questioning has veered into some of the cryptic slogans of the far-right movement.
Howell is asking prospective jurors whether they had ever used the expression “Let’s Go Brandon” — a common refrain among President Joe Biden’s detractors — or the hashtag “WWG1WGA,” a motto associated with the QAnon movement.
She is also asking jurors whether they follow Giuliani’s social media channels.
The prospective jurors reflect the unique makeup of nation’s capitol. Among those who have been questioned: a Defense Department official, a U.S. Forest Service official, a Defense Intelligence Agency official, and a woman who had worked for the Girl Scouts.
Dec 11, 10:40 AM EST
Giuliani faces Freeman, Moss for 1st time
When Rudy Giuliani entered the courtroom some 20 minutes late due to delays with the courthouse security line, it was the first time he shared a room with Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss.
Freeman and Moss kept their backs turned away from Giuliani as he entered the courtroom. Moss appeared to swivel her chair slightly to avoid facing him directly.
Giuliani took a seat at the defendant’s table alongside his attorney, Joseph Sibley.
While waiting for Giuliani, Sibley had asked Judge Howell’s permission for Giuliani to bypass the security line moving forward. She said she would discuss it with court personnel, but laid the blame at Giuliani’s feet for his arriving “tardily.”
Dec 11, 10:11 AM EST
Judge welcomes prospective jurors to courtroom
Judge Howell has begun reading instructions to dozens of prospective jurors, after proceedings were delayed slightly due to Giuliani’s late arrival and some apparent issues with juror paperwork.
Howell rose and swore in jurors before the selection process got underway. She emphasized that she would endeavor to seat an impartial and unbiased jury.
“The court has already determined that Mr. Giuliani is liable for defamation, and that Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss are entitled to receive compensation, including in the form of punitive damages, for Mr. Giuliani’s willful conduct,” Howell told jurors.
“The only issue remaining in this trial is for the jury to determine any amount of damages Mr. Giuliani owes to plaintiffs for the damage caused by his conduct,” Howell said.
Dec 11, 9:53 AM EST
Ruling could be another blow to Giuliani’s finances
The $15.5 million to $43 million that Freeman and Moss are seeking from Giuliani reflects the emotional distress and monetary losses associated with the former mayor’s defamatory comments, according to attorneys for the mother and daughter.
If the plaintiffs receive anywhere near those figures, it would mark the latest financial blow to a man who once raked in tens of millions of dollars through security consulting and speaking fees.
Judge Beryl Howell has already ordered Giuliani to pay Freeman and Moss upwards of $230,000 as a sanction for failing to comply with the discovery process of sharing information relevant to the case. In court filings over the summer, Giuliani’s lawyer asked the judge if Giuliani could defer payment, citing the former mayor’s “financial difficulties” as a result of fighting a slew of litigation elsewhere.
Giuliani stands to owe millions more if he loses cases brought by two voting machine companies and his own longtime personal attorney, among other legal challenges he faces. Giuliani has denied all claims.
Dec 11, 8:24 AM EST
Jury selection begins this morning
Jury selection in the case gets underway at the D.C. federal courthouse this morning, where eight Washington residents will be chosen to serve.
Jurors will be tasked with attaching a monetary value to the harm caused by the defamatory statements a judge found Rudy Giuliani liable for making in the wake of the 2020 presidential election.
When the parties arrive in court this morning, it will be the first time Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss face Giuliani in person.
(WASHINGTON) — Special counsel Jack Smith’s team has asked the Supreme Court to step in and decide the issue of presidential immunity regarding former President Donald Trump’s federal election interference charges.
Smith is asking the court to immediately resolve the issue, to prevent any delay of the March 4 trial date.
“Respondent’s appeal of the ruling rejecting his immunity and related claims, however, suspends the trial of the charges against him, scheduled to begin on March 4, 2024,” the special counsel wrote in a filing Monday. “It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected.”
In October, Trump’s legal team filed its first motion to dismiss the case, citing what Trump’s lawyers claim is his “absolute immunity” from prosecution for actions taken while serving in the nation’s highest office.
The judge overseeing the case, D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, rejected the motion.
Trump has appealed to the circuit court and asked for all proceedings to be stayed in the matter, pending appeal. Over the weekend, Smith’s team said the district court should deny the request to halt the proceedings.
The case Smith cites in asking the Supreme Court to step in by using “certiorari before judgment” — essentially a line-skip before an appeals court has a chance to weigh in — is the United States v. Nixon, when President Richard Nixon refused to hand over secret White House tape recordings to a special prosecutor during the Watergate scandal.
Historically, the rare procedure is only granted in cases that are of “imperative” importance to the public, as Smith himself acknowledges.
“The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request,” Smith’s filing says. “This is an extraordinary case.”
“Smith is willing to try for a Hail Mary by racing to the Supreme Court and attempting to bypass the appellate process,” a spokesperson for Trump said in a statement. “There is absolutely no reason to rush this sham to trial except to injure President Trump and tens of millions of his supporters.”
The move could represent an enormous risk for Smith, whose entire case against Trump could hinge on a landmark decision from the Supreme Court that could — for the first time in American history — determine whether a former U.S. president can be prosecuted for actions taken while in office.
“It requires no extended discussion to confirm that this case — involving charges that respondent sought to thwart the peaceful transfer of power through violations of federal criminal law — is at the apex of public importance,” Smith writes.
“The charges implicate a central tenet of our democracy,” Smith says in the filing. “And the charges allege that respondent conspired to transgress the law in manifold ways: by intentionally using fraudulent means to obstruct the presidential electoral process; by obstructing constitutionally prescribed processes in Congress for counting electoral votes; and by seeking to deprive millions of voters of their electoral choice for President.”
Trump in August pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called “fake electors,” using the Justice Department to conduct “sham election crime investigations,” trying to enlist the vice president to “alter the election results,” and promoting false claims of a stolen election as the Jan. 6 riot raged — all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.
