Essential Politics: How much legal peril is Trump really facing?

WASHINGTON —  For the second time in about two months, former President Trump went to court to face criminal charges.

Trump was arraigned Tuesday in a federal courthouse in Miami, marking the first time an ex-commander in chief was arrested on federal charges. He is facing 37 counts related to allegations that he held onto hundreds of top secret and other classified documents after he left office and obstructed efforts to retrieve them from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

It was an extraordinary moment for the leading 2024 Republican presidential candidate, who has denied any wrongdoing and painted the string of investigations against him as a Democratic plot to prevent him from returning to the White House.

Two months ago, the twice-impeached president pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in New York. Those charges stemmed from an alleged cover-up of a hush money payment made to an adult film actor in the days before the 2016 election.

But as those two cases move forward, other investigations threaten to put the former president back in court yet again.

Trump is facing federal and state investigations into his efforts to subvert the 2020 election. Georgia officials are expected to decide by Sept. 1 whether Trump acted illegally to try to overturn his narrow loss to President Biden in the state two years ago.

Special counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed by the Department of Justice to lead the classified documents case, is separately investigating Trump’s alleged role in the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, and the former president and his allies’ efforts to overturn the election.

Back in New York, Trump and his eponymous company are facing civil charges. New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James alleges the Trump Organization fraudulently misled valuations for the company’s properties on annual financial statements that were given to potential business partners, banks or tax officials. A trial is scheduled for early October.

Hello, friends. I’m Courtney Subramanian, a White House reporter for the L.A. Times. Today we’re going to talk about just how much legal peril Trump faces.

Which case is the biggest threat to Trump?

Legal experts agree the classified documents case appears to be the most legally damaging for the former president. The 49-page indictment details accusations that Trump stored boxes containing classified documents that included information on foreign nations’ nuclear capabilities, U.S. nuclear programs, potential vulnerabilities of the U.S. and its allies to military attack and plans for a retaliation in response to a potential attack.

Randall Eliason, a former assistant U.S. attorney for D.C. who teaches at George Washington University Law School, views the classified documents case as the most straightforward and compelling case against the former president.

“It’s just kind of a standard classified documents case based on stuff that he did after he was president and obstruction of justice,” Eliason said.

Smith’s Jan. 6 investigation raises thornier questions about the scope of presidential authority and executive privilege. The sheer number of individuals involved in Trump’s effort to overturn the election — which include not only his inner circle but the state officials he allegedly pressured and those involved in the Jan. 6 attack — make that potential case vastly larger and more complicated to prosecute.

“This [documents] case is not unprecedented at all other than the fact that it’s the former president,” Eliason said. “The Jan. 6 case is completely unprecedented in all its legal aspects.”

Jessica Levinson, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, said the documents case faces fewer legal hurdles.

“It’s not at all clear to me that anyone would face state prison time as a result of being convicted of felony falsification of business records,” she said of the New York case.

“If the federal prosecutors are able to prove even a portion of what’s in this indictment, this is an extremely strong case against any criminal defendant,” Levinson added.

But there’s a long line between indictment and conviction, Levinson cautions.

Legal experts expect the two sides to fight extensively over evidence before the case ever reaches a jury.

Though it’s not yet clear what Trump’s defense will argue, Eliason anticipates a lot of “motions from the defense to dismiss various counts,” including motions to exclude evidence that prosecutors obtained from Trump’s own lawyers through an exception to the attorney-client privilege known as “crime fraud exception.”

Under U.S. criminal law, Trump is innocent until proven guilty. But even if he is acquitted in the New York business fraud records case and the federal documents case, the three other investigations will continue to pose a legal threat to the former president.

The view from Washington

— Democratic hopes of seizing control of the U.S. House of Representatives next year could hinge on a handful of competitive races in Southern California, Times staff writer Seema Mehta reported. Of the 435 seats in the House, Democrats need to capture five held by Republicans — and they have pinned some of their best chances on California.

— Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken wrapped up a four-day visit to Saudi Arabia last week, a trip that underscored the complicated, love-hate relationship between the two countries, Times writer Tracy Wilkinson reported. Politicians and the public criticize the Saudi kingdom’s human rights record, its unwillingness to increase oil production and its coziness with Russia and China. But the U.S. also needs Riyadh for trade and broader security arrangements.

— Democrats remain skeptical about assurances from Republicans that, should Sen. Dianne Feinstein, 89, leave office before her term ends in early 2025, there would be no political gamesmanship when replacing her on the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, Times writer Ben Oreskes reported.

The view from California

— Smaller and cheaper towns and counties across the country are competing to attract the mass of people with remote jobs who no longer feel compelled to live in pricey urban centers like Los Angeles in a post-pandemic economy, Times writer Don Lee reported. Among the incentives: $5,000 to $7,500 in relocation cash, free health insurance for a year and unlimited golf club membership.

— As California endured its three driest years on record, urban water users made a significant effort to conserve, but fell far short of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s request to reduce water use by 15%, Times writers Hayley Smith and Sean Greene reported.

— A new nontraditional health service under a Newsom-led initiative called CalAIM will pour $12 billion into a range of new social services and benefits to aid some of the state’s most vulnerable enrollees, including those experiencing or at risk of homelessness, the San Diego Union-Tribune’s Angela Hart reported.

That’s it friends! Sign up for our California Politics newsletter to get the best of The Times’ state politics reporting.