(CAMERON, Wis.) — Two Wisconsin police officers were killed on Saturday following a shootout with a suspect during a traffic stop in Cameron, according to the Wisconsin Department of Justice Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI).
The officers were from two different police departments, officials said in a news release.
A Chetek Police Department officer conducted a traffic stop at 3:38 p.m., local time, in Cameron, Wisconsin, on Saturday when a shootout began between the officer and the suspect, the Wisconsin DOJ said.
The Chetek officer and an officer from the Cameron Police Department were killed at the scene, according to officials.
The suspect was also killed, the state’s justice department confirmed in the news release.
“I am deeply saddened by the tragic loss today of two officers,” Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul tweeted Saturday night. “I am thinking of their families and the Chetek and Cameron Police Departments at this incredibly difficult time.”
The names of the officers and the suspect have not been released.
The Wisconsin Department of Justice did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers tweeted out his condolences on Sunday to family and friends of the two officers.
“Our hearts are heavy for the Chetek and Cameron police officers who lost their lives in the line of duty yesterday,” Evers said. “Kathy and I are praying for the officers’ families, colleagues, and the Barron County community mourning this tragic loss.”
DCI is leading the investigation into the case and is working alongside Barron County Sheriff’s Office, Rusk County Sheriff’s Office, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin State Patrol, Wisconsin State Crime Lab and a DCI Crime Response Specialist, according to the Wisconsin DOJ.
DCI will send over its findings to the Barron County District Attorney once it finishes its investigation, officials said.
“Our community is experiencing a time of great tragedy. As we continue to work through this, please respect the privacy of our law enforcement officers and their families,” Chetek Chief of Police Ron Ambrozaitis said in a statement posted on the department’s Facebook page on Sunday. “We want to thank the community for their continued support and overwhelming acts of kindness. The support has been tremendous!”
(NEW YORK) — Global warming isn’t just increasing the amount of moisture in the atmosphere — it’s also capable of shifting wind patterns, which will further increase hurricane risk in the U.S., according to new research.
Heat-driven shifts in large-scale atmospheric circulation could escalate the risk of hurricanes making landfall on the Gulf Coast and southern Atlantic coast in the U.S., a study published Friday in Science Advances found.
New model-based research found that enhanced surface ocean warming in the eastern tropical Pacific could trigger large-scale shifts in upper atmosphere wind patterns, according to the study.
These shifts could help steer hurricanes closer to the Gulf Coast and lower East Coast, decreasing the vertical wind shear in those regions, which could then allow hurricanes to intensify even more and amplify risks to coastal communities, the researchers said.
“The same winds that steer storms towards the U.S. coast will also make the storms stronger near the coast, because they are lowering wind shear,” Karthik Balaguru, a climate and data scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and author of the study, told ABC News.
The model, called the Risk Analysis Framework for Tropical Cyclones and generated by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, is able to generate large ensembles of tropical cyclones and hurricanes, which then allows for robust quantification, Balaguru said. This is the first research to identify the mechanisms behind increased hurricane risk in the U.S. due to climate change, Balaguru said.
Scientists expect warming in the atmosphere and upper ocean to contribute to landfalling hurricanes becoming more destructive. Warming-induced shifts in large-scale wind patterns could also cause more storms to stall or dissipate more slowly on land.
The models found that the development of large-scale cyclonic wind patterns in the upper troposphere over the western Atlantic — due to heating in the eastern tropical Pacific — caused prevailing winds in the western Atlantic to shift westward.
That westward shift then steered hurricanes closer to the U.S. coast, increasing the frequency of landfalling hurricanes in a given year, the study found.
The new findings adds to existing research that climate change is creating stronger hurricanes that contain more moisture and as well as the U.S. Atlantic Coast becoming a “breeding ground” for rapidly intensifying hurricanes.
Future research on how global warming will affect changes in sea surface warming will be necessary to enhance the confidence of scientists to accurately predict hurricane risk in the future, Balaguru said.
(ORLANDO, Fla.) — Three people and one suspect are dead after a suspected domestic violence incident turned deadly in Orlando, Florida, early Sunday morning, according to Orlando Police Chief Eric Smith.
Officers received calls for a domestic violence incident and arrived at a home near Parramore Avenue and Grand Street at around 2:28 a.m. Sunday. Once they arrived, they heard shots fired inside the home, Chief Smith said in a press conference.
The suspect, who was armed, later walked out of the home and started firing at responding officers, the chief said. Police then returned fire, and the suspect later died in police custody, he said.
Three people had been shot inside the home, officers said. One victim, who was a child, was transported to a hospital, but later succumbed to their injuries, said Smith. The other two victims, who were adults, also died by gunfire, he said. Their names and ages have not been released at this time.
The two officers who responded were not injured, and will be placed on administrative leave, as is protocol with officer-involved shootings, the Orlando Police Department said in a statement.
(NEW YORK) — With the trial of John Carter, who’s been charged in the cold case murder of his fiancee, Katelyn Markham, scheduled to begin in the summer of 2024, the victim’s father said he hoped a conviction would close a dark chapter in his life.
“That has been a huge and very hard time of my life for 12 years,” David Markham told ABC News. “The relief that I think I am going to feel will be so welcomed and grateful.”
Carter, who is now 35, reported Katelyn’s disappearance to police in Ohio in 2011. Her remains were found in rural Indiana two years later. Carter’s trial is expected to begin next summer, with an opening date scheduled for June 24, 2024.
In an interview days after her disappearance, Carter told ABC Cincinnati affiliate WCPO-TV he hoped to see Katelyn again.
“I’m terrified, I’m absolutely terrified,” he said at the time. “I just want to find Katelyn and celebrate her birthday with her.”
Butler County Prosecutor Michael Gmoser included in court documents a typed poem that his office said was found in Carter’s home.
“Deep down I love her. You want to kill her,” it said in part. “But I love her. She must die. I can’t kill her. Yes you can. No. Yes.”
Gmoser and his team took over the cold case two years ago and said they were able to gather enough information through interviews and documents to lead to Carter’s arrest.
Markham said he was blindsided when notified by the prosecution that Carter’s arrest was imminent.
“I had no indication that they were going to arrest him,” Markham said.
A few minutes later, he found out Carter was in police custody, he said. His phone started buzzing with messages from reporters, friends and family, he said.
“It took me a few hours to kind of let it sink in,” Markham said. “The biggest feeling was relief and it’s about time.”
Carter’s defense attorney, Chris Pagan, did not respond to ABC News’ request to comment.
Carter posted a $1 million bond, but was still being held in Butler County Jail as of Friday, according to the Sheriff’s office.
He is expected to wear a GPS monitor as he awaits his trial under Honorary Judge Daniel E. Haughey, according to Butler County Clerk online records.
A support rally for Katelyn was held at Creekside Park in Fairfield on Saturday with family and friends attending as they continue to honor her and hope for closure in this cold case.
(WASHINGTON) — Donald Trump’s attorney Jim Trusty said Sunday he expects the legal team representing the former president in New York City to seek to dismiss his recent indictment over hush money payments.
“I think there’s going to be some very well-placed motions to dismiss based on the legal frailties of this kind of, you know, mental gymnastics indictment that [Manhattan District Attorney] Alvin Bragg is trying to piece together,” Trusty told ABC “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl.
Pressed by Karl on whether to also expect motions to request a change of venue following Trump claiming on social media that neighboring Staten Island would be a “very fair and secure location for the trial,” Trusty said seeking to dismiss the case takes precedence.
“I think the motions to dismiss have to be a priority because they amputate this miscarriage of justice early on,” Trusty said.
The “very robust” motions could be on issues that include the statute of limitations, the “bootstrapping” of federal election law in state charges and more, he said.
He said he expected to see such motions “probably much earlier than December,” the next court date.
“We have a lot of confidence about how it plays out in the long run,” he said.
Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to paying adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election to keep her from going public with a claim of an affair he says is false. That money was part of a “scheme” to bolster Trump’s election chances and he then sought to cover it up, prosecutors allege.
Trump pleaded not guilty at an arraignment Tuesday and has vehemently denied wrongdoing, claiming he’s being persecuted.
Trusty echoed that on “This Week.”
“The president is obviously a very resilient guy. He’s upset by this situation in terms of being targeted and that’s really the key. … This is a bad moment for this country,” Trusty said, calling Bragg’s case a “rancid ham sandwich of an indictment.”
Karl pushed for Trusty’s own opinion on Judge Juan Merchan, in light of Trump’s derisive comments about Merchan and Merchan’s family. Trusty said he didn’t want to “jump onto any bandwagon when it comes to criticizing.”
However, he insisted that with Merchan’s family, Trump was pointing out their personal bias rather than personally attacking them when he singled them out in a speech at his Mar-a-Lago Club on Tuesday.
Karl challenged Trusty on whether Trump’s attacks on Bragg were wise. “I’m in the legal lane. I’m not going to worry too much or be able to try to control the politics of the moment,” he said.
But he painted Bragg as a partisan prosecutor who “ran for office saying he’s the best guy to take out Donald Trump.” (Before being elected as district attorney, Bragg touted his past experience in court against Trump and said Trump should be held “accountable” but that he would go “wherever the facts take me.”)
“No matter what your political stripes, we should not have the criminal justice system that starts off with targeting people to find some sort of charge, because if you do, you end up coming up with tread bare charges like this,” Trusty said on “This Week.”
Trump’s comments about Bragg and others prompted Merchan, who has faced threats of his own, to warn Trump in court last week to watch his words. Merchan has the ability to issue a gag order on Trump but said he was reluctant to take such a sweeping move — for now.
Karl also asked Trusty about the Department of Justice special counsel’s investigation into Trump’s handling of classified documents after he left office.
Trusty, one of the lawyers representing the former president in that case, assured Karl that the former president now no longer has such documents in his possession and has been seeking to be in compliance with the government’s efforts to retake the sensitive material.
According to court records, Trump previously resisted returning the documents, leading to an FBI search of Mar-a-Lago last year.
“There’s no outstanding issue related to compliance with the subpoena,” Trusty said on Sunday. “Every step of the way, if we found anything of interest, even if it’s probably not classified, we’d turn it over.”
“So, no more classified documents in his position? They’ve all been turned over?” Karl followed up.
“Correct,” Trusty said. “We’ve done what’s right when it comes to the court proceedings and to knocking out the issue of whether there’s anything standing. And it also shows there’s no obstruction going on. So, I think we’re in a good place if the facts actually come out.”
(NEW YORK) — Jane Rosenberg got her start as a courtroom sketch artist drawing prostitutes in New York’s night court in 1980.
Forty-three years later, Rosenberg’s newest subject was former President Donald Trump, whose arraignment in Manhattan on Tuesday on 34 charges of falsifying business records provided her the opportunity to draw two viral sketches of the defendant.
“My hands are just flying,” Rosenberg said of the time sketching Trump. “My fingers were going faster than my brain, and then it was over.”
The New Yorker is publishing Rosenberg’s sketch of Trump on the cover of its April 17 issue, the first time in its history the magazine printed a courtroom sketch on its cover. For a magazine whose cover art frequently etches a place in popular culture and history, The New Yorker’s decision to print Rosenberg’s sketch marks a historic point for not only Rosenberg’s career but also courtroom sketch art broadly.
Rosenberg came up as an artist in the late 1970s when abstractionism was the norm, rather than the realism portrayed in her courtroom work.
“I did portraits in my kitchen as a closet portrait artist,” she said.
She eventually found herself working as a portrait artist in Provincetown, Massachusetts, in the late 1970s, though she was looking for a more stable way to earn money as an artist.
In courtrooms where photography is prohibited, artists offer the public a way to see inside court proceedings, selling the right to their art to media outlets for a profit. Rosenberg learned about courtroom sketches during a lecture, then made her way to court with some lawyer friends from college to try the artform.
A week later, Rosenberg was sitting in the jury box of a Manhattan courtroom to sketch a defendant during an arraignment. She then sold that first professional courtroom sketch to NBC News, which photographed the sketch and put it on television.
“I went home and watched it on my tiny black and white TV, called my parents and said, ‘I’m on TV’,” Rosenberg said.
That first success set Rosenberg on a path to sketching famous witnesses and defendants such as John Gotti, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Tom Brady (though that sketch went viral for not fully capturing the likeness of the famous football player), having her art featured in museums and the Library of Congress, and being one of the few people to attend Trump’s arraignment in person.
Rosenberg said she had been anticipating the moment of Trump’s arraignment for weeks.
“As soon as he announced, ‘I’m being arrested on Tuesday,’ I had a lot of people interested in the sketch,” she said, referencing a post Trump made to Truth Social on March 18 about his then-potential arrest.
While Trump was not arrested that Tuesday, his indictment came a week later on March 30, followed by an arraignment on April 4.
According to court documents, prosecutors alleged Trump engaged in a “scheme” to boost his chances during the 2016 presidential election through a series of hush money payments made by others and repeated falsification of New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct. Trump, who has denied all wrongdoing, pleaded not guilty at his arraignment to all 34 felony counts.
When the moment arrived for the arraignment, Rosenberg arrived at court early, waited hours and passed multiple layers of security to get a seat in the witness box for the court appearance. Between the number of officers in the courtroom and the commotion from the protestors and media outside, she described the atmosphere in the courtroom as unprecedented.
“When I first arrived, there were the most court officers I’ve ever seen in the courtroom ever,” she said, though she noted that the courtroom itself was as “quiet as could be” during the actual arraignment.
As she got settled, she began work on her first sketch using pastels – painting the foreground of the sketch prior to Trump entering the courtroom. Expecting a brief court appearance, she got to work quickly.
“I thought I’d have like seven minutes to do a quick sketch and need to be out,” she said.
But as the hearing continued longer than expected, she decided to do a second sketch – the one that eventually would make it to the cover of The New Yorker. As her pencil hit the paper, she said that Trump’s expression changed, looking towards the government attorney and giving him “side eye.”
“He held that position; I felt like, ‘Ah, I have to get this moment,'” she said.
The final sketch shows a expressive Trump, eyebrows and frown accentuated.
When asked about social media users claiming there are similarities between the sketch of the former president and Dr. Seuss’s Grinch, Rosenberg defended her work. Trump was looking “a little bit unhappy,” in her own words.
“No way – I never would do intentional Grinch,” Rosenberg said. “First of all, I tried to show what expression I saw; that’s what I tried to capture.”
If anything, Rosenberg said she enjoyed sketching the former president.
“He’s got a great head to draw, his hair is a little like a hat, he’s got a lot of expression in that face – he’s fun to draw,” she said.
Rosenberg said she has no plans to sell the physical Trump sketches, despite the interest expressed in the pieces. She has already sold the rights to use the sketches to multiple outlets, including directly to ABC News.
Selling her work to newspapers and media outlets across the world and the accomplishment of landing the New Yorker cover are enough for the viral artist, who arguably has reached the mountaintop of courtroom sketches.
“Maybe that’s it – I’ve reached the pinnacle and it’s over – maybe there’s nothing else,” she said. “But you never know; I’ll just keep going on.”
(NEW YORK) — Former President Donald Trump has been charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records after being indicted by a Manhattan grand jury.
In court documents unsealed April 4, prosecutors alleged Trump engaged in a “scheme” to boost his chances during the 2016 presidential election through a series of hush money payments made by others and repeated falsification of New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct.
In a statement of facts accompanying the indictment, Manhattan prosecutors allege Trump made payments to his lawyer to reimburse him for a payment the lawyer made to one woman.
Trump, who has denied all wrongdoing, pleaded not guilty to all 34 counts.
Here is a timeline of the case, dating back to Trump’s initial declaration as a candidate for president:
June 16, 2015
Trump announces he is running for president.
August 2015
Trump meets with David Pecker, then-chairman and CEO of American Media Inc. — which owns the National Enquirer — at Trump Tower in New York. Pecker agrees to help with Trump’s campaign by looking out for negative stories about him to “catch and kill,” according to prosecutors’ statement of facts. He also agrees to publish negative stories about Trump’s competitors in the election, according to the statement of facts filed by the Manhattan DA.
October or November 2015
Pecker learns that a former Trump Tower doorman was trying to sell information that Trump allegedly fathered a child out of wedlock, according to the statement of facts. At the CEO’s direction, AMI negotiates and signs an agreement to pay the doorman $30,000 in exchange for acquiring exclusive rights to the story. AMI allegedly falsely characterized this payment in its general ledger, according to the statement of facts.
AMI purchases the story without fully investigating the doorman’s claims, at the direction of Pecker, per his alleged arrangement with Trump, according to the statement of facts. AMI later determines the story was not true and wanted to release the doorman from the agreement, but Lawyer A — a Trump Organization lawyer believed to be Michael Cohen — allegedly instructs him not to do so until after the presidential election, according to the statement of facts.
June 2016
The National Enquirer’s editor-in-chief and chief content officer contacted Cohen (Lawyer A) about a woman — who is believed to be Playboy model Karen McDougal — who alleged she had had a sexual relationship with Trump while he was married, according to the statement of facts. Cohen (Lawyer A) is updated by the National Enquirer about this regularly over text and by phone, according to the statement of facts. Trump allegedly did not want this information to become public because he was concerned what impact it may have on his campaign for president, according to the statement of facts.
AMI ultimately pays the woman $150,000 in exchange for her not speaking out on the alleged sexual relationship. She would also get two magazine cover features and a series of articles published under her byline, according to the statement of facts.
Prosecutors allege that this deal was made based on the understanding that Trump or the Trump Organization would reimburse AMI for the payment, according to the statement of facts.
Trump has denied having the affair.
September 2016
An audio recording allegedly captures a conversation between Trump and Cohen (Lawyer A) as they discuss how to obtain the rights to the woman’s story from AMI and reimburse it for the payment, according to the statement of facts.
Cohen (Lawyer A) allegedly tells Trump he will open a company for the transfer of the woman’s account and said he had spoken to Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg about setting it up, according to the statement of facts.
A shell company — called Resolution Consultants, LLC — is allegedly set up on about Sept. 30, 2016. On or about that date, Pecker signs an agreement transferring the rights of the woman’s account to the shell company owned by Cohen (Lawyer A) for $125,000, according to court documents. But, before the reimbursement was made, Pecker consulted AMI’s general counsel and then told Cohen (Lawyer A) that the deal was off.
Oct. 7, 2016
On Oct. 7, 2016, news broke that Trump was caught on tape in 2015 telling the host of the entertainment show “Access Hollywood,” “I just start kissing them [women]. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab ’em by the [genitals]. You can do anything.”
According to prosecutors, evidence shows that both Trump and his campaign staff were concerned the tape would harm his viability as a candidate and reduce his standing with female voters in particular.
In a statement Trump released after the recording was leaked, he apologized and called his remarks “locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago.”
Oct. 10, 2016
AMI’s editor-in-chief contacts Pecker about a second woman — believed to be adult film actress Stormy Daniels — who alleged she had a sexual encounter with Trump while he was married, according to the statement of facts. Pecker tells the editor-in-chief to notify Cohen (Lawyer A).
The AMI editor-in-chief connects Cohen (Lawyer A) with the woman’s lawyer. The two then negotiate a deal to secure the woman’s silence. The woman would be paid $130,000 for the rights to her story, according to the statement of facts.
Trump allegedly tells Cohen (Lawyer A) to delay making a payment to the second woman for as long as possible, according to prosecutors. If he is able to delay making the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, Trump allegedly says, per prosecutors. Prosectors claim emails and text messages between both lawyers and the AMI editor-in-chief show they attempted to delay making the payment for as long as possible, according to the statement of facts.
Ultimately, Trump agrees to the payoff and directs Cohen (Lawyer A) to proceed, prosecutors allege. Trump allegedly does not want to make the payment himself and asked Cohen (Lawyer A) and Weisselberg to find a way to make the payment, according to the statement of facts. Cohen (Lawyer A) makes the payment after confirming that Trump would pay him back.
Oct. 26, 2016
Shortly after speaking with Trump over the phone, Cohen (Lawyer A) opens a bank account in Manhattan in the name of a shell company he had created to effectuate the payment, according to the statement of facts.
Cohen (Lawyer A) then transfers $131,000 from his personal home equity line of credit into the account, according to court documents.
Oct. 27, 2016
Cohen (Lawyer A) transfers $130,000 to a lawyer representing the second woman accusing Trump of having a sexual encounter with her while he was married to suppress her story, according to court documents.
Nov. 8, 2016
Trump wins the presidential election.
AMI then releases the doorman and the first accuser of their nondisclosure agreements, according to court documents.
By Jan. 20, 2017
Prosecutors allege that between Election Day and Inauguration Day, Trump meets privately with Pecker in Trump Tower in Manhattan, thanking him for handling the stories of the doorman and the first woman, according to the statement of facts.
Trump invites Pecker to the inauguration, according to the statement of facts.
January 2017
Trump arranges to reimburse Cohen (Lawyer A) for the payoff he made on his behalf shortly after being elected president, according to the statement of facts.
Cohen (Lawyer A) meets with Weisselberg to discus how he would be reimbursed, with Weisselberg asking Cohen to bring a copy of a bank statement for the shell company account showing the $130,000 payment, according to the statement of facts.
Weisselberg and Cohen (Lawyer A) agree to a total repayment amount of $420,000. That figure reflected double the $130,000 payment and $50,000 reimbursement for another expense in addition to a $60,000 year-end bonus — so Cohen (Lawyer A) could characterize the payment as income on his tax returns instead of a reimbursement — according to the statement of facts.
Trump, Weisselberg and Cohen (Lawyer A) agree the lawyer would be paid the $420,000 through 12 monthly payments of $35,000 over the course of 2017, according to court documents. Cohen (Lawyer A) was to send an invoice to the Trump Org each month falsely requesting a payment of $35,000 for legal services rendered. Cohen (Lawyer A) does not have a retainer agreement with Trump or the Trump Organization, according to prosecutors.
February 2017
Cohen (Lawyer A) meets with Trump in the Oval Office to confirm the repayment arrangement in February 2017, according to the statement of facts.
Feb. 14, 2017
Cohen (Lawyer A) emails the Trump Organization the first monthly invoice requesting two $35,000 payments for January and February, which were allegedly approved by Weisselberg, according to the statement of facts.
Reimbursements made throughout 2017
Cohen (Lawyer A) submitted 10 similar invoices for the remaining months in 2017, but he was not on retainer, according to prosecutors. Prosecutors allege the Trump Organization falsely recorded each payment as a “legal expense,” according to the statement of facts.
According to prosecutors, the first check was paid from Trump’s trust and signed by Weisselberg and Trump’s son, as trustees. It was falsely recorded as payments for January and February 2017 legal services, according to the statement of facts.
A second check, for March 2017, was also paid from the trust and signed by two trustees, according to the statement of facts.
The remaining nine checks, for April through December 2017, were paid by Trump personally, according to the statement of facts. Trump allegedly signed each of the checks personally and had them sent to the Trump Organization in New York. They were then scanned and maintained in its data system before being detached and mailed to Cohen (Lawyer A), according to the statement of facts.
The last $35,000 payment made was for December 2017, according to the statement of facts.
Summer 2017
Trump invites Pecker to the White House for dinner to thank him for his help during the campaign, according to the statement of facts.
April 9, 2018
The FBI executes a search warrant on Cohen’s residences and office, according to the statement of facts. Prosecutors allege that in the months that followed, Trump and others engaged in a public and private pressure campaign to try to ensure that Cohen did not cooperate with law enforcement in the federal investigation.
Cohen (Lawyer A) speaks with Trump on the day of the FBI searches, according to prosecutors. Trump allegedly told him to “stay strong,” according to the statement of facts.
April 21, 2018
Trump publicly encourages Cohen not to “flip” in a series of tweets saying, “Most people will flip if the Government lets them out of trouble, even if it means lying or making up stories. Sorry, I don’t see Michael doing that.”
Mid-April 2018
Cohen (Lawyer A) is approached by an attorney — Lawyer C — who offers to represent him in the interest of maintaining a “back channel of communication” to Trump, according to the statement of facts.
On April 21, 2018, Lawyer C allegedly emails Cohen (Lawyer A) stating that he has a close relationship with Trump’s personal attorney, named as Lawyer D, according to the statement of facts.
June 14, 2018
Lawyer C emails Cohen (Lawyer A) a news clip discussing the possibility of him cooperating with law enforcement, encouraging him not to, according to the statement of facts.
“The whole objective of this exercise by the [federal prosecutors] is to drain you, emotionally and financially, until you reach a point that you see them as your only means to salvation,” Lawyer C wrote in the email, according to the statement of facts.
In the same email, Lawyer C wrote, “You are making a very big mistake if you believe the stories these ‘journalists’ are writing about you. They want you to cave. They want you to fail. They do not want you to persevere and succeed,” according to the statement of facts.
July 2, 2018
In an in-depth interview that airs on “Good Morning America,” his first since the FBI raided his office and homes in April, Cohen strongly signals his willingness to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller and federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York — even if that puts Trump in jeopardy.
“My wife, my daughter and my son have my first loyalty and always will,” Cohen tells ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. “I put family and country first.”
Aug. 21, 2018
Cohen pleads guilty in the federal investigation admitting to his role in AMI’s payoff to McDougal (Woman 1) to influence the election, according to the indictment, and saying in his plea that he had done so at Trump’s direction.
Cohen also pleads guilty in connection with his payoff of Daniels to secure her silence, claiming it was done at Trump’s direction, according to the statement of facts.
Trump commented on Twitter saying, “If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you don’t retain the services of Michael Cohen!”
September 2018
Cohen and AMI admit guilt in connection with the payoffs made to the two women claiming Trump had extramarital relations with them, according to the statement of facts.
AMI entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York in connection to the payoff made to Woman 1, admitting it did not intend to publish a story at any time during the negotiation or acquisition of her story, the practice known as “catch and kill,” according to the statement of facts.
Nov. 3, 2020
After a bitter campaign for reelection, Trump goes head to head with Joe Biden on Election Day. Four days later, it’s clear Trump has lost after ABC News projects Pennsylvania for Biden.
March 2021
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance announces he will not seek reelection after 12 years in office, with the investigation into Trump still ongoing. His office had begun to look into hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels in 2018.
Nov. 2, 2021
Alvin Bragg is elected district attorney in Manhattan. Once in office, he picks up the investigation into Trump.
Bragg had led the investigation into the Trump Foundation in 2017 under then-Attorney General Eric Schneiderman for “extensive unlawful political conduct” with the charity’s money and using it for personal matters. The foundation was dissolved and Trump was forced to pay $2 million as part of a settlement in 2019.
Nov. 4, 2021
Vance convenes a new grand jury for six months to hear evidence against Trump, paving the way for it to last until after he leaves office in January.
The grand jury that was already convened was set to expire. It had voted to bring charges against the Trump Organization and its CFO, Weisselberg, on unrelated matters.
Jan. 1, 2022
Bragg takes office as Manhattan’s new district attorney. Before leaving office, Vance does not bring charges against Trump.
Feb. 22, 2022
The two prosecutors leading the Trump probe — Assistant District Attorneys Carey Dunne and Mark Pomerantz — resign from the district attorney’s office.
Pomerantz later revealed he disagreed with Bragg’s decision to not bring charges against Trump in Bragg’s early days as DA. Pomerantz was formerly a special prosecutor with the Southern District of New York.
The investigation continues after their resignations but doubt is cast on whether charges will be brought against Trump.
Aug. 18, 2022
Weisselberg pleads guilty to tax evasion, admitting he avoided taxes on nearly $2 million in income in a yearslong scheme. He agrees to a plea bargain for five months in prison and to testify against the Trump Organization at the upcoming trial in October. But, the plea agreement does not require him to testify against Trump himself.
Dec. 5, 2022
Bragg announces he hired Matthew Colangelo as senior counsel. He was a previous Department of Justice official and prior to that worked at the New York Attorney General’s Office where he was part of the team that investigated the Trump Foundation.
Dec. 6, 2022
A jury finds the Trump Organization guilty on all counts of tax fraud brought by the Manhattan district attorney’s office.
Charges included scheme to defraud, conspiracy, criminal tax fraud and falsifying business records.
Beginning of 2023
A grand jury has been hearing testimony about the hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, sources tell ABC News, including testimony from Pecker, a longtime Trump confidant. The DA’s office has also had the cooperation of Cohen.
Jan. 18, 2023
In a letter to book publisher Simon & Schuster, Bragg says he is concerned an upcoming book about Trump written by Pomerantz could harm the district attorney’s office’s investigation. Bragg asks the publisher to delay its release by asking for 60 days to review its manuscript.
Pomerantz’s publisher says the book will be published in February as planned.
Jan. 30, 2023
Pecker becomes one of the first people to testify in front of the reconvened grand jury as it investigates hush money payments to Daniels.
Feb. 7, 2023
Pomerantz’s book, “People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account,” is released, in which he criticized Bragg, saying he made a mistake by not bringing a case against Trump at the beginning of his tenure. Pomerantz had been assigned to the case by Vance.
Bragg responds to this criticism saying the case against Trump wasn’t ready.
Feb. 8, 2023
Cohen meets with prosecutors investigating Trump in what was his 15th time meeting with the district attorney’s office, but his first since the grand jury had convened.
March 13, 2023
Cohen again testifies before the grand jury investigating the hush money payments.
March 20, 2023
Bob Costello, an attorney who says he previously advised Cohen, tells reporters his former client has a “lie, cheat, steal” mindset after Costello testifies for the defense before the Manhattan grand jury investigating Trump’s role in the hush payment to Daniels.
Costello, a longtime Trump ally, appeared before the grand jury as an exculpatory witness after Trump’s legal team asked the DA to allow him to testify, according to a letter to prosecutors obtained by ABC News.
“I’m trying to tell the truth to the grand jury,” Costello told reporters after testifying. “If they want to go after Donald Trump and they have solid evidence, then so be it. Michael Cohen is not solid evidence.”
March 27, 2023
Pecker, apparently the last to testify before Trump was indicted, speaks to the grand jury again for about an hour, according to sources familiar with the matter. The district attorney’s office may have called Pecker to bolster Cohen’s earlier testimony about the purpose of the payment.
March 30, 2023
Trump becomes the first former or current president to be indicted. The indictment remains under seal so it’s not immediately clear what Trump will be charged with, but he negotiates his surrender, saying he will travel to New York the following week.
April 3, 2023
Trump travels to New York City from Mar-a-Lago, Florida, one day ahead of surrendering to the court. He spends the night at his apartment in Trump Tower.
April 4, 2023
Trump travels to the Manhattan courthouse from midtown Manhattan to be processed by authorities before heading to court for his arraignment and the unsealing of the indictment.
Trump pleads not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
He immediately returns to Mar-a-Lago where he gives a speech to supporters the same night criticizing Bragg for bringing charges and adding, “We are a nation in decline, and now these radical left lunatics want to interfere in elections by using law enforcement. We can’t let that happen.”
(ISLE OF PALMS, S.C.) — A South Carolina beach partially filled with high school students participating in a “senior skip day” descended into chaos Friday afternoon as gunfire injured at least six beachgoers.
Isle of Palms Police Chief Kevin Cornett said that five of the six injured were teenagers, though one older beachgoer was also injured. Police were already at the beach responding to two fights when the shooting began around roughly 5:20 p.m. on Friday afternoon, according to Cornett.
“A large crowd of individuals that apparently were part of a group from senior skip day had gathered on the beach,” Cornett said at an evening press conference. “There were a couple of altercations that took place and during one of those altercations, there were several shots that were fired.”
Cornett said that his department has multiple suspects in custody, though they do not know if they have the actual shooter detained at this point. Law enforcement also recovered multiple firearms at the beach which was shut down after the incident.
“We have weapons recovered, but we cannot say that they were the weapons involved in the incident,” Cornett said.
Video from the scene of the shooting showed hundreds of beachgoers running from the area amid a cacophony of screaming and police sirens.
Some of the victims were transported by ambulance to a local area hospital though authorities confirmed that multiple others self-transported. The shooting prompted a massive response from local, state and federal agencies, according to Cornett.
Cornett said that his department had preemptively ramped up the number of officers on duty in anticipation of the spring break increase in beach activity as seniors participating in the “skip day” tradition took the Friday off before Spring break en masse.
“It is heart-wrenching to hear of this senseless act of violence, especially so close to home,” South Carolina Senator Tim Scott said of the incident online.
With a population of roughly 4,000 residents, Isle of Palms is a coastal city located on a barrier island in Charleston County.
“This should have been a joyous occasion for high school students on Senior ‘Skip Day’,” South Carolina congresswoman Nancy Mace said. “Incredibly sad, and just horrific.”
(NEW YORK) — Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has assembled a team of seasoned litigators to prosecute former President Donald Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments made to former adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
The seven assistant district attorneys have a wide range of experience in the legal world, particularly when it comes to fraud and white-collar crimes.
Here’s a look at the team, based on information provided by the DA’s office.
Susan Hoffinger
Susan Hoffinger serves as the Executive Assistant District Attorney and Chief of the Investigation Division for the Manhattan DA’s office.
She earned her law degree from Columbia Law School and has extensive experience in white-collar cases, both as a prosecutor and defense attorney.
From 1992 to 2000 she served as an assistant DA under former Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau in the Asset Forfeiture Unit, the Trial Bureau, and the Frauds Bureau.
She went on to become the founding partner of the Hoffinger Firm, where she spent over 20 years as a defense attorney focusing on criminal defense, state and federal civil litigation, and regulatory matters.
There she specialized in representing individuals and entities charged with tax fraud, securities fraud, antitrust violations, money laundering, bribery, health care and insurance fraud, falsifying business records, and larceny.
Hoffinger returned to the Manhattan DA’s office last year following the resignations of two ADAs who were handling investigations into Trump. In December it was her trial team that won the conviction of the Trump Organization on tax fraud charges.
Christopher Conroy
Christopher Conroy has worked in the Manhattan DA’s office for 27 years and currently serves as an Executive Assistant District Attorney and Senior Advisor to the Investigation Division.
A graduate of Fordham Law School, he started in the DA’s Trial Bureau in 1996 and has worked in several other divisions including the Frauds Bureau and the Violent Criminal Enterprises Unit, where he was appointed deputy unity chief in 2006.
In 2011, Conroy moved to the DA’s Major Economic Crimes Bureau and worked his way up the ranks to chief in September 2015.
During his nine-year tenure in that bureau, he oversaw several major cases involving violations of U.S. sanctions and New York state laws on falsification of business records, including investigations into Société Générale S.A., Standard Chartered Bank, and Unicredit Bank AG.
Catherine McCaw
Catherine McCaw serves as the Manhattan DA’s Counsel to the Investigation Division.
She graduated from Harvard Law School in 2009 and clerked for Judge Richard Holwell in the Southern District of New York and Judge Chester Straub of the Second Circuit.
McCaw worked in private practice for a few years before joining the DA’s office in 2015, where she worked her way up the ranks.
She has handled several major cases including fake heiress Anna Sorokin, aka Anna Delvey, and Mitchell Kossoff, a real estate attorney who was convicted of stealing over $14 million from individuals and companies.
Peter Pope
Peter Pope serves as the Executive Assistant District Attorney for Gun Violence Prevention, a position that the Manhattan DA created last year.
A Yale Law School graduate, Pope began his career as a prosecutor in the Manhattan DA’s office under Robert Morgenthau in 1987, in the trial division.
He moved into long-term wire and grand jury investigations, then into organized crime infiltration of labor unions. Among his cases was the 1992 prosecution of Bonanno crime family capo James Galante on charges of racketeering involving the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union.
Pope was appointed the inspector general for the New York City School Construction Authority in 1995, where he investigated waste and corruption.
In 2000, Pope was named Deputy Attorney General of New York State under then AG Elliot Spitzer, and ran the office’s Criminal Division. His team worked on several high-profile cases including corruption investigations into then-New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi.
When Spitzer was elected governor in 2006, Pope became the Director of Policy for New York State and would remain in the position for four years.
After spending some time in private practice, Pope returned to the New York AG’s office as the chief of the Investor Protection Bureau before retiring in 2021. He came out of retirement after Bragg was elected DA to serve in his new, role which investigates and prosecutors gun related offenses including gun traffickers and illegal sales.
Matthew Colangelo
Matthew Colangelo serves as the senior counsel to the Manhattan District Attorney. He earned his J.D. at Harvard Law School and has had a long career in the world of both law and politics.
He spent seven years with the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, three years at the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and served as the deputy director of the Obama-Biden Administration’s National Economic Council. He also served for three years as the chief of staff at the U.S. Department of Labor.
Colangelo was also the chief counsel for federal initiatives at the New York State Attorney General’s office, and worked dozens of cases including an investigation into the Trump Foundation.
In 2020, he returned to the Department of Justice to oversee its Antitrust Division, Civil Division, Civil Rights Division, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and Tax Division.
Colangelo joined the Manhattan DA’s office in 2022.
Rebecca Mangold
Rebecca Mangold is an Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan DA’s Major Economic Crimes Bureau. She graduated from Harvard Law School in 2008 and then joined the private law firm Debevoise & Plimpton LLP as an associate.
She clerked for Judge William Martini in the District of New Jersey from 2011 to 2013 before joining the private firm Kobre & Kim. During Mangold’s nine-year tenure at the firm, she rose to partner and worked on cases involving financial fraud investigations.
Her work included leading negotiations against UBS Real Estate Securities Inc. and Bank of America, which resulted in the recovery of $850 million for investors related to the 2008 mortgage crisis.
Mangold joined the Manhattan DA’s office in 2022.
Katherine Ellis
Katherine Ellis serves as an Assistant District Attorney in the Major Economic Crimes Bureau of the Manhattan DA’s office.
She worked as a legal analyst at Goldman Sachs and a paralegal in the Manhattan DA’s office before attending Columbia Law School. After graduating in 2014, she joined Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton as an associate.
In 2018 Ellis joined the Manhattan DA’s office as an ADA and served in the Trial Bureau before moving to the major economics crime bureau three years later.
Her cases include the prosecution of a senior equity partner of the now-defunct law firm of Gordon and Silber LP for allegedly embezzling $1.2 million from the firm.
(NEW YORK) — When JPMorgan Chase announced two years ago that it would purchase Frank, a startup college financial planning company for students, the global banking giant said that by acquiring the apparently popular platform for $175 million it hoped to strengthen its relationship with millions of young people.
But JPMorgan and federal authorities now believe there was a big problem: Many of the millions of students said to be using Frank never existed.
The Department of Justice filed criminal fraud charges, which were unsealed Tuesday, against Javice, Frank’s founder and former CEO, alleging she “engaged in a brazen scheme” when she sold her company to JPMorgan Chase in 2021.
The Securities and Exchange Commission separately announced its own fraud complaint against Javice on Tuesday, seeking a variety of punishments including civil penalties and a ban on her being a corporate officer.
Both federal prosecutors and the SEC accused Javice of defrauding JPMorgan into believing Frank had 4.25 million users, when in reality the number was less than 300,000.
According to federal authorities, the 31-year-old Javice allegedly fabricated and manipulated Frank’s data to make it appear as though her company serviced far more customers than it actually did. As a result of her suspected deceit, she stood to make more than $45 million, prosecutors said Tuesday.
Javice faces charges of bank fraud, securities fraud, wire fraud affecting a financial institution and conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud.
Following her arrest Monday night, she appeared in court on Tuesday and was released on $2 million bond and subjected to travel restrictions.
“This arrest should warn entrepreneurs who lie to advance their businesses that their lies will catch up to them,” U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said in a statement.
Javice has denied the allegations through a spokesperson. Her lawyer Alex Spiro declined to comment to ABC News for this story but maintained before Javice’s arrest that she was being targeted by JPMorgan and had internally voiced concerns about student privacy laws.(A JPMorgan spokesperson declined to respond to this assertion but pointed to their own accusations of fraud against Javice.)
A deal unravels
Javice founded Frank in 2017 as a platform designed to simplify the student loan application process, Frank and JPMorgan said in announcing the acquisition. The company helped rocket Javice to national prominence with a glowing feature in Forbes and a spot on the magazine’s coveted “30 Under 30” list honoring young professionals in finance.
JPMorgan hired Javice as a managing director for Frank as part of its acquisition in 2021 but has said in court that its suspicions were raised when numerous purported Frank user emails subsequently appeared unreachable.
Javice was fired last November, according to court documents.
Before her arrest, she and JPMorgan filed dueling lawsuits in December, with the bank claiming fraud and Javice claiming wrongful termination and that she was owed attorneys’ fees after being targeted by the bank. She denied in court filings in February that she ever fabricated or misrepresented user data and merely told JPMorgan that her platform “had engaged with at least 4.25 million students.”
“Ms. Javice’s vision was that Frank would be the place for college-bound students and their families to turn to for all their money needs … the knowledge and resources that students would access at Frank would empower them for decades as they obtained financial aid packages, built personal wealth and managed debt,” Javice’s attorneys wrote in a December court filing.
Spiro, her attorney, said in his previous statement that “[JPMorgan] knows what they filed is retaliatory and misleading. They were provided all the data upfront for the purchase of Frank and Charlie Javice highlighted the restrictions placed by student privacy laws during due diligence.”
Her attorneys have also called the bank’s investigations into Frank’s data part of an unfounded attempt to deny her compensation while indicating that any business issues with Frank weren’t of Javice’s making.
“JMPC’s acquisition of Frank did not go as planned,” Javice’s lawyers wrote in February. “But this was no fault of Ms. Javice’s.”
Accused of plotting to deceive
The dispute over users and data centers on Frank’s signature tool, “Easy FAFSA,” which Frank said was designed to streamline and simplify the Department of Education’s Free Application for Federal Student Aid. After launching its FAFSA tool, Frank’s website later grew to include free articles on education and financial literacy.
“This content increasingly attracted users to visit the website to use these resources, even if they did not then fill out the Easy FAFSA® application,” Javice’s lawyers wrote in February.
However, lawyers with JPMorgan contend that when Javice provided a spreadsheet with a column titled “FAFSA in Process” it indicated that more than 4.25 million students had opened accounts with Frank and provided detailed personal information to support that.
Federal authorities think the fraud went beyond a mislabeled spreadsheet column and that Javice tried to get her director of engineering to fabricate a data set. Javice then went to an outside data scientist to generate the fake data, according to allegations in prosecutors’ criminal complaint against her.
Bank alludes to ‘mistakes’
JPMorgan Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon was asked about the Frank deal in an interview earlier this year. While declining to discuss the case specifically, Dimon suggested the acquisition was a “mistake.”
“There’s always lessons,” he told CNBC. “We always will make mistakes. I tell our people, if we make mistakes, it’s OK. But I don’t want our people to be afraid of making mistakes.”
Prosecutors now must produce an indictment to move the criminal case forward, former federal prosecutor Indira Cameron-Banks told ABC News.
“It could be that there’s more investigation or that there was some concern about some evidence or something,” Cameron-Banks said. “We don’t know, and I expect that we’ll find out more over the coming month or so.”
The clock is ticking down on the government to present its findings to a grand jury, which is no small task given the complexity of the case, she said.
JPMorgan spokesperson Pablo Rodriguez said in a statement that “our legal claims against Ms. Javice … are set out in our complaint, along with the key facts. This dispute will be resolved through the legal process.”
Rodriguez declined to answer specific questions about JPMorgan’s corporate acquisition vetting processes and how those processes may have changed since the Frank purchase.
