A court date and fiery testimony
In back-to-back hearings today, there were big developments in two of Donald Trump's criminal trials — one qualifying as a defeat for him, the other that could ultimately help him immensely.
In the morning, a judge in New York formally set a March date for Trump's trial on charges of hush money payments he made to keep news of a sexual relationship he had with a porn star during his 2016 presidential campaign from going public would come.
In the afternoon, the district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia, who charged Trump and several others with tampering with that state's election, tried to prevent the collapse of her case when she gave fiery testimony about a relationship she had with a deputy. .
The two moves — both of which curiously touched on the topic of sexual matters — showed how volatile and unpredictable things against Trump have been and may continue to be. They came during a week in which one of Trump's other criminal cases — in which he is accused of illegally plotting to overturn the 2020 election — also reached a turning point, and in which one of his civil cases is expected to end with a significant financial penalty. .
It cannot be said enough that the web of legal matters that Trump has been entangled in over the past year is so complex and convoluted as to almost defy comprehension. This week's events seemed to prove that point, handing the former president a legal loss and a potential victory within hours of each other.
For example, the setting of the date for Trump's trial in New York made it a reality that for the first time in American history, a former president will face a criminal trial, which will begin on March 25. And the testimony from the prosecutor, Fani Willis, came as a judge was considering removing her from the case, which could throw the entire prosecution in Georgia into limbo.
'I am not on trial'
The hearing in Georgia was convened to consider evidence about whether financial transactions surrounding a romantic relationship between Willis and one of her top deputies, Nathan Wade, were problematic enough to disqualify her from continuing to lead the case.
Willis has said the relationship was not relevant to the plaintiff or her ability to manage it, arguing that she and Wade were not involved until after he took the job. And when Willis took the stand today, she offered a blistering defense of her own behavior, accusing lawyers of lying about her and Wade, and saying it was “extremely offensive” that they accused the pair of being together before they said they were.
“I'm not on trial, no matter how hard you try to bring me to justice,” she told one of the lawyers who questioned her.
Willis' story followed the testimony of one of her former friends and colleagues who said she and Wade were romantically linked before they acknowledged.
At one point, Wade himself took the stand and insisted the relationship began in 2022, after he started working for the District Attorney's Office in November 2021.
If Willis were removed from the case, it would disrupt the entire prosecution, raise questions about who would take her place and almost certainly delay any trial on the election fraud charge until next year.
A first trial date
While the New York hearing focused on relatively sober questions about timing, it was no less explosive or important than the one in Georgia.
The logistics of managing the various Trump cases have been tricky for months, as four judges in four cities have vied for a spot on the calendar as Trump maintains a busy schedule of campaign events in his third bid for the White House House.
Trump himself talked about how intertwined his legal troubles have become with his political ambitions as he appeared at the Manhattan courthouse this morning.
“I will be here during the day,” he said of the upcoming trial, “and I will campaign at night.”
The hush money case was not expected to be the first of the four to go before a jury. But it came to the fore after the judge overseeing the election interference case in Washington canceled her trial date of March 4 this month. The judge, Tanya Chutkan, did so out of necessity as Trump continues his efforts to have the underlying charges dismissed over broad claims of presidential immunity.
New York Judge Juan Merchan said he expects his trial to last about six weeks, meaning it could last well into May. He also revealed that he had discussed timing issues with Judge Chutkan, except ensuring that the election interference trial would not take place until his trial was over.
In this newsletter you will find updates during the trial period.
More about timing
If you weren't feeling dizzy yet, this is where it gets even more confusing.
The timing of the election process is now largely in the hands of the Supreme Court, which will soon have to decide whether — and how quickly — to hear Trump's claims that he is immune from prosecution for the actions he committed as president.
This week, Trump's lawyers and prosecutors working for the special counsel, Jack Smith, made their opening bid to the court. The defense asked the judges to take their time in issuing a decision. Prosecutors called on them to take swift action.
It is not clear when the court will announce its plans, but it could be as soon as this week.
If the court decides to skip hearing Trump's immunity appeal — and uphold the findings of a lower court that ruled against him last week — then the election case could theoretically go to trial in Washington, not long after the Manhattan trial concludes. However, if the court chooses to hear Trump's challenge, even if it moves quickly to resolve it, the case is more likely to go to trial sometime this summer.
A final option: the court can hear the appeal and take its time to make a decision. In that scenario, a trial in Washington may not take place until after Election Day.
This all matters because if Trump can delay his trials until after the presidential race is over and regain the White House, he would be in a position to avoid or delay prosecution indefinitely.
Trump himself was transparent about his strategy when he spoke to reporters today. He has attacked the series of lawsuits he is facing as one collective “witch hunt” deliberately designed to damage his standing in the polls.
“We obviously want a postponement,” he said. “I am standing for re-election.”
Your questions
We ask readers what they want to know about the Trump cases: the indictment, the proceedings, the key players or whatever. You can submit your question to us by completing this form.
Which of the four lawsuits would prevent Trump from running for office if a verdict were handed down before the November election? – Ila Vassallo, New Jersey
Alan: From a strict legal perspective, a guilty verdict on any of the 91 charges Trump faces in his four separate criminal trials would not be enough to keep him from leaving office. Very few criminal charges contain a provision prohibiting a convicted person from holding office. One of those charges is incitement of insurrection, but Trump has not been charged with that. But in practice, polls have shown that Trump would suffer along with voters if he were found guilty of a crime.
Where is each criminal case?
Trump is at the center of four separate criminal investigations, both at the state and federal level. Here's where each case currently stands.