Connect with us

Politics

Should Trump have confidence in his lawyers? Legal experts weigh in

Published

on

Should Trump have confidence in his lawyers? Legal experts weigh in

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

As attorneys for former President Donald Trump work behind the scenes on an appeal following his conviction in the New York v. Trump trial, legal observers speculated to Fox News Digital about whether the presumptive Republican nominee is confident in his legal team ahead of his sentencing hearing – scheduled just four days before the Republican National Convention. 

While under normal circumstances, defense attorneys usually wait until after sentencing to file an appeal, legal analyst Phil Holloway questioned the lack of urgency from Trump’s lawyers in seeking federal intervention. 

Advertisement

“I’m curious to know why we have not seen any effort by Trump’s legal team to stay the looming sentencing,” Holloway told Fox News Digital. “I think there’s a reasonable argument to be made to a NY Appeals court, or even a federal court, that under the extraordinary circumstances present in this case, a stay of the NY proceedings is necessary to prevent a serious disruption of the federal electoral process.” 

“Every American citizen, at any rate, has an interest in being able to vote for the candidate of their choice in a presidential election. So we’re not talking about a normal and customary kind of an appeal,” Holloway said. “It’s unheard of in American jurisprudence. And so I think you can take the traditional rule book and throw it out. I think they need to pursue every conceivable avenue to get relief from another court.” 

LEGAL ANALYSTS, PUNDITS SOUND ALARM ON TRUMP VERDICT, SUGGEST THERE’S ROOM FOR APPEAL: ‘CONTORTED THE LAW’

Former President Donald Trump speaks to the media alongside his attorney, Todd Blanche, after his New York conviction, Thursday, May 30, 2024.  (Michael M. Santiago/Pool Photo via AP)

Holloway and David Gelman, another legal analyst who spoke with Fox News Digital, both separately referenced the Bush v. Gore case, when the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Florida did not need to complete a recount in the 2000 presidential election, because it could not be accomplished in a constitutionally valid way within the time limit set by federal law. 

Advertisement

Gelman said that usually the Supreme Court or lower federal courts will not intervene in state decisions unless it’s a matter of “national importance,” as it was in 2000 and is again with the Trump case. 

“Look, it’s a Hail Mary. I’m not going to say it isn’t. However, you have nothing to lose. And, I think that this may, you know, get their attention a little more than a normal Hail Mary, if you will,” Gelman told Fox News Digital. “And also the Supreme Court is also hearing President Trump’s immunity claims right now. . . . So they’re very familiar with the arguments that are set forth with President Trump, even though this is not an immunity issue. So I think that it would be very prudent on the defense attorneys to throw that too, put up a motion before the Supreme Court to ask them to intervene and to file an emergency application to do so.” 

“We don’t know what they’re doing behind the scenes to prepare for the sentencing and obviously to prepare for the appeal. But I do wish we would see them acting with more of a sense of urgency regarding the appeal,” Holloway said. “If it were me, I might consider going to federal court now ahead of sentencing, seeking some kind of injunction to pause or to stop the sentencing from going forward, considering that you have the federal interest regarding the upcoming election at stake, and I think there’s enough federal issue involved to get a federal court involved in this.” 

The appeal must not go to the intermediate Appellate Division, which is Manhattan-based, and at a minimum go before the state Appellate Division of New York, if not the Supreme Court, Gelman said. 

Holloway said that if Trump’s legal team could “could somehow put a stop to the sentencing or pause it, they could perhaps begin the process of giving something up to the U.S. Supreme Court before the election.”

Advertisement

“If they have a client who gets sentenced to jail or even who is put on probation, that’s a significant restriction on the former president’s personal liberty,” Holloway said. “Either way, and it has an impact on the election. And I think there’s a significant federal issue there that would give the federal courts the jurisdiction they need to weigh in on, even before an appeal runs its traditional course.” 

Trump in court with his lawyers

Former President Donald Trump, sitting with attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, awaits the start of proceedings in his criminal trial at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City, on May 29, 2024.  (JABIN BOTSFORD/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

He also noted how the timing of the Republican convention could play into Trump’s attorneys’ strategy. “I think that it makes a big difference to a federal court potentially if you’re talking about someone who is the actual nominee of the party versus someone who is a presumptive nominee,” Holloway said. “I think that if you have the actual nominee facing the significant restrictions on his personal liberty, whether he’s in jail or whether he’s on probation or house arrest or some combination of all of that. I think that it’s a very real issue that the federal courts ought to get involved in, because there’s a strong argument to be made that they ought to sort of hit the pause button to stay any further proceedings until the election plays out.”

NEW YORK APPEALS COURT JUDGES IN TRUMP CASE ROUTINELY DONATED TO DEMOCRATS, RECORDS SHOW

Another case to consider is in Georgia, where the state’s court of appeals halted any proceedings in the 2020 election interference case until it hears Trump’s appeal to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fanis Willis. The hearing date is tentatively scheduled for Oct. 4. While Holloway and Gelman agreed that both Manhattan and Fulton County, Georgia, are heavily blue jurisdictions, Holloway noted that a small portion of northern Fulton County is traditionally more red, so because the jury pool comes from the county as a whole, Trump has a slightly better chance of getting a more friendly jury, compared to Manhattan.

“I think there’s a very good possibility that the DA, Fani Willis, will have to be recused and no longer be able to be on that case. And then once that happens, if another fresh set of eyes looks at it, meaning like the attorney general’s office or an independent authority of Georgia, I think that it’ll be thrown away,” Gelman said, comparing the cases. “I think they’re kind of apples and oranges.” 

Advertisement

As for Trump’s attorneys’ performance throughout the Manhattan trial, both Holloway and Gelman both said they were at a disadvantage from the start, due to the trial venue in New York City and Judge Juan Merchan, who refused to recuse himself from the case despite Trump’s team citing how the judge had donated to President Biden’s campaign.

Stormy Daniels is questioned by defense attorney Susan Necheles during former U.S. President Donald Trump's criminal trial

Stormy Daniels is questioned by defense attorney Susan Necheles during former President Donald Trump’s criminal trial on charges that he falsified business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016, in Manhattan state court in New York City, May 9, 2024, in this courtroom sketch. (Reuters/Jane Rosenberg)

“If he wasn’t confident in his attorneys, you would probably hear by now that he has other attorneys on it,” Gelman told Fox News Digital. “We all know President Trump. He’s not really shy about letting his feelings known, and he’s not shy about firing people and hiring people. . . . He only wants the best people to work for him, and that includes attorneys. So by him not doing anything drastic, meaning by not firing Todd Blanche and the other people on the legal team and replacing them, you know, it shows me that he was happy with them. I know he’s not happy with the result and nobody is. But at the same time, you know, he’s a realist.” 

Gelman said that Trump’s attorneys in the Manhattan trial, Blanche, Emil Bove and Susan Necheles, “did an outstanding job with the facts that were given.” 

“I’ll be honest, I thought that there was no crime that was alleged, number one,” Gelman told Fox News Digital. 

“You cannot tell me with a straight face that there was not reasonable doubt,” Gelman said. I mean, you have two witnesses, specifically Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, who literally said on the stand they would like to see President Trump in jail. They had a bone to pick with him. They were out for blood. And then with Cohen, you had him, who pretty much is the walking, talking epitome of reasonable doubt.” 

Advertisement

Gelman said he thought Trump’s attorneys “kept their cool” while cross-examining Daniels and Cohen. 

“Trump’s legal team, they objected as much as they could. A lot of the objections that they put out were overruled,” Gelman told Fox News Digital. “Again, I think that the judge did a terrible job with that, because a lot of the objections should not have been overruled. And then you look on the other side where the prosecution, they objected to the same things – very, very similar – and their objections were sustained. So, the double standard was very noticeable.” 

While neither legal expert faulted Trump’s attorneys for calling former Michael Cohen legal adviser Robert Costello, Holloway admitted that the move “did backfire, because the judge handcuffed them.” 

“It’s very easy to Monday-morning-quarterback these things,” Holloway said. “They had a very tough jurisdiction. They had a very tough judge. They had a tough jury, and they were obviously in enemy territory. They did a very good job, considering where they were and what they had to work with.”

Advertisement

Politics

Inside Pete Hegseth’s Rocky First Months at the Pentagon

Published

on

Inside Pete Hegseth’s Rocky First Months at the Pentagon

Even before he disclosed secret battle plans for Yemen in a group chat, information that could have endangered American fighter pilots, it had been a rocky two months for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Mr. Hegseth, a former National Guard infantryman and Fox News weekend host, started his job at the Pentagon determined to out-Trump President Trump, Defense Department officials and aides said.

The president is skeptical about the value of NATO and European alliances, so the Pentagon under Mr. Hegseth considered plans in which the United States would give up its command role overseeing NATO troops. After Mr. Trump issued executive orders targeting transgender people, Mr. Hegseth ordered a ban on transgender troops.

Mr. Trump has embraced Elon Musk, the billionaire chief executive of SpaceX and Tesla. The Pentagon planned a sensitive briefing to give Mr. Musk a firsthand look at how the military would fight a war with China, a potentially valuable step for any businessman with interests there.

In all of those endeavors, Mr. Hegseth was pulled back, by congressional Republicans, the courts or even Mr. Trump.

Advertisement

The president made clear last Friday that he had been caught by surprise by a report in The New York Times on the Pentagon’s briefing for Mr. Musk, who oversees an effort to shrink the government, but also denied that the meeting had been planned.

“I don’t want to show that to anybody, but certainly you wouldn’t show it to a businessman who is helping us so much,” Mr. Trump said.

But Mr. Hegseth’s latest mistake could have led to catastrophic consequences.

On Monday, the editor in chief of The Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, wrote that he had been inadvertently included in an encrypted group chat in which Mr. Hegseth discussed plans for targeting the Houthi militia in Yemen two hours before U.S. troops launched attacks against the group.

The White House confirmed Mr. Goldberg’s account. But Mr. Hegseth later denied that he put war plans in the group chat, which apparently included other senior members of Mr. Trump’s national security team.

Advertisement

In disclosing the aircraft, targets and timing for hitting Houthi militia sites in Yemen on the commercial messaging app Signal, Mr. Hegseth risked the lives of American war fighters.

Across the military on Monday and Tuesday, current and retired troops and officers expressed dismay and anger in social media posts, secret chat groups and the hallways of the Pentagon.

“My father was killed in action flying night-trail interdiction over the Ho Chi Minh Trail” after a North Vietnamese strike, said the retired Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who served in the Iraq war. “And now, you have Hegseth. He has released information that could have directly led to the death of an American fighter pilot.”

It was unclear on Tuesday whether anyone involved in the Signal group chat would lose their jobs. Republicans in Congress have been wary of running afoul of Mr. Trump. But Senator Roger Wicker, Republican of Mississippi and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, indicated on Monday that there would be some kind of investigation.

John R. Bolton, a national security adviser in the first Trump administration, said on social media that he doubted that “anyone will be held to account for events described by The Atlantic unless Donald Trump himself feels the heat.”

Advertisement

In his article, Mr. Goldberg said he was added to the chat by Michael Waltz, Mr. Trump’s current national security adviser.

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump defended Mr. Waltz. “Michael Waltz has learned a lesson, and he’s a good man,” Mr. Trump said in an interview on NBC.

The president added that Mr. Goldberg’s presence in the group chat had “no impact at all” and that the Houthi attacks were “perfectly successful.”

To be sure, some of Mr. Hegseth’s stumbles have been part of the learning process of a high-profile job leading a department with an $850-billion-a-year budget.

“Secretary Hegseth is trying to figure out where the president’s headed, and to run there ahead of him,” said Kori Schake, a national security expert at the American Enterprise Institute. But, she added, “he’s doing performative activities. He’s not yet demonstrated that he’s running the department.”

Advertisement

Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University who has studied the military for decades, said the Signal chat disclosure “raises serious questions about how a new accountability standard might apply: How would he handle a situation like this if it involved one of his subordinates?”

On Monday, Mr. Hegseth left for Asia, his first trip abroad since a foray to Europe last month in which he was roundly criticized for going further on Ukraine than his boss had at the time. He posted a video on social media of himself guarded by two female airmen in full combat gear as he boarded the plane at Joint Base Andrews. The show of security was remarkable. Not even the president is guarded that way as he boards Air Force One.

When he landed in Hawaii several hours later, Mr. Hegseth criticized Mr. Goldberg as a “so-called journalist” and asserted that “nobody was texting war plans, and that’s all I have to say about that.”

Mr. Hegseth’s stumbles started soon after he was sworn in to lead the Pentagon on Jan. 25.

In his debut on the world stage in mid-February, he told NATO and Ukrainian ministers that a return to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders, before Russia’s first invasion, was “an unrealistic objective” and ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine. A few hours later, Mr. Trump backed him up while announcing a phone call with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to begin peace negotiations.

Advertisement

Facing blowback the next day from European allies and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, Mr. Hegseth denied that either he or Mr. Trump had sold out Ukraine. “There is no betrayal there,” Mr. Hegseth said.

That was not how even Republican supporters of Mr. Hegseth saw it. “He made a rookie mistake in Brussels,” Mr. Wicker said about the secretary’s comment on Ukraine’s borders.

“I don’t know who wrote the speech — it is the kind of thing Tucker Carlson could have written, and Carlson is a fool,” Mr. Wicker said, referring to the conservative media personality and former Fox News host.

Mr. Hegseth sought to recover later in the week, saying he had simply been trying to “introduce realism into the expectations of our NATO allies.” How much territory Ukraine may cede to Russia would be decided in talks between Mr. Trump and the presidents of the warring countries, he said.

Last week, Mr. Hegseth again got crosswise with Mr. Wicker over reports that the Trump administration was planning to withdraw from NATO’s military command and reduce the number of troops deployed overseas in addition to other changes to the military’s combatant commands.

Advertisement

Mr. Wicker and Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Alabama and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that they were concerned about reports that the Defense Department might be planning changes “absent coordination with the White House and Congress.”

Other signs point to a dysfunctional Pentagon on Mr. Hegseth’s watch.

Last week, the Defense Department removed an online article about the military background of Jackie Robinson, who became the first African American to play in Major League Baseball in 1947, after serving in the Army.

The article — which reappeared after a furor — was one in a series of government web pages on Black figures that have vanished under the Trump administration’s efforts to purge government websites of references to diversity and inclusion.

In response to questions about the article, John Ullyot, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement that “D.E.I. is dead at the Defense Department,” referring to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. He added that he was pleased with the department’s “rapid compliance” with a directive ordering that diversity-related content be removed from all platforms.

Advertisement

Mr. Ullyot was removed from his position shortly afterward.

Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said in a video that the screening of Defense Department content for “D.E.I. content” was “an incredibly important undertaking,” but he acknowledged mistakes were made.

The Pentagon leadership under Mr. Trump expressed its disdain for the military’s decades-long efforts to diversify its ranks. Last month, Mr. Hegseth said that the “single dumbest phrase in military history is ‘our diversity is our strength.’”

Mr. Hegseth also came under sharp critique from the federal judge handling a lawsuit against his efforts to ban transgender troops. “The military ban is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext,” Judge Ana C. Reyes of U.S. District Court in Washington wrote in a scathing ruling last week.

“Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit and its conclusions bear no relation to fact,” she wrote in her decision temporarily blocking the ban. “Seriously? These were not off-the-cuff remarks at a cocktail party.”

Advertisement

Greg Jaffe contributed reporting.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump says Waltz doesn't need to apologize over Signal text chain leak: 'Doing his best'

Published

on

Trump says Waltz doesn't need to apologize over Signal text chain leak: 'Doing his best'

Join Fox News for access to this content

You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

President Donald Trump defended National Security Advisor Michael Waltz during an ambassador meeting on Monday, as his administration faces fierce backlash over the recent Signal text chain leak.

Waltz, whose staffers had unknowingly added The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a Signal group chat where Secretary of State Pete Hegseth and others discussed sensitive war plans, has come under fire for the blunder. Speaking to a room full of reporters, Trump said he believes Waltz is “doing his best.”

Advertisement

“I don’t think he should apologize,” the president said. “I think he’s doing his best. It’s equipment and technology that’s not perfect.”

“And, probably, he won’t be using it again, at least not in the very near future,” he added.

TRUMP NOMINATES SUSAN MONAREZ TO BECOME THE NEXT CDC DIRECTOR, SAYS AMERICANS ‘LOST CONFIDENCE’ IN AGENCY

U.S. President Donald Trump listens during an Ambassador Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on March 25, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Goldberg was added to the national security discussion, called “Houthi PC Small Group”, earlier in March. He was able to learn about attacks against Houthi fighters in Yemen long before the public.

Advertisement

“According to the lengthy Hegseth text, the first detonations in Yemen would be felt two hours hence, at 1:45 p.m. eastern time,” Goldberg wrote in his piece about the experience. “So I waited in my car in a supermarket parking lot. If this Signal chat was real, I reasoned, Houthi targets would soon be bombed. At about 1:55, I checked X and searched Yemen. Explosions were then being heard across Sanaa, the capital city.”

Though Goldberg’s inclusion in the chat did not foil the military’s plans, the national security breach has still stunned both supporters and critics of the Trump administration. During the Tuesday meeting, Trump also said that he was in contact with Waltz over whether hackers can break into Signal conversations.

IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES HIT JUDGE WHO ORDERED TRUMP TO STOP DEPORTATION FLIGHTS

Mike Waltz

National Security advisor Mike Waltz speaks as he sits with U.S. President Donald Trump during an Ambassador Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on March 25, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

“Are people able to break into conversations? And if that’s true, we’re gonna have to find some other form of device,” Trump said. “And I think that’s something that we may have to do. Some people like Signal very much, other people probably don’t, but we’ll look into it.”

“Michael, I’ve asked you to immediately study that and find out if people are able to break into a system,” he added.

Advertisement

In response, Waltz assured Trump that he has White House technical experts “looking at” the situation, along with legal teams.

President Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump listens to a reporter’s question during an Ambassador Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on March 25, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

“And of course, we’re going to keep everything as secure as possible,” the national security official said. “No one in your national security team would ever put anyone in danger. And as you said, we’ve repeatedly said the attack was phenomenal, and it’s ongoing.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Congress wants to impeach judges instead of doing its job

Published

on

Column: Congress wants to impeach judges instead of doing its job

Some Republicans want U.S. District Judge James Boasberg removed from the bench for allegedly interfering with the president’s authority — under the Constitution and the 1798 Alien Enemies Act — to deport members of a Venezuelan gang.

Texas Rep. Brandon Gill and several colleagues introduced articles of impeachment charging that Boasberg violated his oath of office by “knowingly and willfully” using his “judicial position to advance political gain while interfering with the President’s constitutional prerogatives and enforcement of the rule of law.”

This is ridiculous. For starters, there is zero evidence Boasberg “knowingly and willfully” violated his oath, never mind that he acted in pursuit of “political gain.” Moreover, even if the House managed to pass articles of impeachment against Boasberg, nobody thinks two-thirds of the Senate would vote to convict. At best, this is theater; at worst it’s an attempt to intimidate judges so they stop scrutinizing Donald Trump’s deportation efforts.

And not just deportation. Republicans have introduced articles of impeachment against more than a half-dozen judges for ruling against Trump on a number of fronts.

But the war on Boasberg is the most intense and significant.

Advertisement

A quick recap. The Trump administration deported more than 200 people, delivering them to an El Salvador prison. Without providing much in the way of evidence, the government says most of them are part of a Venezuelan gang. The president claims the authority to do all this under the 1798 Enemy Aliens Act, which is one of the components of the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts. Indeed, the Enemy Aliens Act is the only component of the sedition acts that hasn’t been repealed or allowed to expire.

The 1798 law says that “whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government,” the president can, after a formal proclamation of such an emergency, remove “all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government” over the age of 14.

On March 15, Trump issued a proclamation asserting that the gang Tren de Aragua is a foreign terrorist organization that is “closely aligned with, and indeed has infiltrated, the Maduro regime.”

We aren’t at war with Venezuela last I looked, nor do I buy that Tren de Aragua is an invader controlled by a foreign government waging war on the U.S. But on the latter, perhaps the administration has better evidence than it has been willing to provide.

For argument’s sake, let’s say the gang meets the criteria of the Enemy Aliens Act. In that case, I have no first-order objection to a policy of arresting, imprisoning or deporting proven members of Tren de Aragua.

Advertisement

The key issue is whether a judge can scrutinize the president’s actions under the Enemy Aliens Act (including the arguably crucial question of whether or not the government is deporting who it says it’s deporting). Gill and the Trump administration say no. And any attempt to do so renders Boasberg and any other magistrate a “rogue judge.”

It’s noteworthy that the smartest defenses of the administration do not necessarily contend that what Trump is doing is legal or constitutional. Rather, defenders hold that scrutinizing the president’s action is a “political question.” Under the so-called political question doctrine there are some issues, particularly pertaining to national security, that are simply not justiciable — that is, the courts rightly stay away from them. For instance, Congress hasn’t issued a formal declaration of war since World War II, but the courts have not ruled that subsequent wars were unconstitutional.

I am very skeptical of the political-question defense in this case, but it is not an unserious argument. If Venezuela or any other country launched a surprise attack on the United States, I wouldn’t want the courts to monkey-wrench our prompt response.

At the same time, there’s a reason why the Enemy Aliens Act has only been used — and abused — during declared wars. If you’re not troubled by the idea that a president — any president — can simply assert that we’re in a war, without much evidence, and start deporting or imprisoning people, possibly including American citizens, without due process, I question your dedication to the Constitution and even your patriotism.

But that doesn’t automatically mean the judiciary is the right institution to stop the president or empower him. That’s Congress’ job.

Advertisement

Congress doesn’t have to rely on the last surviving relic of a package of laws that were reviled by Jefferson and Madison and discredited. It could write new ones. It could clarify what the president can or can’t do. It could even declare war on Venezuela or Tren de Aragua — that would clear things up in a hurry.

In short, Congress could take its role as the first branch of government seriously.

It’s grotesque constitutional malpractice for legislators to attack judges trying to determine what the Constitution and the law allow while booing from the cheap seats. It’s fine to argue that the judiciary overplays its role as a check on the executive, but I’m grateful for judges when Congress refuses to play any role other than spectator — or heckler.

@JonahDispatch

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending