Donald Trump

Donald Trump's latest tirade on Truth Social came hours after reports indicated the Justice Department was looking into his efforts to overturn Biden's win.

“I ran the first time and I won. “The Election was Rigged and Stolen!” Then I ran a second time and I did much better. Justice Department should look at The Crime of the Century. Evidence is massive and irrefutable!!!” That’s a big risk to you,” Trump told Raffensperger. “Now that we have found the answers to these crooked, election changing events, why is the Justice Department not prosecuting those responsible?

6, 2021, Capitol attack has been: Will the Justice Department prosecute former President Donald J. Trump for his role in trying to overturn the election? The question has become even more prominent with the news that federal prosecutors have begun ...

Why do they get to decide whether it’s in the interest of the country or not? So what you’re saying is that in our system we’ve entrusted prosecutors with not just the ability to investigate crimes and figure out whether an individual violated the law in terms of whether the facts line up with the law, but then on top of that, whether bringing such a prosecution is essentially the right thing to do. What would you really be keying in on to try and understand whether the President broke the law? I think for each of those acts there are ways to look at them where they would, in fact, have had the tendency to obstruct the proceeding, but they all have their own problems. But in the end I think a prosecutor would still need to point to an act, an action that the president either took himself or directed to have been taken that would itself obstruct the proceeding. And then there’s the evidence of his conduct on January 6 itself and some of the things he did not do while it was clear that the Capitol had been effectively under siege, and people were telling him to take actions, and he didn’t. All of those are things that would go to helping establish the President’s intent. The proceeding itself would be the proceeding on January 6 where Congress and the Vice President were going to certify the results of the 2020 election. And the evidence that’s out on the public record right now I don’t think would support that. You would not have to show that he committed violence himself. It means agreeing with one or more other people to use force or violence to prevent the law from being carried out. The President is the head of the executive branch. Like, who are you, why — what have you done in your career.

The DOJ is said to be asking key witnesses about the former president's attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

Short also previously sat for a deposition as part of the House Select Committee's investigation in the January 6 attack. "That's what we do. Other lines of questioning from the DOJ include Trump's attempts to pressure former Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election results, and how much involvement Trump had with the scheme to install fake electoral officials to falsely declare he won the election instead of Joe Biden in a number of key states.

Following a Tuesday night bombshell report from the Washington Post that the Department of Justice has opened a massive criminal probe into Donald Trump's ...

"THEY WERE PERFECT CALLS. I was just doing my job as President, and seeking Fairness and the Truth. The Election was Rigged and Stolen!" "The Georgia phone calls were PERFECT. Many people and lawyers, on both sides, were knowingly on the one call, I assumed the call was taped, there were Zero complaints or angry 'how dare you' charges made during the call, and no 'hang ups' by anyone aggrieved or insulted at what was said." Justice Department should look at The Crime of the Century. Evidence is massive and irrefutable!!!"

The inquiry is related to the DOJ's broader probe of efforts overturn the 2020 election results and not a criminal investigation of Trump himself, ...

The Washington Post first reported that the Justice Department was investigating Trump's actions leading up to Jan. 6, citing four people familiar with the matter, whom it did not name. No former president in U.S. history has ever been charged with a crime. NBC News has not confirmed the details of the Post's report about the DOJ's line of questioning or the phone records. He would be the highest-ranking former Trump administration official known to have testified before the federal grand jury. Trump has not said whether he will run again. The Department of Justice is investigating former President Donald Trump's actions leading up to the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol as part of its criminal probe of efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, an administration official familiar with the investigation said.

Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former White House communications director during the Trump administration who is now a CNN political commentator, said she had not been ...

"I don't want to get ahead of their announcements but I think you could piece it together based on who has testified before the January 6th committee. on Monday that he testified last week in front of a grand jury investigating the insurrection at the US Capitol. Former Pence chief counsel Greg Jacob testified in recent weeks as well, CNN has learned from a source close to the investigation. The criminal investigation into the US Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, and attempts to disrupt the transfer of power between the Trump and Biden administrations is the most wide-ranging in DOJ's history.

One of the last federal prosecutors to lead an investigation into Donald Trump discussed the challenges of bringing charges against him in the Jan. 6 case.

Why do they get to decide whether it’s in the interest of the country or not? So what you’re saying is that in our system we’ve entrusted prosecutors with not just the ability to investigate crimes and figure out whether an individual violated the law in terms of whether the facts line up with the law, but then on top of that, whether bringing such a prosecution is essentially the right thing to do. What would you really be keying in on to try and understand whether the President broke the law? I think for each of those acts there are ways to look at them where they would, in fact, have had the tendency to obstruct the proceeding, but they all have their own problems. But in the end I think a prosecutor would still need to point to an act, an action that the president either took himself or directed to have been taken that would itself obstruct the proceeding. And then there’s the evidence of his conduct on January 6 itself and some of the things he did not do while it was clear that the Capitol had been effectively under siege, and people were telling him to take actions, and he didn’t. All of those are things that would go to helping establish the President’s intent. The proceeding itself would be the proceeding on January 6 where Congress and the Vice President were going to certify the results of the 2020 election. And the evidence that’s out on the public record right now I don’t think would support that. You would not have to show that he committed violence himself. It means agreeing with one or more other people to use force or violence to prevent the law from being carried out. The President is the head of the executive branch. Like, who are you, why — what have you done in your career.

The inquiry is related to the DOJ's broader probe of efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and not a criminal investigation of Trump himself, ...

The Post also reported that the Justice Department has acquired phone records of aides, including former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows. The department, a spokesperson for Trump, and a lawyer for Meadows did not respond to the Post's requests for comment. No former president in U.S. history has ever been charged with a crime. The Washington Post first reported that the Justice Department was investigating Trump's actions leading up to Jan. 6, citing four people familiar with the matter, whom it did not name. He would be the highest-ranking former Trump administration official known to have testified before the federal grand jury. “There was no order from the president,” Miller said. Trump has not said whether he will run again.

Merrick Garland and the D.O.J. will never, ever find evidence of me doing something a President would do,” Trump said.

This should never be allowed to happen in our country.” As for the White House aides who have been called before a grand jury, Trump said, “If any of them come up with even one example of me being a President, they’re lying.” WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report)—Predicting that “their case is about to fall apart,” Donald J. Trump claimed that the Department of Justice has “zero proof” that he ever acted as a President.

Attorney General Merrick Garland says 'everyone, anyone' who is criminally responsible for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election will be held ...

One is to protect the civil liberties of people and events that we're investigating and the second is to ensure the success and the integrity of our investigation." And it's inevitable that there will be things we find that they haven't found," he said. "It is inevitable that there will be things that they find before we have found them. "That's what we do. "It is inevitable in this kind of investigation that there will be speculation about what we are doing or who we are investigating, what our theories are," Garland said. "The reason there is this speculation and uncertainty is that it's a fundamental tenet of what we do as prosecutors and investigators is to do it outside the public eye.

The development came in response to a legal effort by John Eastman to block investigators in the Jan. 6 probe from “rummaging” through his files.

The development, filed in court via Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Windom, came in response to a legal effort by Eastman to block investigators from “rummaging” through his files. Windom’s filing is a milestone of sorts because, while his identity has been known in media reports for months, before Wednesday the Justice Department never confirmed his involvement in the Jan. 6-related investigation. FBI agents confronted Eastman on June 22 and obtained the cellphone, using the initial warrant. He helped lead a team of lawyers that developed a fringe strategy to pressure Republican-run state legislatures to adopt “alternate” slates of pro-Trump electors that could be used to overturn Trump’s defeat. A federal judge in March determined that Eastman and Trump likely entered into a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election, in part by using the false electors to try to reverse the outcome on Jan. 6, 2021, the day Congress was required to count electoral votes and certify the election results. The development came in response to a legal effort by John Eastman to block investigators in the Jan. 6 probe from “rummaging” through his files.

The Department of Justice's (DOJ) apparent new focus on Donald Trump in its Jan. 6 investigation presents prosecutors with multiple possible paths to an ...

“Obviously Garland and the line prosecutors are going to be very reticent about filing any charges that seem overly ambitious or aggressive. We invite you to join the discussion on Facebook and Twitter. “We’ve seen already that every single credible adviser — legal, political, familial and otherwise — to the former president was telling him that he had lost the election and there was no proof of fraud. He said the DOJ’s ability to secure cooperation by flipping potential witnesses, a tool that the select committee lacks, would likely be the next course of action for prosecutors. “It’s probably not coincidental that there seems to be an uptick in DOJ activity either aimed at the former president or encompassing the former president’s conduct after these hearings,” Robbins said. “The fake electors is just something that lay people can understand better.