To understand the pressures, feuds, and questions of competence on former President Donald J. Trump’s legal team as he faces the possibility of multiple prosecutions, consider the experience of Eric Herschmann. , a former Trump White House attorney who was subpoenaed to testify to a federal grand jury.
For weeks this summer, Mr. Herschmann has been trying to get specific instructions from Mr. Trump’s current attorneys on how to handle questions from prosecutors raising issues of executive privilege. or attorney-client privilege.
After ignoring Mr. Herschmann or giving him seemingly cryptic answers to requests for weeks, two of the former president’s attorneys, M. Evan Corcoran and John Rowley, merely gave issued general guidance to him at the end of August. Affirming sweeping claims of executive privilege, they advised him, after Mr. Corcoran suggested that an unspecified “chief judge” would eventually confirm convictions. their belief that a president’s powers extend far beyond their time in office.
Mr. Herschmann, who served on Mr. Trump’s first impeachment defense team but later opposed efforts to reverse the 2020 election results, was mostly uneasy and seemed confused when he mentioned a Judge.
“I’m not going to rely on your word – let the privileges apply here and be placed in the middle of a privilege war between the DOJ and President Trump,” Herschmann, a former federal prosecutor, replied in a statement. an email, referring to the Department of Justice. The exchange was part of a series of correspondence in which, after his questions were ignored or lawyers tried to speak to him directly by phone, Mr. Herschmann questioned his competence. of the attorneys involved.
The emails were obtained by The New York Times from a person with no correspondence. Herschmann declined to comment.
Herschmann’s comments are hardly the only expression of skepticism from current and former allies of Mr Trump, who are now worried about a rotating list of lawyers representing Mr. a client often defies advice and inserts political petitions into legal filings.
Trump’s legal team just won a round in the battle with the Ministry of Justice about the seizure of documents from his Florida residence and private club, Mar-a-Lago, and it is unclear if he will face prosecution from multiple federal and state investigations. state revolves around him or not even as he considers another presidential run.
Mr. Trump also recently brought in a highly regarded attorney, Christopher M. Kise, a former Florida attorney general, to help lead his legal team, after being turned down by several others he had sought, including former US attorneys. with experience in jurisdictions where investigations are taking place.
Mr. Kise has agreed to work for the former president for a fee of $3 million, an unusually high profile for Mr. Trump to agree to, according to two people familiar with the character. Mr. Kise did not respond to an email seeking comment.
More about Trump Documents Investigation
But Mr. Trump’s legal team has come under scrutiny in recent months mainly because of infighting and legal issues some members of the organization appear to have gotten entangled in defending him.
In a statement, Mr Trump’s spokesman, Taylor Budowich, said that “the unprecedented and unnecessary weaponization of law enforcement against the Democratic Party’s strongest political opponent is true.” cannot be overshadowed and will continue to be highlighted by the important work being done right now by President Trump and his legal team. “
Two members of Trump’s legal team working on the document case, Mr. Corcoran and Christina Bobb, were subjected to scrutiny by federal law enforcement officials about the assurances they had provided to the public. prosecutors and federal agents in June that the former president had returned everything sensitive to the government. The documents were kept at his residence and subpoenaed by a grand jury, according to people familiar with the situation.
That claim was proven untrue after a search of Mar-a-Lago in August found more than 100 additional documents with taxonomic markings.
What we consider before using anonymous sources. Do the sources know the information? What is their motivation to tell us? Have they proven reliable in the past? Can we verify the information? Even if these questions are satisfied, The Times still uses anonymous sources as a last resort. Reporters and at least one editor know the source’s identity.
Investigators are seeking information from Ms. Bobb as to why she signed a probate statement in full compliance with the subpoena, and they have signaled that they do not rule out pursuing an investigation. crime for the actions of Ms. Bobb or Mr. Corcoran, according to two people briefed on the matter.
The endorsement was drafted by Mr Corcoran, but Ms. Bobb added language to it to make it less difficult than a pre-signed statement, according to the people. She retained longtime criminal defense attorney John Lauro, who declined to comment on the investigation.
It is not clear whether authorities have questioned Ms. Bobb or if she has discussed with other Mr. Trump’s attorneys the extent to which she will be bound by attorney-client privilege.
Mr Corcoran and Mr Rowley did not respond to emails seeking comment.
Mr. Corcoran, a former federal prosecutor and insurance attorney, represented former Trump aide Stephen K. Bannon in a recent trial for refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the House committee investigating the assault. Publication of the Capitol on January 6. In that case, Mr. Bannon stated he believed he was exempt from testimony because of executive privilege; Mr. Trump then said he will not seek to claim executive privileges for Mr. Bannon.
Corcoran, the son of a former Republican congressman from Illinois, told associates he was the former president’s “primary” attorney and emphasized to colleagues that he did not need to keep his own attorney. like Mrs. Bobb did.
But several Trump associates have privately said they believe Mr Corcoran cannot continue his role in the document investigation. That view is shared by some of Mr. Trump’s advisers, who have suggested that Mr Corcoran needs to give up, partly because of his own legal exposure and partly because he has little experience in the field. crime prevention work outside of his time as a federal prosecutor for a U.S. attorney in Washington more than two decades ago.
Mr. Trump has at least 10 attorneys working on key investigations he faces. Mr. Corcoran, Ms. Bobb and Mr. Kise are focusing on the document case, along with James M. Trusty, a former senior Justice Department official. The three lawyers on the team – Mr. Corcoran, Mr. Rowley and Timothy Parlatore – represent other clients as witnesses in cases related to Mr. Trump’s efforts to maintain power.
To the extent anyone is considered a quarter of the documents and legal teams related to January 6, it is Boris Epshteyn, a former campaign consultant and graduate of Georgetown Law School. According to former White House officials, some aides tried to block his calls to Trump in 2020, but Epshteyn now works as an internal adviser to Trump and speaks to him several times a day. .
Epshteyn played a key role in coordinating efforts by a group of Trump’s lawyers and political allies shortly after the 2020 election to prevent Joseph R. Biden Jr. become president. Because of that role, he was asked to testify in the state investigation in Georgia into efforts to reverse Mr. Biden’s victory there.
Epshteyn’s phone was seized by the FBI last week as part of a broad federal criminal investigation into efforts to overturn election results and the January 6 attack on the Capitol. That has prompted some of Mr Trump’s allies and advisers to warn that he still holds an authoritative position on the legal team.
It is not clear how much strategic direction and leadership Kise can offer. But he is joining a team defined by war camps and disputes over legal issues.
In emails to Mr Corcoran and Mr Rowley, Mr Herschmann – a prominent witness to the House selection committee on January 6 and what led to it – invoked Mr Corcoran’s defense of Mr. Mr. Bannon and argued bluntly that the case law on executive privilege did not reflect what Mr. Corcoran believed it did.
Mr. Herschmann made clear in the emails absent a court order barring a witness from answering questions on the basis of executive privilege, which he has repeatedly pleaded with them to seek, he would be forced to testify.
“I certainly don’t rely on any legal analysis from you or Boris, who – to be clear – I think is an idiot,” Herschmann wrote in another email. “When I questioned Boris’s legal experience to challenge a presidential election because he didn’t seem to have it – the challenge led to numerous court defeats – he boasted that he’s ‘ just having fun’, while taking selfies and posting pictures online of the prison break. “
Mr. Corcoran at one point sought to speak to Mr. Herschmann on the phone to discuss his testimony, rather than just sending written instructions, which prompted Mr. Herschmann to warn, since Mr. Herschmann was a witness, the emails to Mr. see.
In language that reflects federal statute against witness tampering, Herschmann told Corcoran that Epshteyn, himself being subpoenaed in Georgia, “should not have been involved in any way in attempting to affect, delay or prevent my testimony.”
“He is not qualified or qualified to choose any of these issues,” Mr. Herschmann said.
Mr Epshteyn declined to respond to a request for comment.
Nearly four weeks after Herschmann first requested a letter of instruction and let Trump’s lawyers seek a court order requesting a privilege request, the emails show that he received notices from the parties. lawyer – early in the morning that day. scheduled to testify – that they eventually did as he asked.
His testimony has been adjourned.
Michael S. Schmidt contribution report.
Kitty Bennett Contributing research.
